COINTELPRO, disinformation and who to believe on the internet

[Guest]

Doug Thompson's 9/11 article

Well, he actually comes out and adds his own ongoing opinions in the commentary, and its all a flat-out cold definitive, unalterable support of the "official story". He doesn't even stretch so far to suggest the government might not be involved, but might have just suspected. No, he relies on the argument that they are too "stupid" to be that "bad". He also claims at some point that one of the investigators was a Democrat, and therefore impossible to be working with a "Republican" agenda.

So then tomorrow or some other day in the near future Mr. Thomson will have to declare (what?) he was only kidding, or that it was all a test. I think if what you are saying was true, then he would have actually suggested in his few contributions to the commentary for people to do more research.

Unless...unless he IS being blackmailed and is forced to write what he writes, so he writes it in such a manner as to provoke. Yet, I see his manner far less provocative than that of other status quo supporters. He uses the same old arguments and puts his own authority and that of personally known "experts" behind it. He is putting his own credibility on the line.

Personally, I think he was coerced, but then again he never wrote to my knowledge on this topic before, so either he was too chicken to approach it, or he couldn't form an opinion either way. All of the sudden now he has. Perhaps he is a CoIntelPro "sleeper". Perhaps he is just a "mainstream true blue Democrat", a Partisan, and did not want to risk losing an audience by mentioning his real views before. If the Party Line is to jump on the official bandwagon, it is not surprising he did so. Then again, why all the hype about FBI harassements and ranting about a fascist state?

IMO it's too lopsided to be reverse psychology.

 

[on_strike_usaexpat]

Doug Thompson's 9/11 article

Bold emphasis in quote below mine.

Speak of the Seattle shootings, CapHillBlue web site is served out of Seattle. Remember the other oddities about the Seattle shooting:

Location of shootings in Seattle
Capitol Hill

Street name of shootings
Republican Street

Things that make you go hmmmm...I wonder if anyone involved in the shooting was directly or indirectly related to Doug or the web site?

After 303 comments this debate has become repetitive and has reached the point where the load time for this page is prohibitive. This topic is currently being debated in our discussion forum, ReaderRant, and those who wish to continue arguing the point can continue it there. I'm closing this thread and thank everyone for their comments.

I have checked the links that have been provided here. However, nothing on these links gives me any reason to reconsider my position. In most cases, the claims have discounted elsewhere or were matters which I have investigated previously and discarded because they did not check out.

I'm afraid on this issue we will just have to agree to disagree.

Doug

 

[on_strike_usaexpat]

Doug Thompson's 9/11 article

Weird. The trace route now ends up in San Diego, California rather than Seattle, Washington earlier today. Did they change hosting arrangements?

 

[Yossarian]

Doug Thompson's 9/11 article

I can't resist pointing out one technique and inconsistency from Thompson, below quote from Laura's recent post here: http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=884:

And psychopaths seem proud of their ability to lie. When asked if she lied easily, one woman laughed and replied, "I'm the best. I think it's because I sometimes admit to something bad about myself. They think, well, if she's admitting to that she must be telling the truth about the rest."

Thompson wrote from top link: Like many Americans, I don't believe Lee Harvey Oswald killed President John F. Kennedy on Nov. 22, 1963. Too many things about the Warren Commission report just don't add up and the dinner conversation my wife and I had with former Gov. John B. Connally in 1982 confirms those suspicions.

I also don't believe James Earl Ray acted alone in the assassination of civil rights leader Martin Luther King. I lived and worked in Ray's hometown of Alton, Illinois, for 11 years and interviewed many who knew him. He just wasn't smart enough to pull off such a well-planned execution.

However, I cannot - and will not - join the chorus of those who claim the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11, 2001, were an inside job staged by the Bush administration, the Central Intelligence Agency or anyone else connected with our government. I cannot - and will not - be a party to those who . . .

This psychopathic liars trick, so common, is to admit to part of the truth. Also known as the 'limited hang out,' it seems to really work. They admit to a little and we're supposed to believe that admission is not covering up lots more. Duh. Now the logical inconsistency of what Thompson is saying is beyond belief. If one can grok the implications of what he says he believes: That one president was gunned down in the street like a dog in a coup de etat and then all the evidence covered up at the highest levels of government, and information relating to the assasination still being kept secret (i.e. classified), and the assasinated president's policies being reversed virtually the next day. And, that the greatest civil rights leader of our century, was also gunned down like a dog and again the evidence covered up at the highest levels. Then one can figure that there is NO democracy, NO free nation, NO truth being revealed at the highest levels--except in minimal amounts to give the thin veneer of truth . . . then the logical conclusion by one that is so much an insider and so informed about how the system works could not but conclude the opposite of what Thompson says. IMHO.

 

[Guest]

Doug Thompson's 9/11 article

I thought about this a bit, and keep coming back to the fact that this guy never addressed 9/11 before, and it seems he had a few "conspiracy" articles prior to this one as if preparing the audience (as stated by some of the comments after his rant).

Another thing is that he made a big deal about being harassed by the FBI, much like Rense and a few other "martyrs" of mainstream/alternative, and a few weeks later this pops up.

A third factor is that he is markedly partisan, basically a Bush-basher, but supportive of Democrats (one of his pals was an investigator who couldn't possibly be biased simply because he was a Democrat.

A fourth indicator that something strange is going on is the tone of his rant, which is far colder and matter-of-fact than other articles. Add to that his comments on his forum and his practically polite attitude to people who disagree with him (a first for Thompson), and you have a man who is writing out of character, and without real evidence, just a bunch of statements that he refuses to believe etc.

Finally, one needs to wonder why he kept this forum going, to the surprise of many members. After 303 comments he didn't closed it but allowed it to continue elsewhere. Another first for Thompson. I can understand from this last factor why solamente believes he is trying to stimulate debate. It's actually possible, but he could have done so without playing devil's advocate to such a degree, unless he wanted to feret out just how many of his subscribers were into the topic, and what their views were.

The first three factors lead me to believe that he does not believe the government was involved in 9/11, or does not want to believe it. Since all he does is rant against Bush like a good Democrat (Al Gore does no less in fact, although he is more civil about it), I believe the FBI thing was staged to give credibility to this seeming turnaround, and that this person is a left-wing shill.

He reeled in an audience with his old-timer tell-it-like-it-is attitude, and has now thrown everyone a curve-ball in a manner uncharacteristic of his usual charismatic style, and then opened up a forum to see how many fish will bite, and who is really out there in his audience, and to basically see what effect that curve ball had. Perhaps it is only one of many future curve balls the mainstream/alternative or pseudo-alternative media will begin throwing.

Interesting how the Charlie Sheen "revelations" also resulted in a poll to see how many "conspiracy nuts" the PTB has to address.

 

[Fifth Way]

What I want to know is; is Thompson for real or is he an 'inflamer' to get people to reveal themselves in order to be easier targeted later.

Now I find this ???

http://www.rense.com/general70/disin.htm

Disinfo Pro - Death Of A Once-Great Blogger

By Douglas Herman
4-3-6

"How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle!" -Book of Samuel

He was once among the mighty. Now he has fallen. A blogger and editor of Capitol Hill Blue, his name is Doug Thompson. You might know him if you have ever read "The Rant." Powerful stuff once but apparently no longer.

The other day Doug Thompson wrote a column entitled:
9/11 conspiracy theories don't pass the smell test. That rant received over 400 responses, the great majority of them in disagreement, before being shut down. The following day Thompson posted a column by former White House flak, Betsy Hart: "So Many Conspiracy Theories, So Little Reality." Like Thompson's rant, that column carried little fact-based information and no quotations by any knowledgeable person defending her assertions.

The following day, by way of explanation, Thompson wrote: "I talked with firefighters and other first responders on the scene. It wasn't just debris falling. We're talking about steel girders and concrete chunks the size of some houses."

While most Americans saw only pulverized dust surrounding the WTC, Thompson somehow found 'concrete chunks'. No Mention by name of any of those first responders.

Explaining the suspicious collapse of WTC-7, Thompson wrote: "The NIST study shows several large pieces struck at the heart of Building 7 and that caused the structure to collapse inwardly."

NIST concluded they did NOT know what caused WTC-7 to collapse.

"I had demolition experts study it (film) and they concluded that the collapse was not consistent with a detonated implosion," wrote Thompson. Wrong again. Van Romero, an expert on demolitions and a professor at New Mexico Tech, disagreed. That is, before pressure was applied to Romero, causing him to recant. (9-11 Research)

"If there had been explosives in that building, someboy (sic) would have picked up a trace and that is something that could not have been kept quiet, not in the explosive emotions surrounding the event."

Wrong again. FEMA volunteers on site were ordered NOT to conduct a thorough investigation. Ordered not to confiscate any beams and girders or hold up the progress of recycling the steel.

"It became painfully obvious that the logic has no place in some people's minds and that reason was a lost objective," continued Thompson, painting himself into a corner.

Logic would hardly argue for multiple fires in WTC-7 (that somehow caused a steel building to collapse), and little or no fires in the two buildings shouldering WTC-7. Neither of them collapsed. Curiously, WTC-7 was separated from the collapsed twin towers by considerable distance. How exactly did those large pieces "strike at the heart" of a stout steel building from a great distance and cause it to collapse?

Evidently, the debris was ejected horizontally by gravity, argued one of DT's amen crew on the forum. Ignoring Newtonian Law and inventing new laws of gravity, Fred Koster wrote: "7 was subjected to the kinetic energy of a half million tons of debris falling almost 1,000 ft. before it caught fire." Curious how no written or photographic record exists that show a "half million tons" of debris falling onto WTC-7. Indeed, the building looks relatively intact as it collapses like a classic implosion, from the ground upwards.

One dissenter questioned Doug: "What about the previous (government) investigation, Doug? Have you read the Commission Report and are you satisfied by it?...Also review these 115 omission and distortions documented by David Ray Griffin: http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050523112738404 Shouldn't these questions be answered?...in fact, 70% of their questions were ignored."

Thompson replied: "Been there, read that, investigated same, discounted most of it for what it was -- a lot of theory, speculation and wishful thinking."

According to DarthRanter, as Thompson calls himself, the case against government involvement is closed. No amount of persuasion would convince him otherwise. Many of the 400 comments respectfully beseeched DT to consider the work of hundreds of private investigators, scientists and professors, working wholly without pay, who had arrived at a far different conclusion.

Doug dismissed them as having their own agenda.

Even when Lisa Guliana, of WING TV, posted 17 well-researched points disputing, or destroying altogether, Thompson's conclusions they evoked no response. Not a peep.

Not surprisingly, quite a few writers expressed anger, frustration and rage, feeling betrayed by a blogger who appeared as a once-formidable foe of government deceit and chicanery. More than a few suggested he was physically threatened by the same government he had loudly criticized.

"After reading your articles for years, I'm convinced you wrote this with a Homeland Security gun to your head," wrote Clint Fuller.

Liz Thurber concurred: "I am deeply troubled by the seeming desperation of your rant."

Respected Internet writer, Victor Thorn agreed: "I've long enjoyed your work, but you couldn't be further from the truthDoug, this is a matter of taking back our country from a cabal of bloodthirsty murderers. I certainly hope you open your eyes to what's taking place."

What the overwhelming responses indicated was disbelief, disappointment, and a sense of betrayal. Up until that column, Doug Thompson was an Internet lion among pussycats. He enjoyed HUGE respect from readers, built up over 40 years. Thus the emotional distress readers felt was comparable to finding out a close friend was really a psychopath.

"As a fellow AA member," wrote Michael Haggerty: "My friend, you are in a state of denial; I will pray for you."

Douglas Herman writes regularly for Rense and is the author of The Guns of Dallas

Any takes on this one anybody?

 

[MaskedAvatar]

By your own analysis, I guess you would be putting Thompson in your category of "Manipulated".

Also I think these "genres" are potentially useful in your conspiracy research classification scheme:

* commercial sluts
* satire

 

[Guest]

Any takes on this one anybody?

Doug Thomson's rant was discussed here:

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=880

You can speculate a hundred ways from Tuesday here, as to what really makes Mr. Thompson tick, and if he was coerced or not. I think this needs to be looked at from a wider perspective. There seems to be a grand scale CoIntelPro operation going on. Check out this thread where all of the sudden a "concerned citizen" gives advice to "conspiracy debunkers".

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=890

This "guy" is pretty thorough for someone with a full-time job, really trying to organize the "common sense crowd".

So IMO one needs to look at an operation like what is described here

http://infowars.net/articles/march2006/080306SCL.htm

to get an idea of what is going on. It's amazing that this is a legit company (Strategic Control Laboratories) openly advertizing how to control people! Here is their site: http://www.scl.cc/contactscl.php

There are just too many coincidences when one looks at the big picture to think this is just a bunch of isolated incidents.

 

[Yossarian]

Doug Thompson's 9/11 article

Weird. The trace route now ends up in San Diego, California rather than Seattle, Washington earlier today. Did they change hosting arrangements?

Yes, I think I saw on Thompson's site that they just did change the hosting location. What's interesting about that is that in another posting, Thompson said that he owned the "host." So moving it, under those circumstances, seems like a big deal to me.

So Thompson could be moving the host to distance from the"Capitol Hill" Seattle connection?

 

[Yossarian]

Doug Thompson's 9/11 article

I thought about this a bit, and keep coming back to the fact that this guy never addressed 9/11 before, and it seems he had a few "conspiracy" articles prior to this one as if preparing the audience (as stated by some of the comments after his rant).

I also looked to see if he addressed 9/11 previously and I couldn't find it either, which is interesting, considering the significance of the event.

 

[Fifth Way]

Doug Thompson's 9/11 article

Interestingly enough we have actors coming out and even Alex Jones apparently participating in this.

Not sure how you mean this. Are you implying the Charly Sheen/Alex Jones story is a set-up? I don't understand.

Finally, one needs to wonder why he kept this forum going, to the surprise of many members. After 303 comments he didn't closed it but allowed it to continue elsewhere. Another first for Thompson.... [and] ....He reeled in an audience with his old-timer tell-it-like-it-is attitude, and has now thrown everyone a curve-ball in a manner uncharacteristic of his usual charismatic style, and then opened up a forum to see how many fish will bite...

If Thompson is in fact COINTELPRO and his site information is hard-wired (as he implied it will be - as in; perfect half-truth) to the FBI/NSA, than his previous rant on "Bush ending free speech" and the FBI surveillancing his server (which apparently so happens to be HIS server) was done to prompt tons of previously unknown dissidents to come out. Which is what I was pondering about initially in this thread:
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=647
In this case leaving his forum open makes sense as it would serve the same purpose. Keep in mind: On his site are not the 'known' dissidents but the middle of the road guys. They are the one that can potentially become the loose cannons. The ones that already 'served', that may have plenty of guns and know how to use them!

Interesting how the Charlie Sheen "revelations" also resulted in a poll to see how many "conspiracy nuts" the PTB has to address.

Again: I don't understand what you are implying. The PTB already have the real polls. They are the ones falsificating them since decades.

Yes, I think I saw on Thompson's site that they just did change the hosting location. What's interesting about that is that in another posting, Thompson said that he owned the "host." So moving it, under those circumstances, seems like a big deal to me.

Again: If Thomson is COINTELPRO it makes sense. Whatever he said previously was just a lie to explain why he could possibly know the FBI's move. He told the lie to better inflame. Same thing with his famous F U C K YOU letter (sorry about the weird spacing but this forum's software seems to keep changing the F-word always into '-flick-' whatever that is supposed to mean. In this context I am obviously quoting Thomson and therewith making a point). He was asked to show the paperwork on his site in regards to his FUCK YOU letter, but he backed out of putting the money/documents where his mouth was.

Hey - Just another Conspiracy Theory!

 

[bedower]

This is a very relevant topic, osit, especially these days. There are so many 'alternative' news sites and blogspots on the net that it can be quite confusing as to which ones are trustworthy. How to spot the 'good' sites; the ones with the same integrity that one possesses one's self (and this works both ways).

Here are a few things I've noticed about various sites and their particular themes, and I have to confess that I find myself measuring them against the SOTT site with regard to their news coverage! *

1. The litmus test for any site has to be how the editor/blogger writes about 9/11. Does the site parrot
the official version; that it was Muslim 'terrorists? Or does it question the official version; perhaps
even coming out and stating the 9/11 was an inside job by agents of the US government, MOSSAD,
and MI6? Does the site ask that very important question of who benefitted the most from 9/11?

2. Does the site mention Al-Qaida as though it actually exists according to official sources? Or is it
more inclined to suspect (or even state) that Al Qaida is the invention and brainchild of certain
government agencies?

3. Does the site believe Osama bin Laden is alive, dead or never existed? Or maybe even a Zionist
Jew dressed up as an Arab?

4. Take careful note of the language used, especially adjectives, when writing about Arabs/Muslims
compared with the adjectives used when writing about Jews/Israelis. Regular SOTT readers will be
very good at this!

5. Does the site propagate the view that the citizens of western countries live in free democracies, or
does it express doubts about this belief, and use phrases like 'stolen elections', 'rigged vote counts',
and so on. Personal political affiliation is irrelevant here.

These are the main points I tend to judge any alternative news site by. Other forumites can no doubt come up with other little 'tells' that let one know whether the site is on the side of STO or STS.

* I admit it - I am addicted to SOTT. Quite beSOTTed, in fact! :P