Premier Rock Forum

rick reuben, you're like my fuckin' conscience, man.

i try and try to ignore these things that i know and you're always there with the evidence and the reminders and the memories that haven't happened yet.

don't get the wrong idea, i like knowing the insane paranoia is right and i do appreciate your efforts.

having these insane, irrational fears is one thing, but then having them backed up and reinforced is another thing altogether.

but i'm sure you know where i'm comin' from.

Rick Reuben wrote:

that damned fly wrote: i like knowing the insane paranoia

I don't think that watching for signs that the war with Iran continues to be plotted is insane paranoia- I think it's watching for more signs of business as usual.

I'm not going to report what I just read about a trainload of military vehicles en route to a major American city.

yeah, but since i wasn't watching that's what made it insane paranoia. i didn't know for sure, but i was certain with having no facts to back it up.

and you have to tell about the trainload of military vehicles.

The letter is not bogus. A couple of the signees say they did not sign, or that they signed a different letter. The author of the letter has posted these .jpg's, which support his case that the letter has not been altered.

I don't understand what those jpgs prove--I never claimed the letter had been altered. When I said bogus I was referring to the fact that, according to correspondence on the Rense site, which was linked to when this letter came up, 3 of the names are forgeries, and the letter is a hoax:

This article which you've posted regarding anti-war leaders warning of a new 911 is a hoax:
http://www.rense.com/general78/warning.htm

I emailed Dahlia Wasfi about is and this was his response:

Dear Brendan,

Thank you for writing. I did not sign that statement, and I've written the author to that effect. In fact, in an email exchange, I, Cindy Sheehan, and Jamilla El-Shafei all refuted signing such a statement.

Many thanks for your support.
In solidarity,
Dahlia

The Rense site followed that with this:

Some question has arisen as to the authenticity of the signatures on the Kennebunkport Warning. This JPEG facsimile of the original document shows clearly who signed, and thus speaks for itself.

There is a claim that the signatures were forged. The response is: here's a photo of that letter. Huh? How does that prove the signatures are legit?

Newberry, it doesn't surprise me that once I noted that some signees were claiming that they did not sign, you took the huge leap to calling the whole letter 'bogus'- the letter is not bogus. It's right there on paper.

In my first post on this thread (p. 3) regarding the letter, I asked:

You don't think this is a hoax, as was pointed out on that page?

Apparently at least three signatures are bogus. That alone makes me very suspicious of the veracity of that letter. Bob/Rick, if the US government presented a signed document as evidence for something, and 3 signatures were fake, would you not call the letter bogus?

Anyway, whether the letter is authentic or not, my main problem with it is that it makes an extraordinary claim without evidence. The letter claims that there is "massive evidence" that Cheney's peeps are planning the next 9/11. OK, fine, let's see the evidence. If the evidence is shown, and it's solid, I'll believe it. You all are welcome to believe it if you like, but I won't until I see the massive evidence.

More info:

From LiberateThis.com:

Each of us were approached during the rally at the Kennebunkport event on August 25, 2007, to sign a statement calling for the immediate impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney. Since then, the statement has been altered and posted on the internet, making it appear as if we have evidence that this administration will carry out a "false-flag terror operation."

None of us have such evidence, and therefore, none of us signed a statement stating that we do.

We wish the authors of the document well in continuing much needed investigations of all aspects of 9/11.

Signed:

Jamilla El-Shafei Cindy Sheehan Dahlia Wasfi Ann Wright
(their bolding)

This kind of thing hurts the cause. This makes those of us on the left (where I reside) look stupid. Many people in the U.S. are asleep, and we need to alert them to real, actual, known malfeasance. It's important to be rational and stick to facts if we want to be taken seriously.

I'm all for freedom of speech--go ahead and say whatever you want. But if you want to be taken seriously, stick to claims that have evidence behind them. There are many awful things that Bushco has done that we can point to with solid evidence. We don't need to resort to making bogus claims (massive evidence of Cheney's pals planning the next 9/11). That's exactly the kind of bullshit that Cheney perpetrates--remember when he said there is no doubt that WMDs exist in Iraq?

If reliable, "massive" evidence does surface, let me know, and I'll gladly look at it.

ETA: If those four did sign it without reading it, that's stupid. I'm not quite sure if they're saying they didn't sign the document at all, or that they didn't sign it the way it's now being presented. Anyway, my main point is about the claim made in the letter, not about the signatures.

It's very obvious that you hate 9/11 Truth, so you have an extremely prejudiced view of the evidence in this case, and it's making you throw words around that you can't back up, like 'hoax', 'bogus' and 'forgeries'.

When I used the word hoax, I was referring to the original mention of the letter. The link was to the Rense site, where there is a letter posted that says:

Legit?
From Brendan Cooney
Date Wed, August 29, 2007 9:28 am

This article which you've posted regarding anti-war leaders warning of a new 911 is a hoax:
http://www.rense.com/general78/warning.htm

I emailed Dahlia Wasfi about is and this was his response:

Dear Brendan,

Thank you for writing. I did not sign that statement, and I've written the author to that effect. In fact, in an email exchange, I, Cindy Sheehan, and Jamilla El-Shafei all refuted signing such a statement.

Many thanks for your support.
In solidarity,
Dahlia (bold added)

After reading more about this, it's not clear to me whether the four people who are backing away from this are claiming that they never signed the letter, or that they're saying that they signed it and it was then altered, or if they're saying they didn't know what they were signing.

So maybe the letter isn't a hoax. However, it does appear to be bogus, unless the claim of massive evidence proves to be true, which I'm highly skeptical of.

As I said before, my main issue with the letter is not the signature question, it's the "massive evidence" claim. If that shows up, please post it here.

From the Arabesque: 9/11 Truth site:

The Kennebunkport Warning Hoax

By Arabesque

August 31, 2007

Like most, I first believed that the Kennebunkport Warning was legitimate and that the signatures were legitimate.

We now have very strong evidence it is a hoax.

if possible, let's try and keep this thread limited to talkin about indicators that "something's going down" as the kids say. I think this kennebunkport thing is kinda done into the ground at this point, and isn't doing anything to advance the discussion. if anything, the contrary.

scott wrote:if possible, let's try and keep this thread limited to talkin about indicators that "something's going down" as the kids say. I think this kennebunkport thing is kinda done into the ground at this point, and isn't doing anything to advance the discussion. if anything, the contrary.

Sounds good. To remind folks, here's a snip from the OP:

anybody else have any indicators, or any other info to support my Marshall-selloff-means-coming-doom theory?

also, good indicators showing the opposite, that economic reality for America is gonna swing to the good side, please share those too. don't wanna look with blinders on.

Here's one view, from today's NYT:

Count the Days, Not the Years, of Market Pullbacks

There have been 10 official bear markets — defined as a drop in equities of at least 20 percent — since 1946, based on the Standard & Poor’s 500 index of widely held stocks. Those plunges, on average, have erased nearly a third of the market’s value over 490 calendar days, according to S.& P. Even worse, the market has needed an additional 669 days, on average, to make up those grisly losses.

But what if the market sell-off doesn’t go that far? What if, instead of a bear market, stocks simply slip into a plain old correction?

Certainly, the odds are much greater that stocks are headed for a correction — defined as a loss of 10 percent or more — than a bear market.

Since 1928, there have been 87 corrections in the S.& P. 500, according to a recent tally by Ned Davis Research. That works out to slightly more than one a year, though since the end of World War II, there have been significantly fewer such downturns. In contrast, there have only been 23 bear markets over the last 80 years.

More important, corrections are far less destructive than many investors assume.

i turn 26 in 26 days.

if that's not a sign i don't know what is.

Rick Reuben wrote:From Professor Juan Cole's blog, http://www.juancole.com

Cheney & Iran: Here We Go Again?

more on that here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 369001.ece