Forgive my lack of information. I have seen some Veitch videos including the one where he says he changed his mind but have yet to see all of them and have not seen the road trip thing. What I have seen of Charlie I have liked. I think he makes good sense. I still disagree with his new opinion on 9/11 but that is not an indication to me of him being a fake or an idiot. I actually was speaking to my wife today about something Robert Anton Wilson said regarding "IS" he said basically that the world would be a better place if people used IS less. I like that. I think Charlie can still put forth good info. As for Ron Paul he says some good things and people decide he must be the great new hope but as with anybody he has not told you everything that he thinks and of course he could be wrong. Remember small government means less regulation of the systems that already have too much power over us. Sure Ronald Mcdonald sounds like a friendly clown but look at what he is pushing. At least Charlie never appeared to have anything to sell me.

I AM ALL I AM wrote:
Yeah I'm great thanks Hows are you, I think from memory that Lyd told me too on Skype week before or something
have you heard from her recently
As for Charlie Imo i think he was only doing one thing like icke, take his financial followers for a money ride scam as much as possible the he's done a runner

Black Cloud wrote:
G'day Black Cloud.

Good t hear.

Yeah, I'm doing well. Made a move from Port Macquarie up north to the Gold Coast ... it's definitely warmer up here during the winter months.

We've been meaning to get online on skype to have a chat, though it hasn't happened yet ... real life interfering with cyber life.

CV is/was another wannabe gurutard looking to cash in on 'the movement'. The more 'followers' invested their belief in him, the less that they utilised their discernment faculties to recognise the obviousness of CV's lack of a rational methodology for change. Let's face it, calling people "drones" and bullhorning them with a repetitive condescending message is simply another form of propaganda and divisive in nature.

Anyway, you know the score.

I used to enjoy watching the Love Police videos and would happily share them around...then he started on his "anarchist spokesman" route showing himself as either naive or dangerous, if not both.

i-baster wrote:
You did see the 911 in 5 minutes video further up the thread?
He believes that...

andyh wrote:
G'day Andyh.

CV claims it was the '19 highjackers' that are still listed on the FBI website as having perpetrated the attacks ...

At Least 7 of the 9/11 Hijackers are Still Alive
whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/hijackers.html

9/11: The Frame Up Of Abdulaziz Alomari
whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/9-11_alomari.html

Hijackers Alive And Well
911review.org/Wiki/HijackersAliveAndWell.shtml


... yet some of them are still alive.

3.4 trillion dollars went 'missing' in the two years prior to 9/11. Is it coincidental that the department at the pentagon, along with the records of the accountants (DynCorp) overseeing the missing trillions (3.4 trillion in the previous two years), is blown up the day after the money is admitted as missing ?


1:44 minutes

Rep. Cynthia McKinney [to Donald Rumsfeld]: "... Fiscal year 1999 2.3 trillion missing, fiscal year 2000 1.1 trillion missing ..."




Pug Winokur and Enron

An outstanding homegrown example of Realeconomik is the career of Herbert "Pug" Winokur, Harvard man. Aside from playing a major role in the looting of Russia, Harvard University also seems to have deep connections into the domestic economy of crime. Catherine Austin Fitts connected the dots in a 2002 article which told us that not only had Winokur chaired the Enron finance commitee and escaped federal scrutiny, he was also a lead investor in, and creator of, a company called DynCorp (now CSC-DynCorp) that has lucrative vaccine and biowarfare contracts. Through documentary videos, military investigations, and even its employees, DynCorp has been connected to a child prostitution/sex slavery ring in Bosnia. So ubiquitous is DynCorp that we will see its hands all over the map with connection with 9/11 and the ruling of America. DynCorp is everywhere. It manages the Congretional telephone system. Along with Lockheed-Martin, it does the computerized bookkeeping for a dozen federal agencies including the DoD and HUD, which have lost (or allowed to be stolen) trillions of taxpayer dollars. It also has a contract to manage the police and court systems in US-occupied Iraq.

Winokur's connections to Enron, DynCorp, and the Harvard Endowment (which, during the Clinton years, saw its assets incre4ase from 3 to 19 billion dollars) demonstarte that quite often the key players escape mainstream scrutiny altogether. However, a group of diligent Harvard students did publish a series of investigative reports starting in October 2002 that shed unwanted light on Winokur's career and ultimately forced his resignation from the board of the Harvard Endowment. Among other revelations were the facts that Harvard had direct financial investments bailing out an ailing Harken Energy Corporation, then run by G.W. Bush, and that, through its investment arm, Highfields Capital, it had dumped large quantities of Enron stock just before it crashed: insider trading at its best.

Conveniently, DynCorp's financial auditor until the company's merger with CSC in 2003 was Arthur Anderson, the same company that handled Enron's books. The new firm, CSC-DynCorp now has a sole source contract to provide police and court services in occupied Iraq.

Pages 79-80.

Is it coincidental that DynCorp has financial ties with G.W. Bush through Herbert Winokur ?

What about the extent of the 'put options' on UAL between September 6 and September 10, which were 90 times above normal and 285 times higher than average on the Thursday before the attacks. They were 60 times higher on AA (page 238 at the link below).

books.google.com.au/books?id=ezyLJrAu1SI...#v=onepage&q&f=false

Yet CV laughs in the video about 'claiming 9/11 back for the Muslim extremists' , without offering jack-shit evidence for his support of the official story/non-belief in it being an inside job.

OBVIOUSLY, CV has not done any real research and cannot support his stance with FACTS !!!

So why does CV even discuss the 9/11 issue ... could it be as simple as attention seeking ?

He posted this nine days ago.

How long would any of us be around for if we made such a clip?

Transcript:

"This is an international appeal to the international community from the British Resistance. We are a loosely collected group of individuals and small tribes ..."

G'day Psketti.

What the fuck is the "British Resistance" ?

Is this an episode of 'Allo 'Allo ?

CV is claiming to speak on behalf of this "British Resistance" ... well, at least he is pretending to do so.

Anyone supporting this guy needs their head read.

psketti wrote:
The more I watch it the more suss it appears. Thankfully it's not getting the 'traffic' you might expect.

Now if it were an Asian lad from Bradford with a longer beard saying exactly the same thing.......we'd never see him again!

I AM ALL I AM wrote:
Absolutely yep.
Wasn't it the BBC that reported it initially?

The official theory has more holes than a dunkin donut shop ffs lol

psketti wrote:
So he's going from free hugs to kill them all now eh?

andyh wrote:
G'day Andyh.

I wouldn't know about the BBC reporting the 19 hijackers first, though they were the ones that reported tower 7 having collapsed prior to it occurring ... something CV puts his 'spin' on in the 'Luke Rudkowski VS Charlie Veitch on 9/11' video clip.

oioioi wrote:
Nope. I saw it on the 18th and it was just over the 5000 views mark... it could've been a lot higher by now.

Yep.

Somebody should make a spoof of Veitch's one

feather wrote:
I found him momentarily amusing. He wasn't really saying anything that was new, and certainly wasn't a researcher. I didn't really understand why so many flipped out when he changed directions. Whether he apologized or not is of little consequence to me personally. The section in bold is very wise. feather.

I AM ALL I AM wrote: The BBC reported on the hijackers' identities being in doubt:

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm

When they did it, it was fine. Later on they retracted this:

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1581063.stm

...while stating:
As Noam Chomsky pointed out:

www.guernicamag.com/blog/noam_chomsky_my_reaction_to_os/

Yet the BBC report stuff like this completely uncritically:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13304809

...and take every opportunity to bash 'conspiracy theorists'. They're a disgusting organisation.

Charlie Vietch doesn't know his arsehole from his elbow...unless it involves dosh

wake_up_bomb wrote:
G'day Wake_Up_Bomb.

Ahhh, I thought Andyh was asking if the BBC were the first to report that there were 19 highjackers. Doh.

I AM ALL I AM wrote:
2:04 to 2:08 he says "I'm going to reclaim 9/11 for the islamists, they're going to take it back tonight". Sadly I have to take credit for that line, here's the story...

We were at Sunrise festival last year when Charlie got the call saying he'd been selected to take part in the BBC3 "9/11 Conspiracy Roadtrip" programme. Long story but we talked for hours about how he could avoid being quoted out of context, et cetera, and at one point I was suggesting he take an absurd position and stick to it. I came up with the suggestion that he could take the line that it was unfair on the muslims to try to take 9/11 from them using the slogan "I'm taking it back for the muslims" which I remember Charlie repeated enthusiastically.

My idea, which at the time I thought Charlie understood, was that this was intended to seem deliberately absurd. If I hadn't had several long conversations with him since I might well have concluded that this was, in fact, what he has been doing all along. If he is then it's quite an achievement to have pulled it off but in all honesty I do think he has really changed his mind, however unlikely that may seem.

andyh wrote:
Right but my point is that you can hold an opinion that I strongly disagree with and I can still like you and it would not automatically make you a fake or an idiot to me. On the flipside I perhaps share the view of Luke Rudowski regarding 9/11 (have yet to watch the video but i mean in as much as inside job) but I have strong feelings of disagreement with Rudowski in what are perhaps more important issues. So in other words your views on 9/11 or whatever do not define you to me. Interestingly I was arguing with my dad about 7/7 and 9/11 the other day. He appears to believe that 9/11 too. My dad is still a good guy with fairly right on views.

Perhaps on topic though do people maybe wonder if he has been Shaylered in a weird sort of way or was David Shayler a genuine person breaking out of his box of normality?

I know "conspiracy" minds will say "he was got to" etc or he was a shill etc but with open minds I think we should address the possibility that something else might be the reason/answer etc. You know less about the IS and more about the "might be"