Friday, July 31, 2009

Was the CIA Involved in Infiltrating, Harassing, & Defaming Protesters in 2003?

 UPDATE: Aug 2014:
In light of new information about this individual and his participation in the "truth movement" fraud, it is unlikely he is anybody's "agent", per se.  What can be documented in he's run several confidence games and deceptions involving people conned into the "truth" movement.  That his actions previous to 9/11 truth appear to imply clandestine agency, simply is the sign of a political fraudster exploiting people's perception that "agents" are interested in their activities, a perception Espada and his associates actively encouraged.  Exact motives unknown, but involve spreading fringe Patriot propaganda from the political groups of the sort his associates work with in private.

From a link I was forwarded, sadly I did not save the pdf. With a little searching on the right terms the content can be found in Google cache:

Truthers and truth groups beware...

This is the html version of the file
Google automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.

Reasons to Believe that the CIA Was Involved in
Infiltrating, Harassing, & Defaming Protesters in
Harvard Square during the Summer and Fall of 2003

Two of the real activists in Harvard Square:
Stephen and Nick
Both were smeared by Murdoch publications, Stephen by Fox News and Nick by the
Boston Herald

During the Summer and Fall of 2003, an odd gathering of anti-Authoritarians appeared inHarvard Square. I was one of them. The protest which ran from July until November of 2003, each and every Saturday, came to be known as the “Occupation of Harvard Square.” As I write about possible CIA involvement in this event, I will be making heavy use of the qualifier “appear”, as the jury is still out on what some of the events that occurred during the occupation really were. As I was a participant in these events, this story is told primarily from my personal point of view. Other participants may have knowledge that I do not have (in fact, I suspect that some other participants have a great deal of knowledge about covert happenings surrounding the event that I am not privy to).

Before the occupation began, I came to Harvard Square in June to distribute anti-Bush
bumper stickers I had designed. This was my attempt to take my struggle from the
Internet onto the streets. My background is entirely different from what many people in Harvard Square must have thought it was. I am a computer scientist and I formerly
worked for a defense contractor that worked for the Information Awareness Office of
DARPA. My exposure of their activities resulted in the termination of my employment,
Before this happened, I met with many different government agencies at the offices of
my former employer including the CIA, the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) and even
attended two meetings with John Poindexter at the information warfare office of his
former employer in DC. While I may have looked like a homeless person hawking
stickers, I was a fairly well organized anti-Authoritarian intentionally waging meme
warfare on the establishment.

Around the time I started distributing my bumper stickers in Harvard Square, an
anonymous message was placed on Boston IndyMedia calling for a disorganized
gathering of anti-Authoritarians in Harvard Square on a specific Saturday in July.
Naturally, I decided to show up as I was distributing bumper stickers there anyway. A
person that joined us, Gustavo Espada (who will play an important role in this essay in later pages) told me that Nick had made the announcement.

This first anti-Authoritarian gathering was very successful from a propaganda
dissemination perspective and many of us that attended decided that we would make it a weekly event. We decided to call the weekly event “The Occupation of Harvard Square.” We put word out on an unreceptive Boston IndyMedia and the event grew until it settled at about a dozen or so semi-regulars attending each week. While this number seems small, the effect was large and many people began to come to Harvard Square specifically to see us and to gather our propaganda.

The core of this disorganized grouping, if such a grouping can have a core, consisted
primarily of myself, Nick and Gustavo. Shortly after the weekly event stabilized into a routine, a person identifying himself as KOBE SBM announced on Boston IMC that his organization had successfully infiltrated our activities. We did not believe him, at first. It is easy to make claims for psychological effect. Nevertheless, I always kept in mind that anyone of us just might be an infiltrator. As things turned out, I can now identify at least two infiltrators and I believe that there were probably more.

Having been the target of online harassment by KOBE SBM and his defamation website
for more than a year before the occupation of Harvard Square, I had gathered a lot of
information about KOBE SBM. First of all, his name begins with a “G”. He has
consistently used fake names beginning with a “G” and has claimed that his name is
similar to George but not George. He also claims to be from Puerto Rico. His English is outstanding for a non native speaker. He is well educated and he claims to be able to speak several different languages.

Gustavo Espada Pretending to be an Activist

Gustavo stood out from day one as very different from other protesters. He came the first day with a large American flag. He waved the flag challenging Harvard pedestrians to sign up for the war in Iraq. His was the only American flag to been seen. I welcomed this because it seemed pretty original.

By the end of the first day, Gustavo, originally from Puerto Rico, and I began to talk and he amazed me with his interests. Specifically, just like me he was interested in the colonization of Mars (a favorite subject of mine as I was raised on Apollo and wanted to be an astronaut as a child), meme warfare and disorganized resistance. The problem was that this is a very strange combination of interests. I doubt there is another activist on this planet that shares these same interests in combination. Moreover, I invented the concept of meme warfare, coined the term and also am well known for an essay I wrote on disorganized resistance before I ever met Gustavo. Gustavo offered me these shared interests before I even mentioned them and feigned shock that I shared the exact same interests. Despite my heavy involvement in these topics, he claimed to have never heared of me before. Knowing what I know about espionage and having been the target of a spy while working in Taiwan for the Taiwanese military, I know that such improbable combinations of interests when shared exactly with someone known through a random string of events is a strong sign that the other person is a professional spy. In fact, it struck me so strongly that it was the first thing I brought up with my family when I returned home that day.

On the next Saturday, Gustavo did something that I found highly suspicious. Right
wingers are particularly found of the flag and they often believe that leftists have a certain love for desecrating the flag. I, like many on the anti-authoritarian left, have no love for flags and consider them unimportant. I take no pleasure in destroying a flag and I feel no pain in seeing one destroyed. To me, they are just cloth. Consequently, I am suspicious of people who orient their activities around the flag, either to bolster and respect it or to destroy and desecrate it. For me, these are often two sides of the same coin, each puts importance on the flag and each can be used by either extreme for nationalist purposes. On this second Occupation of Harvard Square, Gustavo made a point out of distributing to us shards of an American flag he had torn up, ostensibly to use as arm bands or sweat bands. From a propaganda perspective I found this undesirable. I don’t look at myself as a patriot. I am anti-State and anti-nationalist. I am also aware that such use of the flag might needlessly offend people who feel strongly about it. I took this as a sign that Gustavo either wanted to demonstrate to us his lack of respect for the
flag (given that he had made the mistake of waving one so much the first week), portray us as disrespectful to the flag, or demonstrate just how leftist he was using a method that only a right winger would associate with the left.

At the end of this second meeting of the occupation, Gustavo asked me some personal
questions that I found completely out of line. He claimed to have become aware of the
harassment against me and told me, “You know, it’s OK if you take anti-depressants.
You do take them, don’t you? I used to, so you can tell me…” This seemed to be a
probe for information. I did not answer these questions. The impression I got was that someone wanted him to gather this information.

Another individual joined our protests early on. I had run into him once before, just
minutes after walking into Revolution Books. He popped in while I was talking with
George, the owner, and tried to strike up a friendship with me. He told me his name was Ed and that he was a primitivist anarchist. He joined us in Harvard Square, always stood next to me, to my right, and never talked with any of the other people at the weekly protest. In fact, I was surprised to find that I never managed to take a photo of him. This issue became important to me when I discovered that he was an undercover police officer from the Dedham Police Department and the web author of the Dedham Police Department website. I found a photo of him with his other police buddies online. His name is Ed St. George and he will play an important role later in this essay. Somehow, perhaps through skill, he avoided being photographed at the occupation.

Gustavo continued to be a man of contradictions. He often paraded up and down the
sidewalk with bible quotes. All of his bible quotes were pacifist in nature and he claimed to be a pacifist. Indeed, when a wandering lunatic attempted to strike a member of the Revolutionary Communist Party in the square, I and others in our group came to the aid of the RCP, but Gustavo refused on the grounds that he was a pacifist. Despite his pacifist declarations, Gustavo took great pleasure in presenting violent art and violent street theatre. For example, he stomped on a bloodied head of George Bush for an extended period of time in public view, inviting me to join him (I turned him down) and telling me that he just might get arrested by the Secret Service for doing it, but that he believed it would be worth it. I took this as provocation to arrest. He also photographed us extensively and videotaped us. Immediately after this stunt, the Lucy Parsons Center received some images in the mail that drew the interest of the Secret Service (before the Lucy Parsons Center told anyone about them). KOBE SBM took credit for this online. I
leave you to speculate about whether Gustavo was the author of this deed.

Around this time I put up a website called the “White Rose Journal.” It featured many
images from Harvard Square. Immediately, the harassers put up a spoof of the website,
using the same name, and copying images and text from my website. They added articles
in my name that I did not write and altered some of my own articles. I began watching
the access logs to that website carefully and found that the only daily visitor with from the domain UCIA.GOV. This is the unclassified network of the CIA.

A day’s typical visitors to my Stop Fascism! Website.

Gustavo informed us, early on, that his father worked at the US Embassy in Nicaragua. I did some research and found that he was US Consul General to Nicaragua. I also knew from previous research that this is a common official cover used by the CIA. When the CIA creates a cover, they use official covers and unofficial covers. Official covers are usually at US Embassies. The most common assignment is as Consul General.

Unofficial covers are also called “deep covers.” A deep cover is when someone is
assigned to an ordinary job without their employer knowing that they are CIA. Those
hiding behind official covers are highly vulnerable because they are easier to identify. Those working under deep covers usually go unnoticed. While foreign governments suspect that many in an embassy staff are actually undercover intelligence operatives, they will not expel them from the country unless they have proof or a substantial allegation is made. This is significant to this story for the following reasons. Let us suppose that I were to discover that Gustavo Espada was behind the fake White Rose Journal website. Let us suppose that I were to see the CIA listed in the logs at times just before new material was added to the spoofed website. If I made that public and tied Gustavo to his father, that might become grounds for expelling his father from Nicaragua. This would be undesirable to Gustavo and to the US Government. Therefore, if the CIA was not visiting my website, it would foolish of Gustavo or his associates to fake it by spoofing their IP address. If anything, they would either prevent me from knowing that the CIA was monitoring the website or they would just figure that I wouldn’t notice and it
would be drowned out in the noise of other visitors. Perhaps they did not know that
almost no one was visiting the website and that the CIA stood out like a sore thumb?
Maybe they didn’t think I’d monitor which pages the CIA read and correlate them with
updates to the spoofed website? Whatever the case, whoever was updating the spoofed
website was being recorded by my website’s logs as UCIA.GOV.

Additionally, consider the cost to the US Government of having the identity of a spy
revealed. It takes a great deal of effort to create a spy. If the cover is a deep cover, then it takes a lot of work to place the spy under the desired cover. Exposing such a spy would be a great waste of US Government resources. It also makes the job of reusing the spy. After all, once his or her picture is out there, installing the spy under a new deep cover becomes nearly impossible.
A great investment is lost.
I conclude that
COINTELPRO would not wish to spoof the address UCIA.GOV in my logs. Now,
someone else might wish to do so, but that someone would be someone that had nothing
to lose in doing so. Since the access times correlate with Espada’s website spoofing
efforts and Espada had something to lose, he would not intentionally spoof the
UCIA.GOV domain into my logs. If he war an incompetent spy, as I believe he is, he
would overlook the fact that I would be able to detect the correlation. This is what I believe happened and, therefore, this is also why I believe he really was accessing my website from the CIA’s domain.

Gustavo Espada is the perfect candidate for the CIA. He was raised on US Embassies
and, therefore, in the presence of the CIA. During his childhood, the CIA protected his family from various revolutionary groups in Latin America, even keeping them in safe houses from time to time (he has written about this). He has a very strong emotional reason to dislike revolutionaries. He speaks at least four languages fluently (all of the same languages KOBE SBM speaks). He is intelligent, quick on his feet and a good actor. All of this adds up to CIA material. Given the combination of characteristics, upbringing, and the hard evidence of his web activities, I believe it is reasonable to conclude that he is CIA, though I leave your own beliefs up to you.

Gustavo Espada, at least at the time of the occupation, worked for the Religious Studies Department at Harvard as a systems administrator (the same occupation as KOBE SBM). This would be an ideal position for a deep cover CIA agent. It would assist him in monitoring Islamic students and political activities in and around Harvard University.

Gustavo Espada had the help of his brothers as well. At least one actively brought him materials in Harvard Square, though he never bothered to introduce him to us. While we were in the square, Espada was frequently met by women he knew. These women would stop by, quietly exchange information with him, and then leave without ever being introduced to us. Their meetings seemed to be very formal, not casual. When he left, he almost never left alone. Cars were usually sent to pick him up and take him home.

During this period, an individual showed up on Boston IMC. His name is Veritas and he
is from Foxboro, MA. Veritas was hostile to our activities and attempted to smear us
both on Boston IMC and Portland IMC. After doing this, he wanted to meet me face to
face. I had no desire to meet him and turned him down, but he insisted on meeting me.
Gustavo chimed in, over and over, that he thought Veritas was for real and that I should meet with him. One day, upon arriving in Harvard Square, Gustavo introduced me to Veritas. Veritas was very pleasant to us and while there he held up an inane sign and left. Once back online, he continued to smear us with redoubled efforts. He also smeared the homeless people hanging around us. For reasons that will be obvious soon, I find this

These three individuals showed up in Harvard Square as part of the harassment
program against the occupation. The individual to the right is Veritas, brother of Elise Hanson. Veritas was vouched for by Gustavo Espada (CIA).

I have strong reasons to believe that Veritas is a family member of another activist whom I know well. I met this other activist in El Salvador in 1994. In fact, I met her at the same time I met my wife. Her name is Elise Hanson. From 1994 until 1998, she and I maintained a friendship which sometimes bordered on the romantic. She insisted on keeping in contact with me wherever I went. We spent a great deal of time together, often alone. I was under the impression that she was a friend.

In 1998, I was over Elise’s house in Gloucester when she and her mother mentioned
someone named “Veritas” in a conversation. I asked who Veritas was and she explained
that he was her brother and that he lived in Foxboro. Given the age of Veritas in 1998, the Veritas that showed up in Harvard Square in 2003 is of the same age as the Veritas identified as Elise’s brother. Moreover, I have asked several people to look at photos to compare the faces of Veritas and Elise. They all believe that the two are brother and sister.

Elise Hanson of Food Not Bombs
Since when are anarchists “patriotic”?
Another inane sign?

Given the behavior of the Veritas that showed up in Harvard Square, this makes sense. Amongst the things he posted online was his assertion that I am “incapable of having a long term relationship with any woman” and “that I am disloyal.” Now, how would Veritas, I person I never met, come to hold such a strong belief about my personality unless he was connected to some woman that had been in my life? What would a 17 year old boy know about long term relationships with women and why would he care? All of this implies, strongly, some personal motivation on his behalf. More likely than not, he was acting on behalf of a woman that knows me. I believe that woman is Elise Hanson. Elise Hanson had conversations with me about my relationship with my wife before the birth of our child. My child is my own but I believe that Hanson is the source of libel posted by the harassers stating that my child is not my own.

The truth is that I liked Elise Hanson very much. I always enjoyed talking with her. I enjoyed her company. I considered her to be attractive. There was something there
between us. Our friendship lasted quite a few years. It ended when I left New England
and, at my wife’s urging, stopped communicating with Elise. My wife did not trust Elise. She had spoken with her by telephone and concluded that Elise was in love with me. My wife promised to not be happy unless I terminated my relationship with Elise. I decided that this was the best course to follow and I stayed with it. I can only assume that this angered Elise and that Veritas’ activities were an expression of her desire to harm me, my wife and my child.

Now, I introduce a third Veritas. In early 2002, while I was living in Austin, Texas,
shortly after I put up my Rational Anarchism website, I received an email from an
individual calling himself Veritas. He told me he was interested in “joining my
organization” and that he had two other high school students with him. I informed this Veritas, by email, that I had no organization and was not forming one. I suggested that if he liked the ideas I was publishing, he may wish to improve on them and publish his own website. He seemed highly offended by this and I did not hear from him again, at least not under the name Veritas. This was shortly before the online harassment targeting me began.

Since there are few individuals using the name Veritas, I believe that all three Veritas’s mentioned above are one and the same. The rest of this essay will be written with that assumption in mind.

If my assumption is true, Veritas began stalking me online in early 2002. He again
showed up online in 2003 and showed up in person in 2003. He became one of my most
vocal opponents on IndyMedia not using the KOBE moniker (which does not mean he is
not a member of KOBE).

With Veritas in mind, I went over many of the posts by KOBE members online and I
found an individual using the name KOBE OMEGA whom I believe to be Veritas. This
is my belief but it is not provable. In any case, KOBE OMEGA was involved in an
online back-and-forth posting sequence with an individual using the name “Chuck
Wagon” on Boston IMC. Chuck Wagon showed up to trash my photos of a protest in
March, 2003. He showed up immediately after I published photos of dozens of members
of the Boston Police Department Special Operations Unit. I later tracked Chuck Wagon
down. He turns out to be John Daley of the Boston Police Department Special
Operations Unit, something he himself admits.

As KOBE OMEGA, this individual smeared me online accusing me of kinds of bizarre
things ranging from child molestation to kiddy porn, all things I find detestable and have nothing to do with. Later, I took Veritas to task accusing him of being KOBE OMEGA and accusing him of communicating with the Boston Police. This conversation took place on Boston IMC. In this thread, KOBE SBM sent me a message telling me to “leave the kid alone” and asserting that “he reports to a higher authority.” That higher authority, I believe, is Gustavo Espada.

Gustavo Espada played an important role in trying to get me to meet Veritas. He claimed Veritas was for real and as I have indicated above, it appears that Espada works for the CIA.

Now, what does this mean? What does it mean to activists in Boston if Veritas, brother of Elise Hanson, is working with Gustavo Espada, allegedly a CIA agent? Moreover, what does it mean if this Veritas’ activities are motivated by Elise Hanson? (1)

This question is very important to me. All along, the police element of the harassment program has claimed that “anti-authoritarians” and “anarchists” have been involved in trashing my websites and taking down my writings. Frankly, I don’t believe real anarchists would do such a thing. The only conclusion I can reach is that if anarchists did it, they aren’t real anarchists. If you know these “anarchists,” I suggest you terminate your relationship with them immediately because they are working for the CIA (whether or not they know it). I could name several of these individuals right here, but unless I have more proof of their actual involvement rather than apparent involvement, I with refrain from doing so. If I did, you’d be shocked at their names. (2)

Earlier, I mentioned that Veritas made disrespectful remarks about the homeless while
posting to Boston IMC. I find this ironic because Elise Hanson is a member of Food Not Bombs, an anarchist group that feeds the homeless in Boston. Now, keep in mind,
Veritas never told me he was Elise’s brother nor has he ever attempted to explain himself to me. His assumption is that I don’t know who he is.

The above is enough about what appears to be the tip of an iceberg. Now, let’s take a
look in a different direction. As I mentioned above, Ed St.George, a Dedham undercover cop, infiltrated our group in Harvard Square. I’d like to take a moment to explain what his role was. I think it speaks volumes about what was going on in Harvard Square.

When I mentioned to Gustavo the possibility that a cop had infiltrated us, he responded “We’re not doing anything illegal, so who cares?” Of course, I care. I know that cops are interested in setting people up and that is exactly what Ed St. George tried to do.

Dedham Undercover Cop Ed St. George

On one occasion, some goons were sent in to stage a fight. Nick almost got caught up in this. Fortunately, I warned him to get out of the way before the cops came in. They took two of the goons away (no doubt, fellow policemen). While this was happening, Ed St. George pretended to be nervous. He told me that “he was carrying” and asked if he could stash his drugs in my bag so the police wouldn’t find them. Now, “my bag” held my political propaganda. There was no way in hell I would fall for that one, so I told him no. Ed St. George intended to get me arrested by planting drugs on me.

On another occasion, some kid was paid to throw fruit at us. Ed St. George immediately tried to provoke a fight with the fruit throwing kids. On other occasions, he claimed to be there to sell drugs.

At one point, Ed St. George offered me an electric pin with a flashing light to put on my jacket. I wonder why? Could it have had a non cosmetic purpose?(3) In any case, he was trying to get me arrested.

There are many other things that happened in Harvard Square. I can identify about six
other individuals whose visits were too coincidental to be ignored and others who
attempted to pretend to be someone other than they are. I may write about these
individuals later. What I hope this essay did is to open your eyes into how the US
Government is spying on and disrupting peaceful protest with an eye of criminalizing
dissent. I also suggest you think twice about who you consider to be your friends. Some people are not what they seem to be.

1 Worse yet, what of KOBE’s claims to have played a crucial role in provoking the FBI to arrest Sherman Austin?

2 If KOBE includes anarchists, as I believe it does, then this would provide an answer to the question of just how KOBE has been able to take down so many IndyMedia websites. I suggest you enumerate the websites they have been most successful at harassing, find the common software platform between them,
and then look for what anarchist was involved in developing that software. The answer to this question is unambiguous. It is an exercise I have undertaken and I have determined the identity of this individual. He is a member of an IndyMedia collective and he contacted me and established an online relationship just
before Veritas sent me his first email. I can connect him to the Baltimore FBI. I leave the rest to you. / A second anarchist, connected to this first anarchist, is a member of another IndyMedia collective. He runs another online publication, one which is similar to IndyMedia but, unlike IndyMedia, has never been attacked by KOBE.

3 This was not the only attempt to plant a bug on me. A certain individual already mentioned provided me
with a cigarette lighter with a listening device inside. I discovered it upon returning home, draining out the
gas, and sawing it in half.

Friday, July 10, 2009

C. I. T. goes to Washington

Well, Arlington, Virginia actually

Deconstructing the 9/11 Pentagon Attack
With Citizen Investigation Team and Pilots for 9/11 Truth

Sponsored by The Wisdom Fund —

I'm not a fan of CIT. It's a pity because they could be making a useful contribution. Instead their research is rife with shoddy work, sloppy errors and woe be unto anyone who points these out--they will be misquoted or, worse, snitchjacketed as a "cointelpro operative". They seem to spend much of their time stirring up unnecessary arguments--or even complaining if someone explicitly says lets just agree to disagree--with very some silly and entertaining results:

Col. Jenny Sparks wrote:

Yes--with a new independent investigation.
Now we agree to disagree.
Live and let live. Can you do that?

Craig Ranke CIT wrote:

You bet luv!
Enjoy your "big fence".
I have a feeling others here are interested in the
important evidence we have uncovered.



Col. Jenny Sparks wrote:

Very Happy

Craig Ranke CIT wrote:

atta girl!
That thread is a fence within a fence!
You are so safe!
Luv ya guv.
See ya 'round.
(if you venture outside that is)

Col. Jenny Sparks wrote:

Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy

Craig Ranke CIT wrote: Col Sparks,

Back so soon?
I'm flattered.
Any comments on the OP?

Or how about the notion that we have 13 first-hand witness accounts independently corroborating the north side approach complete with a Pentagon police officer who saw the plane flying away immediately after the explosion?

How does that tickle your fancy?

Have you even viewed any of this evidence yet or are you choosing to remain in your big fence when it comes to evidence while venturing out only for irrelevant quips and off topic links?

Col. Jenny Sparks wrote:

You know it's gotta be a slow Friday night...
Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy

Pure farce. Now as much of a laugh as that was, that's how these people treat someone who plans to agree to disagree--they try to bait them into a fight. Someone who actually starts debating them in good faith, this is what happens:

A Response to Misleading Claims About the CIT Flyover Debate
It has come to my attention that several misleading arguments and claims have been made about my commentary on CIT. A witness at the Pentagon saw the light poles on the ground after the attack. Later in an interview, he gave the incorrect location of where they were placed. Completely ignoring this fact, it is alleged that:
“Arabesque deliberately omitted Lagasse’s explicit statement that he didn’t the see light poles hit.”
This statement is misleading as I have never claimed Lagasse saw the poles get hit.
For more CIT fun and games:

Their problem in a nutshell:

The CIT researchers frequently and falsely interpret criticism of their theory as a personal attack along with accusations of government sponsored “neutralization”.

This is exactly the excuse used by Killtown to ban so many people from his forum it should be called Ghosttown--that critizing a theory is bad but attacking people as agents or "perps" for critizing a theory is okay.

Let's see some of this action by CIT fans at 911blogger:

"They put their lives on the line for the sake of truth."


Completely the opposite of the anonymous spook, "Arabesque."

Writes the anonymous user known as kameelyun.

This is out of line. Full stop. If you disagree with someone you're a spook? Give me a bloody break.

Newsflash for the adult children out there: no one's personal information is any of your business unless that person publishes it and the connections to activism themselves or you have a legal complaint against them. Then your course is through propper channels, not making wild accusations on public forums. They also seem to forget--or maybe never knew--many influential writers were anonymous in their time--examples being George Orwell and Mark Twain. Don't recall anyone whinging they "didn't use their real names". No, people did the intelligent thing and debated their ideas, not their criminal free personal life.

An aside: I also sincerely doubt CIT's lives are on the line. One peculiarity I've noticed in 911truth is the people the most free with all their personal information--something no Internet security expert recomends-- are almost never targeted for harrasment. Something to mull over.

A reponse to kameelyun:

"anonymous spook"

Why are you repeating this phrase on multiple threads? It's almost like you're attempting a smear job. Calling other users agents (or any other kind of ad hom attack) used to be against the rules on this site

Its true--he is repeating this:

Sorry, Victronix

but the anonymous spook "Arabesque" has NOT debunked the admirable work of two men who have taken an enormous amount of risk by putting their real names and faces to their investigation and activism.

Okay, I wasn't going to dredge up the Killtown/Ozzywat/wq2rx/Fetzer/Barrett internet stalker connections, but if Kameelyun is going to go on and on about risks Craig Ranke is braving, I'll take these risks seriously when I start to see Mr. Ranke the target of psycho porn psyop stalking videos spread by Larouche fans, past and present:

If fact with some of these wankers, you don't even have to be part of 911 truth to be attacked:

To be clear--in no way to I wish Mr. Ranke to be targetted for a stalking, harassment, slander campaign. But considering Arabesques has been target ted for harassment--by Larouche giant Webster Tarlpley no less:

--it would be completely illogical for Arabesque to not continue to use a screen name. It's almost as if people are trying to manipulate 911 activists to put themselves unnecessarily at risk...

CIT and their fans do not sound like the best people to represent 911truth in any public venue.

One fan admits their approach is less than productive:

I stand by Sheila's and CIT's work.

Not only am I a rational researcher, I am someone who is regarded by people who know me in person as unusually smart.

Do the CIT boys perhaps have a 'tude and get angry with those who don't accept their findings? Probably so. I bet I would too. They're young. They'll mature. I used to have a juvenile attitude in my early truthing days 4 years ago, sometimes making comments online like "If you can't see WTC7 was a CD, you're a fuckin' idiot!" Then I learned that such an approach can only serve to alienate and so I toned it down and learned how to be civil, all the time.

They're young? Craig Ranke is almost 40 years old! When's he going to mature?---When he's 60 something? 70 something?

I'm not seeing CIT deconstructing anything--much less the Pentagon-- as a benefit for 911truth. The irony is I wouldn't mind hearing them out if I didn't have to wade through their dishonest arguments. I know outright no-planes advocates who give me less of a headache. I don't agree with them, but they don't witter away at me if I'm not bothering them. And because their arguments are honest, I can respect them.

Unfortunately, with their history of personal attacks and manipulative behavior, I can't say the same about Craig Ranke and CIT--or their event.

Go at your own risk.

EDIT: in a bizarre twist kameelyun is no longer anonymous--the link to his screen name now goes to this profile:

I can only guess this is an attempt to appear as if he has never posted anonymously. Unfortunately Google cache knows otherwise: