damn you, red baron

No-Planer Cointelpro Operation Becoming Transparent
Morgan Rose, Aug 12, 2008

COINTELPRO, an acronym for Counter Intelligence Program, was a series of covert operations conducted by the FBI starting in the mid 50’s and continuing until 1976 when it was exposed by the investigations The Church Committee. One of the primary methods of COINTELPRO consisted of forging pseudo-movement groups as a means of conducting Psychological Warfare operations to spread disinformation, disrupt, and divide existing movements. These ‘psy-ops’ tended to foment suspicions among the targeted movements and try to dissuade sympathies from people outside the targeted movement. Today, COINTELPRO has reared its ugly head again, with infiltrations popping up everywhere from Anti-War activism groups to peaceful gun owners and militias. Provocations have become more and more conspicuous to the public as the Seattle World Trade Organization protests and Ontario Security and Prosperity Partnership protests successfully exposed provocateur operations. Of course, something as dangerous to the establishment *body politic* as 9/11 has not been without its alleged incidents of COINTELPRO action. Allegations of government disinformation have been swirling around certain figures in the movement, such as former Bush Administration official Morgan Reynolds, who has recently proposed that “no planes hit the World Trade Center”, has alleged “TV Fakery”, and submitted that the towers were brought down by “Directed Energy Weapons” a.k.a. “Laser Beams”.

While the government has spent innumerable resources trying to contradict eyewitness statements regarding reported explosions in the towers, Morgan Reynolds and his “mockingbirds” expect the 9/11 truth movement to put their energy into further contradicting even more numerous eyewitness statements. See a problem here? Typical of the above outlined methods, “No Planers” have become a pseudo-movement, adding lunacy, deception, and division to the legitimate questions emanating from 9/11 families, first responders, government officials, intelligence experts, scientists, engineers, architects, academics, entertainment personalities, and so many others. Perhaps the more visible purveyors of this pseudo-movement are supported by Paula Gloria’s “Concordia Foundation”. The “Concordia Foundation” claims 501 (c) 3, or “nonprofit” status, However, recent investigations conducted by concerned donors have uncovered that her “foundation” does not retain “nonprofit” status with the IRS. In fact, more rigorous inquires have obtained that no records of the “Concordia Foundation” even exist in its home state of New York. Funding of Paula Gloria’s “foundation” originates solely from an information technology firm, Bit By Bit Computer Consultants. “Donations” to the “Concordia Foundation” are actually billed directly to Bit By Bit. The apparent fraud has appropriately prompted multiple complaints with the FTC and IRS. Bit By Bit, and its subsidiary 3B Digital, admittedly list among their portfolio Bloomberg LLC, Chase Bank, The National Football League, Citigroup, and The National Security Council. 3B Digital boasts to have partnerships with Nokia, Cisco Systems, IBM, Compaq, Microsoft, Goldman Sachs, and Level 3 Communications. Level 3 Communications, a defense contractor doing business, primarily, with US and UK interests, is the developer of the WESCAM system said to be the delivery mechanism for the supposed “TV Fakery”. Of course this is nonsense, but it is fascinating that these harlequins would incorporate their partnerships into their own theories.

The “Concordia Foundation” numbers among its surrogates Nico Haupt,” a man who exhibits *prima facie *schizophrenic behavior. Allegations of COINTELPRO surrounding Haupt have, in the past, seemed to be justified. WeAreChange recently had two unprovoked incidents with Haupt, where he assaulted the group’s members, only to be ignored by onlooking NYPD. Haupt continuously spreads disinformation, even abject lies, surrounding the 9/11 truth movement. From calling legitimate 9/11 truthers “Plane Huggers”, to claiming “Alex Jones works for ABC” and is “covering up for the media”, Haupt’s tactics and behavior exhibit classic COINTELPRO methods. Haupt even advocates “waterboarding Plane Huggers”. So a “foundation” with intimate ties to international defense contractors, major Wall Street banks, prominent telecommunications firms, and The National Security council is a driving force behind the “No Plane” pseudo-movement? The information promulgated by Paula Gloria, Nico Haupt, Morgan Reynolds, and others is clearly suspect in light of these new revelations. Whereas, before, all of the speculation regarding “No Plane” theories were simply diffused by logic and common sense, now we see that something much more sinister is at play. The divide and conquer tactics employed by these clowns has warranted past allegations of COINTELPRO. Today, the charade has been fully exposed: the pyschological warfare, the subliminals, the allegations of ‘cover-up’ within the movement, the show on the Howard Stern Channel. Although these revelations should prompt further investigation, it certainly begs the question: does it get any more transparent?

13 Comments

  1. Hoarsewhisperer
    Posted August 25, 2008 at 2:31 pm | Permalink

    This is amusing. I’m surprised you didn’t give Architects and Engineers for 911 “Truth” another little plug. The 911 Truth movement has no technical expertise, and thus no credibility, whatsoever. Raising the issue of No Planers merely reminds us that there are 911 Truth No Brainers and 911 Truth No Planers. 911 Truth, in toto, is pretty obviously a COINTELPRO to keep public opinion divided and focused on anything but the failure of NORAD and the planning (and planners) of the NYC FEMA ‘exercise’ on 9/10 and 9/11.
    The COINTEL Professionals seem to be winning by a country mile. Before you fly off the handle, read my crit of A & E for 911 Truth on the Friday, 8th August comment thread (08.23.08 – 2:27 am) on Xymphora.
    If it offends you, I’m quite happy for you not to publish this comment, btw. But read my crit before you decide.

  2. niqnaq
    Posted August 25, 2008 at 4:53 pm | Permalink

    no, you are welcome to publish your debunking attempt, dear boy, I shall not fly off the handle about it.

  3. Spanish plonk
    Posted August 25, 2008 at 10:28 pm | Permalink

    Quality. These people are just trying to make the whole movement ridiculous:

  4. Posted August 25, 2008 at 11:32 pm | Permalink

    On topic, I think ‘no planes’, in spite of its weakness (no independent forensic analysis of raw video from the Gaudet brothers or Channel 5 news helicopter) is still worthy of investigation (where’s the video from all the security cameras surrounding the Pentagon?)
    Ace Baker has published an interesting account at http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/PinocchioStudy/Chopper5Velocity.html and other pages. Others may disagree, but that’s why the debate is important. Yes there seems to be some COINTELPRO at work in the 9/11 movement. That doesn’t discredit the honest researchers, imho, even when they seem to be getting into some vicious territorial infighting.
    But I wouldn’t imply that the movement is ignoring the failure of NORAD or the FEMA exercises; they are all agreed on that.
    They are also agreed on the belief that the Towers were brought down as a result of an inside operation by the government, in a multi national effort. COINTELPRO seems to work mostly by denying all the evidence of Controlled Demolition, or directing people into weak, individual lines of investigation.
    And while some may be impressed by the technical expertise of the government scientists, it may not be the first time that scientists have lied, or kept mum.

  5. Hoarsewhisperer
    Posted August 26, 2008 at 1:46 am | Permalink

    There are two 911 “Truth” No Plane theories. One for the Pentagon and one for the towers. The latter implies a great deal of co-operation and prep from Fox, CNN etc. The article I commented on, the one reproduced above, referred to the latter. An ungainly 911 “Truth” change-the-subject slither to the Pentagon theory, merely highlights 911 “Truth’s” consistent resort to obfuscation and unwillingness to debate the issues raised by its dupes.

  6. Posted August 26, 2008 at 2:10 am | Permalink

    Huh? You refer to comments on a different blog without even posting a link so people can know what you’re talking about? Not kosher.
    “No planes” means just that, and the only people treating it as two separate theories are the professional debunkers.
    http://amsforums.ametsoc.org/tool/post/whosarat/show_single_post?pid=27692993&postcount=1 “17 FBI techniques of truth suppression” fits your good self more than your attempts to smear an entire group of people, again without proof or proper analysis.
    I ask for independent analysis of raw video footage. You respond with loaded adjectives. Huh again?
    You’ve been invited to submit your debunking thesis. Please do.

  7. Hoarsewhisperer
    Posted August 26, 2008 at 3:05 am | Permalink

    Links, MFA? RB had no trouble finding the critique referred to. You, on the other hand, are studiously avoiding the task of pointing out its flaws. Point by point. On the same thread.

  8. niqnaq
    Posted August 26, 2008 at 8:24 am | Permalink

    yeah, I found it, and I added at the bottom of it my view that ‘MFA wins.’

  9. Hoarsewhisperer
    Posted August 26, 2008 at 8:53 am | Permalink

    Your reluctance and inability to explain why is duly noted.
    Another of 9/11 “Truth’s” spell-binding fact-free proofs?

  10. Posted August 27, 2008 at 1:25 am | Permalink

    Since there obviously are other people reading this blog it follows you ought to provide links so they know what you’re talking about.
    You know, like this:
    http://www.haloscan.com/comments/andy8/7906971581160672307/#333552

  11. Posted August 27, 2008 at 1:32 am | Permalink

    Or this:
    http://www.haloscan.com/comments/andy8/7943785816234866624/#333622
    How far back should I go to illustrate your two year exercise in obtuseness demanding ‘proofs’ and replies to your straw man arguments re: 9/11 on the Xymphora website?

  12. Hoarsewhisperer
    Posted August 27, 2008 at 4:22 pm | Permalink

    From your second link …

    For example, an emeritus structural engineering professor asserted, “The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube…” [12].

    See the three dots at the end of the quote, MFA?
    That means that Jones Ryan and Co cut short what the emeritus prof said in order to more easily misrepresent him.

    I quoted, and criticised, a contiguous (that means unbroken, MFA) extract from 14 Points of Agreement. If their intent was not to misrepresent him, why split what he said into bite-size misrepresentable pieces?

  13. Posted August 27, 2008 at 5:40 pm | Permalink

    Horse spilts hairs, especially since I posted several inconsistencies in his own, bite sized, argument, AND provided links to make my case. If you say there’s misrepresentation, prove it.
    But don’t get anal about this, ok? At some point people get bored, and refuse to reply, and then you claim victory.
    Typical troll behaviour.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.