TruthMove Forum

Register or log in:

Username:

Password:

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Portland False Flag warning?? (39 posts)

1. truthmod
   Administrator

   Just received this email. Is there any legitimacy to this?

   ---

   HELP SAVE PORTLAND

   There are rumours that Portland has been selected as the target for a “false-flag” nuclear attack, billed as a “second 9/11.” This attack on an American city is designed to send the U.S. into martial law and kickstart a war in Iran (see attached “Chronology of a Second 9/11”).

   Sept. 21 is the date activists are focusing on because a large number of “put” options betting on a collapse of the American economy before Sept. 21 have been placed. We think Rep. Paul Gillmor was murdered for investigating those “put” options.

   Rep. Peter DeFazio, Oregon (D), though a Member of the Homeland Security oversight committee, was denied permission to access documents outlining a post-disaster martial-law plan of government. Rep. DeFazio was acting based on the concerns of Portland citizens.

   An alternative “second 9/11” date is the running of Operation Noble Resolve in Portland in October. (Remember: A military drill preceded the first 9/11 and made it possible.)

   The “loss” of a second nuke from the Minot B-52 makes the possibility of exploding a nuke in an American city VERY REAL. Remember that at least one Minot Air Force Base soldier (Todd Blue) has died, probably murdered, as a result of that incident. We do not know what transpired on Sept. 14 when the entire air force was ordered to stand down. The day could have been used for stationing the nuke. We don’t know. Pres. Bush said we were guarded by NORAD that day, but remember that NORAD stood down on Sept. 11, 2001 and allowed the events to unfold.

   We take these events and the Bush administration’s willingness and ability to orchestrate a second 9/11 very seriously.

   The Portland 9/11 activists are led by Ginny Ross and Barbara Ellis. Barbara’s e-mail is barbaragellisATearthlink.net. I am a Canadian 9/11 Truth Movement activist assisting them.

   We need your help to

   SAVE PORTLAND.

   How can you assist?

   (1) By writing an article yourself on the subject, drawing attention to Portland’s concerns about a second 9/11. (2) By sending me any research material you may have on a second 9/11, Portland as a site, what happened to the sixth B-52 nuke, any more dead military personnel, or anything else that may help in publicizing Portland’s plight or that of any other city targeted. Please include hyperlinks for any research you send me, if possible. (3) By contacting any 9/11 groups you know, Depleted Uranium groups, anti-war people, etc., letting them know what is happening, and soliciting their support. (4) By sending the phone numbers, e-mails or other contacts of radio show hosts who would interview Ginny and Barbara on their fears about Portland. Barbara’s e-mail is barbaragellisATearthlink.net. (5) By sending any other suggestions you can think of. (6) By any other creative action you can think of.

   Please send all research material that will assist me to publish on the subject to unity22ATtelus.net asap.

   Please circulate this e-mail to all 9/11 truth groups, DU researchers, antiwar people, anyone you can think of or who is on your lists.

   Thank you for your immediate assistance. Please do not write me if you cannot assist; I will not have time to answer you right now.

   With humble thanks,

   Steve Beckow www.freewebs.com/truthseeker22/

   Posted 17 years ago #
2. casseia
   Member

   Short answer: probably not.

   The two Portland Truthers he mentions have negative credibility and work closely with Capt May, a charlatan.

   Noble Resolve took place in August. We didn't get nuked. TOPOFF 4 is probably the exercise he is concerned about.

   Posted 17 years ago #
3. JohnA
   Member

   well....i would rather err on the side of caution and circulate it - as they request.

   but i would heavily caveat it - stating that the information is somewhat unconfirmed and speculative- and request that everyone pitch in to take a closer look at the facts and claims.

   i would hate to think that these activists in Portland are this scared - and asking for our help - and we ignored them.

   the claims are pretty serious.

   Posted 17 years ago #
4. Victronix
   Member

   Is there any legitimacy to this?

   I do know that the there has been a ton of internet exposure of the 'exercises' in Portland, with even the military people posting on 911blogger to try to quell anxieties and respond to questions. So if they did anything there now it would be pretty idiotic. We may never know if there was anything to those. Given that, it likely doesn't hurt to contribute to the efforts to express -- with caveats -- concerns online or support the efforts in some way that is measured and rational.

   Posted 17 years ago #
5. Victronix
   Member

   Sometimes connecting the real stuff to the 'Cap'n Eric Mays' of the world is the way to insulate if from the real world because it becomes a poison pill in the eyes of those who might spread it otherwise. These things can get complicated. Being able to measure our own level of 'reactionaryism' is important -- sometimes this is what they want, to turn everyone off to an idea by placing it in the capable hands of an offensive person.

   Sorry if it sounds conspiratorial, but if we can find ways to account for all possiblities while still feeling and sounding sane, the better off we are. Adding rational caveats can keep things flexible enough to account for the broad spectrum of possibilities.

   Posted 17 years ago #
6. casseia
   Member

   That was my short answer.

   We just went through a major bout of very ill-conceived hysteria in August regarding Noble Resolve. The same players are back using the same sky-is-falling rhetoric and sketchy logic in connection to TOPOFF and Vigilant Shield.

   People are NOT turned off by the connection to May. The preponderance of the Portland Truth activist community is quite happy to work with him, which I find appalling.

   Posted 17 years ago #
7. JohnA
   Member

   i see the claim all over the internet that Rep. Gillmore was investigating the put options - and that his official cause of death was blunt force injuries to the head. they claim he fell down the stairs. maybe he did.

   but i cannot find any confirmation that he was investigating these put options. if he WAS investigating these put options - i would definitely have more than a passing interest in the story. but it looks like a rumor.

   you guys are going to think i'm crazy - but i get nervous whenever a huge tabloid story dominates the news.

   Israel attacked Syria, and the president of France said "prepare for war with Iran" - and suddenly OJ is arrested - baited by his own stolen sports memorabelia? could be a coincidence.

   Remember Cary Condit? his story was red-hot in the summer of 2001 while all the warnings and alerts were coming in that an attack was imminent. you don't hear much about Gary Condit anymore. i wonder whatever happened to that intern's parents? they suddenly went silent after 9/11.

   and what about that Jon Bonet Ramsey story last year where they claimed to have caught her murdered in the far east? they flew him back first class - sipping champagne. despite the fact that he was a professed pedophile - he was let go because his computer mysteriously disappeared from the police department evidence room. (yeah - that's not suspicious) THAT story happened during the Israel/Lebanon war and knocked it off the front of every newspaper.

   all speculation. but - i would really like to know if Paul Gillmore was connected to investigating those put options.

   and i do think a war with Iran is inevitable.

   some of the facts regarding the the Israeli attack on Syria are extremely alarming. there are claims that Syria was attempting to put a nuclear warhead on a missile - prompting Israel to act.

   Posted 17 years ago #
8. JohnA
   Member

   How is this NOT alarming news?

   The U.K. newspaper The Sunday Times quoted an Israeli source on Sunday as saying that Syria had been planning a "devastating surprise" for Israel, in the wake of reports that the Israel Air Force carried out an air strike against a North Korean nuclear shipment to Syria.

   The paper quoted Israeli sources as saying that planning for the strike began shortly after Meir Dagan, chief of the Mossad intelligence agency, presented Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in late spring with evidence that Syria was seeking to buy a nuclear device from North Korea. "This was supposed to be a devastating Syrian surprise for Israel," the Sunday Times quoted an Israeli source as saying. "We've known for a long time that Syria has deadly chemical warheads on its Scuds, but Israel can't live with a nuclear warhead."

   South Korea's Yonhap news agency reported Sunday that a senior North Korean official denied a Washington Post report that Pyongyang was giving nuclear expertise to Syria. The report suggested intelligence including satellite images revealed a facility in Syria which may be used to build nuclear warheads.

   yikes.

   the Portland story may be a hoax - but i always take an interest when i see all of the news diversions cropping up during critical times like this.

   Posted 17 years ago #
9. giveback
   

   About the news diversions such as OJ, Jon Benet Ramsey, etc., I figure than most Americans are addicted to anti-depression in one form or another, so the mainstream/tabloid news can easily follow suit. Whether these stories are staged events or actually occurrences, or just propped up to benefit the current leaders, would only matter if we are looking for added proof of evil intentions of powerful people and industries. I recommend the deflation of the need for happy/flashy news.

   About the initial story of a 9/11 Portland, I really hope this is not sport, as in, let's predict when the next big one is going to happen so we can say we knew, to prove that we are that much on the pulse.

   Posted 17 years ago #
10. Victronix
    Member

    People are NOT turned off by the connection to May. The preponderance of the Portland Truth activist community is quite happy to work with him, which I find appalling.

    Thanks for the clarification! Appalling is the word.

    I have to often be the one-person-net-nanny on Carol's B.'s local email list but even just one person speaking out can make a difference because a lot of people listen in silence. Interesting that our local groups are often so far off the scale in terms of this stuff. Portland had the amazing protests against Bush early on that even mainstream news covered and the sign slogans went worldwide. Even those playing cards were made following the protest.

    you guys are going to think i'm crazy - but i get nervous whenever a huge tabloid story dominates the news.

    Yes, my first thought with these things. I also notice how often they target powerful black men (regardless of one's position on the murder). It's likely these situations will escalate as things worsen.

    It's good that we have a lot of people on the lookout in all directions, and the best we can do is be rational, civil and careful about quickly digesting the info and passing it along, supporting it, or whatever. The unimpeded flow of info is key.

    Posted 17 years ago #
11. Victronix
    Member

    Maybe the fact that Iraqi leadership is now kicking out the US criminals murdering people in the streets is something to distract from :

    On Monday September 17th Iraq's Interior Ministry revoked the license of Blackwater USA and demanded that all employees leave the country. The ban followed a Sunday gunbattle in Baghdad that left eight civilians dead. The Interior Ministry said authorities will prosecute any foreign contractors found to have used excessive force and "all those responsible for Sunday's killing will be referred to Iraqi justice." http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/09/17/184479...

    Notice the NYTImes main title for this story -

    'Iraq Ends Security Company’s License After 8 Deaths'

    8 deaths . . . who knows how? Just a coincidence perhaps? What security company? Another anonymous one?

    Then -

    'Iraq’s government said it was barring the operations of Blackwater USA, which protects top U.S. officials.'

    Oh no, US officials won't have protection! Who will do that impossible job now?! Hurray for BW-USA for sticking it out as long as they did! (This is literally what some people believe, someone told me last night).

    Blackwater is very meaningful.

    Posted 17 years ago #
12. Victronix
    Member

    The KNBC piece about Blackwater West was a few months in the making and caught producer Frank Snepp's attention because of his own CIA background ...The company's vice chair, Cofer Black, serves as senior advisor to Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney and as our friends at AlterNet point out, now heads a new Blackwater division designed to privatize the CIA. http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/08/do...

    Blackwater is made up former CIA and military.

    Posted 17 years ago #
13. truthmover
    Administrator

    A comment from Kevin Ryan about predicting future false flag attacks.

    "We Don't Need Any More Warnings"

    http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=...

    The discussion is similar to that happening here, with many of the same posters. But Ryan's post is really the point to me. I agree with his statement. I find it highly incredible that anyone among the public would have enough information to be able to state with any certainly that an attack will occur.

    John, your point about being nervous about the OJ story I also think is quite valid. However, I think what we are seeing is a smoke screen being put up to cover our entry into a war with Iran, if not just all the recent scandal, and I'm not sure that any false flag attack in the US will be necessary. Iran could launch missiles at Israel in defense of Syria, and we'd be dropping bombs withing 48 hours.

    Further i think it possible that these predictions are being advanced in order to muddy the movements important effort at educating people about our government's history of having used false flag attacks in the past. Someone doesn't want the public to take this issue seriously, and conflating our reasonable discussion of this issue with unreasonable predictions is a good way to marginalize it.

    From what I gather here, this Portland warning appears to suffer the same problems of the reputation of those advancing it, and the quality of the evidence supporting it.

    Am I missing something that should make me more open to this kind of speculation?

    Posted 17 years ago #
14. JohnA
    Member

    well - there is a difference between reviewing and reporting on speculation - and endorsing it.

    i would not, of course, suggest endorsing it. but this warning is circulating far and wide - so i think it is only appropriate to report on it - and provide a little sober analysis on its conclusions.

    this movement was built on 'connecting the dots' - and - although we may disagree with the central conclusion of this warning - there may be elements within that are important.

    Posted 17 years ago #
15. truthmover
    Administrator

    well - there is a difference between reviewing and reporting on speculation - and endorsing it.

    A big point here, important on this forum. We are certainly free to report and review anything here that relates to our concerns. Over at 911blogger I saw a lot of people saying that we should move on from talking about the Kennebunkport Warning, as if the underlying problem was going to disappear if we all stopped talking about it. This won't cut it. We've all been talking here about the impact of this kind of speculation on the movement, and that conversation is essential.

    That being said, it is quite possible for us to become overly distracted by this concern. One of the basic intentions of this sort of disruption is likely to waste our time. A bit analogous to the OJ smokescreen? But as this example so well demonstrates one of the big problems this movement now faces, it certainly deserves our careful attention. We are trying to formulate a responsible approach to this.

    My last question was sincere. Just wondering if anyone here thought there is any reason for me to take these warning more seriously on their face than Kevin Ryan suggests we should. I currently do not think so. But I will continue to be as concerned as the rest of us here about their impact on the movement.

    Posted 17 years ago #
16. SteveBeckow
    Member

    Casseia,

    I am appalled that Ginny Ross and Barbara Ellis can be sincerely concerned that Portland may be the site of a "second 9/11," ask for you help, and you can damn them in one sentence as having "negative credibility."

    As for Capt. May, there are a lot of egotistical types associated with the 9/11 movement - or at least many people complain. Some we need to work with; some we don't. But to damn other people because they do, and scorn their appeal for help, when they are worried that a nuclear drill with a martial law component can go live is the kind of discussion I would expect from neocons, not from truthseekers and concerned people.

    And, truthmover, your assessment of what "someone's" motives are is hugely disappointing.

    "Further i think it possible that these predictions are being advanced in order to muddy the movements important effort at educating people about our government's history of having used false flag attacks in the past. Someone doesn't want the public to take this issue seriously, and conflating our reasonable discussion of this issue with unreasonable predictions is a good way to marginalize it."

    I am that someone and I and the others turned to you for help.

    These "predictions" are being advanced because local people are concerned that their city may be nuked. Given 9/11 and 7/7, I don't think their fears are without basis. Your "reasonable discussion" sounds to me, given my concerns for Portland, as empty theorizing.

    The tenor of this thread's discussion, lazily going into a consideration of our request and then meandering onto other subjects, is disillusioning to me.

    We people with no credibility, who are conflating your reasonable discussion because we are concerned that Portland could be nuked, will just have to carry on without your assistance.

    I am new to the 9/11 movement. You can pick me apart forever for all the mistakes I will make in the next short while, and evidently picking people apart is your main activity here.

    You people sound like Nero fiddling while Rome burns. I am truly shaken by the lack of serious consideration our appeal has gotten from this group.

    Shame on you all.

    Steve Beckow

    Posted 17 years ago #
17. JohnA
    Member

    That's a little unfair Steve. Truthmove did publish the warning. It was taken seriously. but - i think it is only appropriate (given the serious nature of the subject) that it be examined very carefully. as you know there have been many many such dire warnings over the last few years. Casseia is correct in addressing Captain May's record. If someone has a history of being irresponsible in stirring up hysteria - it needs to be appropriately addressed.

    a more constructive tact for you would be to provide some verification of the facts contained in the warning. was the congressman really investigating the stock puts? (they expire today - where is the crash?) is the dead soldier from Minot really connected in any way shape or form to the nuclear accident?

    lets get our facts in a row before warning people of an impending nuclear attack. The Kennebunkport warning is a glaring example of how irresponsible and careless warnings can do more harm than good.

    Posted 17 years ago #
18. NicholasLevis
    Member

    Steve Beckow,

    Please leave aside the histrionics.

    So far I have found nothing that connects the dead congressman to any suspicious investigation, just wishful thinking. As your statement says: "We think..." No. Show me something.

    The latest put option story was bullshit. You can always cite volumes of puts as though they mean something but in the absence of detail and context (who purchased what kinds of options? who is pursuing what hedging strategy? who is buying what while selling something else short?) it means nothing.

    The "missing nuke" aspect of the Barksdale story is based on possibly trivial discrepancies between news reports, not necessarily reported discrepancies. Furthermore, if high-level insiders want to lift one of the country's 40,000 surplus nukes they can figure out how to do it more quietly than this.

    I've seen nothing actually connecting the dead soldier to the incident of the untracked nukes. Show me.

    A series of warnings have been delivered in the past without anything happening and it's taking on a boy-cried-wolf aspect. What exactly was supposed to connect this one to Portland per se is unclear; several wargames there had already been held. Horrible as the prospect of a nuclear attack may be, sobriety is called for in discussing it, otherwise people don't buy it. Instead, this statement engages with unwarranted certainty in blinding emotional urgency (help us save Portland!) and shouts out in capital letters.

    Now we are "shamed" for not taking it as the word of god and running around shouting ourselves. It's Sept. 21, as the mod says: where's the crash?

    It's important to stay vigilant and be aware of possibilities. Listing ongoing wargames and other possible indicators in a sober fashion is rational. Drawing strained conclusions about imminent attacks and then broadcasting these as urgent appeals is certain to have only one effect: making people tired of this shit when nothing happens.

    When something does happen, it will almost certainly come from a surprising direction. That's shock and awe for you. However, someone in all these hundreds of warnings will have predicted "correctly." If we turn that one into a leader, we will show once again why we are idiots.

    Posted 17 years ago #
19. truthmod
    Administrator

    I am new to the 9/11 movement. You can pick me apart forever for all the mistakes I will make in the next short while, and evidently picking people apart is your main activity here.

    You people sound like Nero fiddling while Rome burns. I am truly shaken by the lack of serious consideration our appeal has gotten from this group.

    Shame on you all.

    Alright Steve, shame on us. If you don't like the tenor here at TruthMove, there are plenty of other places for you to go discuss things. And yes, we did publish the warning, so why start attacking us?

    Your email contained several irresponsible statements, inadequate sources, and an off-putting tone of frantic paranoia. This movement needs to be rigorously responsible, and that's where critique comes in.

    When Rep. Paul Gillmor recently investigated the 2007 “put” options, he was, it is safe to say, murdered.

    The next piece of evidence is that, in late August 2007, a military B-52 left Minot Air Force Base loaded with six nuclear missiles, but arrived at Barksdale AFB with only five.

    Posted 17 years ago #
20. truthmover
    Administrator

    Steve

    Truthmod just made the more candid point behind our forum guidelines. And Nick made most of the logical concerns about your warning and post clear. But I will be more specific for you.

    But to damn other people because they do, and scorn their appeal for help, when they are worried that a nuclear drill with a martial law component can go live is the kind of discussion I would expect from neocons, not from truthseekers and concerned people.

    These are truthseekers and concerned people, so you might need to adapt your expectations a bit. These truthseekers need solid facts with which to judge the merit of any claim. As Nick pointed out, and many of us here agree, you have not provided a significant degree of evidence to support your claim. Therefore, your call for help fell of skeptical ears. We can not have sympathy before understanding. TruthMove is about principles before association. We operate on a logical principle, and therefore will not support the illogical concerns of even our strongest allies.

    And, truthmover, your assessment of what "someone's" motives are is hugely disappointing.

    That we related to this statement, "Someone doesn't want the public to take this issue seriously." I was referring to predictions in general and not to you personally. I was referring to institutional interests, and not genuine movement activists. However, we operate under the assumption that genuine people can be lead toward irrational actions. I personally have no way of knowing all the people you work with or what kind of influence they have over such decisions.

    Given 9/11 and 7/7, I don't think their fears are without basis. Your "reasonable discussion" sounds to me, given my concerns for Portland, as empty theorizing.

    That would not be a comment that reassures us that you have any solid evidence to back up your claim. What you propose we all acknowledge to be possible. But that's a far cry from likely. Given the experience and understanding of those who post to our forum, I'm going to turn this around completely and suggest that you should take the reasonable discussion happening here very seriously, and re-think your position. If you honestly view this as "empty thoerizing", we have further cause to doubt the logical foundation of this warning.

    I am new to the 9/11 movement. You can pick me apart forever for all the mistakes I will make in the next short while, and evidently picking people apart is your main activity here.

    None of us here are remotely new to this movement. Therefore you should respect our experience. There is a serious disconnect happening here as you come to people with experience for help, and have too little humility to actually listen to their honest response. That last sentence seriously violates our forum guidelines, and does not suggest that you are responding reasonably.

    You people sound like Nero fiddling while Rome burns. I am truly shaken by the lack of serious consideration our appeal has gotten from this group.

    Once again, you indicate your lack of experience in the movement. How can you be so shaken when you are just finding out about the parameters of the movement. This movement is populated by many who are not highly skeptical in their review of the evidence. Many are drawn into supporting fallacy, or right-wing political ideology. Many are not. We are not.

    Your concerns are highly speculative. That doesn't make them worthless. However, it should dictate the manner in which they are presented. Putting out a warning and asking for help was not in my estimation warranted by the facts at hand. And, if it was not warranted, it might in fact serve to make our movement look less than reasonable.

    So please help us! Help us ensure that the public views this movement as highly reasonable. Desist in promoting this warning, and meet with all the people involved to reflect upon your logical responsibilities to the wider movement.

    Just a recommendation, of course.

    Posted 17 years ago #
21. SteveBeckow
    Member

    I've listened to you all. I hear what you say. I am under such a feeling of time constraint that I cannot spend hours figuring out the history of the Truth Movement, guessing at how things move and doin't move. We're running against a deadline set by the timeline of the fast-approaching October drills.

    The drills are a simulated nuclear explosion and simulated imposition of martial law. 7/7 went live. 9/11 didn't go live, but did contribute to the overall success of 9/11.

    We are concerned that the October drills could go live as well. We are concerned that a nuclear bomb could be exploded in Portland to kick off imposing martial law and the war in Iran, if that war is till going ahead.

    We need your suggestions on how to respond to so as to head off the drills going live. Portland could be seriously damaged and we have never found ourselves in this position before. If we follow what came out of your conversation, we would practically do nothing in direct response. You appear to have dismissed our appeal.

    It does not feel like there is so much time left that I could investigate, as you say, matters like the "put" options. I am left not knowing what the "put" options were about. Yes, I thought they were part of this; no, they were not. I get to be wrong. Fine.

    But the drills in October are real and one of them is bout exploding a nuclear bomb in the city. Does any other city face a drill like that?

    The small 9/11 committee concerned, which as far as I am concerned is composed of very dedicated people with integrity, and not people of "negative credibility" as Sara suggested, with no facts to back that judgment up with except that they listen to Capt. May. I listen to Capt. May too. I know his failings just as I know my onw. Does that mean I have no credibility. Ginny and Barbara are working hard on finding an adequate approach to the possibilities inhernent in the situation. But we have never faced it before and we don't know what approach will work to ensure that the drills remain drills.

    If you do, if you can tell us how best to approach the drill so that they don't go live, then help us.

    Yes, you posted my request for help. Now actually give us the benefit of your much greater experience and tell us what we should think about in engaging with the military, how we should operate to maximize the chances that a "mock drill" remains a mock drill, etc.

    I have been so busy taking care of the ordinary matters of getting organized that I havven't had time yet even to get down the descriptions of the three drills, get names and phone numbers, etc., and there remains much to do. We are moving as fast as the task requires of us. Give us the benefit of your insight.

    Thank you,

    Steve

    Posted 17 years ago #
22. Victronix
    Member

    We are concerned that the October drills could go live as well.

    I recommend you inform as many military people as possible from the groups which may be involved -- they all have websites and contact links. They do read the mail. I emailed the military guy who posted on blogger about last drill and he responded cordially to me. He seemed young and intent on doing his job. He seemed uninformed but intelligent and proud of his work. With careful notes of concern, they would take notice.

    I expect that communications of public concern are something they are required to take note of.

    The fact is, the military needs to (if they don't already, and I expect they do quite well) understand that drills will cause anxiety and even panic amongst certain populations. The more feedback they get on that issue, the better they can get a clear picture of what is going on and how to cope with it. They do have to do exercises to prepare for events. But how, when, etc. is another issue. How much they publicize it is also another issue. It may be that they are trying to offset the very suspicions that have arisen in the public following 9/11 by making them more public and being more receptive to public interaction. But that's just a guess.

    Regardless of credibility issues, 'Capt' Eric May is doing numerology. We won't get at the truths that way in my opinion.

    Posted 17 years ago #
23. NicholasLevis
    Member

    Well then, constructive suggestions (not that my prior comments weren't meant as such).

    STEP ZERO AND ALWAYS: Source all statements, explore all alternative explanations, and confirm everything you can according to the standards and practices of scholarship. Maintain neutral, sober tone.

    KEEPING THAT IN MIND:

    1) Find out all the details about the planned exercises you can.

    2) Write up a news article about it and publish it on as many venues as you can. Include aspects of 3 & 4.

    3) Prepare a leaflet based on the same info, and add the argument that such wargames are a waste of public funds, as they cannot prevent such attacks, but do help the government rehearse things like martial law.

    4) Prepare other material showing how wargames may have been instrumentalized in the past to effect false-flag terror (7/7, 9/11, the Russian 9/99, the "Nine Lives" succession exercise scheduled for the day after Reagan was shot).

    5) Ask, why blow money on this when there are much simpler and more moral things to do to prevent terrorism, such as abolishing the practice of bombing thousands of civilians in oil-rich countries.

    6) Announce and hold a demonstration as near to the location of the first day's wargames as you can manage.

    Keep the tone sober & informative. You are not warning about the imminent nuking of Portland, as this is not going to happen. (It isn't. Million to one or less.) You are simply informing about the wargames, and using the wargames as a platform for informing people especially about the 9/11 wargames and how these fit in with the idea that 9/11 was a staged event.

    The effect of informing about the Portland wargames will be to prevent anything dastardly, if such is planned.

    It's much more effective than the chicken-little, cry wolf approach that, you can surely see, serves to alienate many people and later (when nothing happens) discredits you and makes it more difficult to warn about something serious in the future.

    Posted 17 years ago #
24. Victronix
    Member

    This Op Ed story claims that

    "Rep. Gilmor was investigating the recent 'put actions' placed upon the market,"

    yet provides ZERO evidence for the statement! Why would anyone publish that?

    OP ED has no credibility whatsoever and appears to be worse then Rense.

    http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_carol_wo_0...

    Posted 17 years ago #
25. truthmover
    Administrator

    Our military and intelligence agencies have all manner of yearly, bi-yearly, and quarterly training exercises, held all over the country. Some of the public, some of them secret. Many of them involve the cooperation of multiple agencies. For instance, there are many overlapping exercises planned for Oct. 11th, unless I hadn't heard otherwise. That's the date every year when some of the same drills happening on 9/11 will be happening yet again. They pulled back the drills one month for only that year.

    Should everyone in the country be scared every three months when the latest exercise comes to their town? Some of them are national and even international. Should we all be scared all the time?

    And why does there seem to be such a strong disconnect between you and our concerns over evidence? Without more evidence I would not have the cause to offer the recommendations you seek. Here's an analogy. Let's say you sent me a message stating that the government was about to shut down the internet and asked me what I thought we should do to prepare. This sounds unlikely to me so I would first want to know the basis for your assertion.

    That's where this stands right now for some of us here. Does your assertion have a strong basis? If so, then you would find many of us to be very sympathetic allies in your cause. If not, then we come back to the question about being scared all the time. I'm not scared. I know it COULD happen. But I won't live in fear.

    On a lighter note, the movement now has a history of such concerns as yours over upcoming military training operations. You can search 911blogger for many past examples.

    Posted 17 years ago #

Reply »

You must log in to post.