Wayne, PA, with DRG and the gang
Hey, Gretavo and friends. i did venture out to Wayne, PA last week to meet and greet DRG in person. He is absolutely charming, especially up close, personal, in a very small and intimate setting like this - upstairs room in an eatery! Apparently, there is quite a little happening group on the Mainline, attending showings of 911 movies sponsored by Betsy Metz, et. al., then hanging at the tavern for after-film drinks and discussion. nice!
a few points touched on by DRG:
-  "new culture" for the truth movement, a "culture of acceptance" as opposed to a couple years back. discussion of polls and history of the movement, etc.
- accolades for Richard Gage and AE911truth.
- new profesional-affliation groups forming under the umbrella of patriots question every day...vets for, now intelligence officers for, political leaders for, medical prof for, religious leaders for...
- the debate is between the OCTÂ vs. Within the Government...next to nothing on Israeli involvement.
- Zelikow the myth-maker.
- Â the new paper published in peer review...stressing the Danish scientist over Ryan and Jones.
- nanothermite and nanophysics/nanochem ...big deal now in most U.S. universities...all looking for grants.
- The scientific fraud propelled by NIST/building 7 report. Politics versus science.
- something about "7/7 ripple effect"
DRG entertained ALMOST AN HOUR OF QUESTION AND ANSWER...perhaps there's a YouTube somewhere. The sound was horrible.
and, you're going to love this, Gretavo: Sander Hicks (very lively and and ran the Q&A) introduced Jon Gold (body guardish?? is that customary?) who introduced DRG.  Luke R. was hovering. I am confused what to think about these folks...it was strange yet kind of wow to actually be in the same room with all these high profilers...Jon and I had a stare down while Jon McIlvane was speaking. Later as I approached DRG for book signing, Jon was unavoidably right there, so, after a pause and another eye-to-eye, i reached out a hand. "Ahh, Kate of the Kiosk! (guess i'm a little more visible than i had thought) you're part of that WTCDemolition group!"..."Yeah, Jon, (wagging my finger at him) looks like demolition is it."  JG: "Yeah it sure does now!"
Bob McIlvane was last to speak; now that was moving...
 i don't know what to think about this cast of characters.
more importantly, what would DRG be thinking?Â
 Â
-
- kate of the kiosk's blog
- Login to post comments
Sounds great
I would love to have been there.Can you tell us more about the (...next to nothing on Israeli involvement.)What was mentioned? ICTS security is often overlooked. Nothing about the deported Israelis , Dominic Suter,Zakheim,Chertoff?Just curious.
Hey, Gulu, DRG's talk mentioned
neocons yes, even touched a bit on Zakheim and missing trillions; but when it comes to Israel, let me see, Â I believe one brave woman asked a pointed question including Israeli involvement, and he completely sidestepped it by saying he is here to focus on the inconsistencies, the lies in the commission report, etc, not frame any particular entity, although he does then point out Dick Cheney over and over again...i'm not sure what's he's thinking.
If it is okay for him to focus so much on the phone calls, phone calls, the demolition, Barbara Olsen, bla bla, Norman Mineta, Bush in the goat book, mentioned April Gallup's testimony about the pentagon, whYÂ IN HEAVEN'S NAMEÂ does he not talk about THE SECURITY COMPANIES, THE ELEVATOR COMPANIES???
my dining companion and heresy
DRG does seem to attract a diverse crowd. The "patriots" were there too, some of them born again, home-schoolers. Like the young couple and her dad sitting across from me. 6-kid christian home-schoolers, and very up on the end-times financials regarding gold, silver and all the related sites, Alex Jonesian, i guess. She said she was into a lot of "different" issues, not just 911 truth. When i mentioned that i respected DRG as a theologian and that I agree with what little i understand about his "process theology" and that in otherwords, one can believe in "evolution" and God, so to speak, she clammed up, glared at me, and proceeded to hang her head in prayer for most of DRG's speech, at one point mumbling under her breath "heresy"....
her dad, now on the other hand, was cool. He is a body mechanic and knows how metal works..right on! the patriotic working man. doesn't want his constitutional rights, nor his guns taken away neither...Â
not so many of those in Boston
In fact I'd say the biggest contingent fell under "aged hippie", the same folks who made up the heart and soul of the antiwar movement. It was pretty diverse though...
good stuff kate, this
good stuff kate, this reminds me of my dissapointing email exchange i had with Griffin recently where I straight up asked him why hes willing to name check Cheney,Myers etc. but NOT willing to even mention Zakheims name(or Suter for that matter). This is about the time when he told me I had "crossed a line"(and i made it VERY clear that i wasnt accusing him of anything by being silent on these topics). Its good to see hes willing to at least mention Zakheims name now. Im not gonna take credit for that, my ego isnt that big, im sure im far from the only one who has asked him why he fails to talk about the ISraeli role. I was actually going to go to this talk as I live in West Chester,Pennsylvania but I had prior commitments. Im glad at least one brave soul asked him the tough question. Im not trying to throw Griffin under the bus, his work is very valuable, but we should all be pressing people like him to confront all of the evidence and not just that which implicates Cheney and other american traitors. Im curious though, when talking about Zakheim, did he only mention the missing trillions? Did he at least mention SPC and their capability to outfit Boeings with remote technology? Griffin himself admitted to me that this was powerful evidence but I have yet to hear him mention it. Did he at least point out that Zakheim is PNAC? thanks for the update Kate.
may have been mistaken, Chris,
The Zakheim connection may have been brought up by that woman with the pointed question....and that was sidestepped. DRG did bring up Zelikow, the myth-maker and how the commission results were rigged with a preset "outline." Â
funny you should mentiong him telling you that "you are crossing the line." I heard him say "now you're crossing the line" on Kevin Barrett's Fair and Balanced recently...
thanks Chris
wow, way to come out of the lion's den alive!
No doubt this was Gold/Hicks' way to ingratiate themselves back into the movement they have been obviously trying to lead astray--I'm sure DRG has no clue about these guys' shtick--why would he? DRG was great here in Boston last Saturday--the talk was absolutely A-OK with BU--he had a Boston University sign on the podium. There were probably around 450 people there, not quite standing room only but definitely a big and diverse crowd, many of whom by a show of hands indicated it was their first truth event.
On a side note, just today the guy who rang me up at the pharmacy asked me if I was the guy with the 9/11 sign on his bag (which I didn't have today) and asked me what it was all about. I gave him a really quick summary but realizing it wasn't adequate I went home and got one of the copies of DRG's latest that I got on Saturday, threw in a 9/11 Mysteries DVD and went right back to the store. Chalk up another truther in the greater Boston area...
Wow, that's service!
I wonder if he watches "Rescue Me" or something.
Rescue Me
i finally watched for the first time...first on Hulu archive of first show which i missed last week while otherwise engaged listening to DRG, but stayed up last night to catch the 2nd episode which is the one with where Sunjata lets the little French journalist in on his research findings...quite impressive for MSM! I think this happens about 1/4-1/3 through the show.
I had not really ever seen Denis Leary. He creeps me out.Â
Eat That Crow
Hi Kate,
Did Sander Hicks discuss the case of Dr. Graham?
I know how you feel about 'what to think' about these two characters.
You don't want to write them off based on some sort of paranoid irrational notion that they might be agents who are knowingly or un-knowingly side-tracking the focus of the 'movement' or '9/11 Truth'.
At least that was my dilemma.
So... I researched the topics these two guys relentlessly pushed within 9/11 Truth.
I now feel fine saying these guys are bozos and quite possibly State Department, FBI or another agent subverting energy, focus and organization within "The Movement".
I ask myself... "How did a Times Of India article with no other evidence make the phantom wire transfer and the ISI a hot topic for so long?"
Or
"How the heck does Sander Hicks get to go around talking about something as outlandish as the story of Dr. Graham?"
or "How do I get banned for refuting this bogus information on 9/11 Blogger? It is deemed too 'argumentative' and Jon Gold ends up as moderating 9/11 Blogger?"
If anyone researches their information it's really quite obvious. Now consider they both pushed pretty hard against controlled demolition. I'm feeling 'strange' even more!
If I sat down and wrote down the top 5 9/11 "Most Likely To Be Disinformation" topics, Jon Gold and Sander Hicks would be the proud owners of almost all of these topics.
Dr. Graham, Delmart Vreeland, Pakistani ISI, Randy Glass, Terrorist, Hijackers, Able Danger, Sibel
What else is there to know?
--------------------------
The Argument - Sander Hicks
9/11/2006 - 5yr anniversary
http://gnn.tv/articles/2558/Five_Years_Later_The_Official_Story_Falls_Ap...
The Argument -
"There are many ways to make The Argument. The recent media stories have focused on the “controlled demolition†theory, which posits that the buildings must have been brought down with explosives, since fire has never before collapsed a steel frame structure. The most popular exposition of this theory is “Loose Change II.†But controlled demolition is a bit of a straw dog. “Loose Change†is a well-edited, quickly paced 9/11 theory overview with good music. But it tends to incorporate the more esoteric of the many 9/11 conspiracy theories available.
Like the once-popular “no plane hit the Pentagon†theory, controlled demolition is a tall order. As “Loose Change II†morphs into the widely anticipated “Loose Change: Final Cut†(in which this reporter appears) the Megaphone and Loose Change teams find themselves working the same angle:
The Big Wedding
Hick's book 9/11 book "The Big Wedding" was edited and the forward written by Anthony Lappe' who, by his own words, was recruited and worked for the State Department as a propagandist 'training journalist in Palestine'. But, in his defence, the Columbia School of Journalism graduate 'didn't know' what the USIA was when he signed up.
Some choice quotes from Hick's buddy Lappe':
Anthony Lappe'
Anthony Lappe'
And yet Anthony Lappe' kicked off the very first 911 disinformation goose chase side-by-side with Sander Hicks when, together, they spread the 911 disinformation story about Delmart Vreeland, a known lair/con artist/obvious disinfo goof ball. Dig it up. It's called "Wildcard" and was the first 9/11 Truth goose chase ever. Sander Hicks is running around hopping around in Limos with the secret agent Delmart Vreeland. It's some really pathetic and fake cloak & dagger bullshit.
Anthony Lappe'
"The real racist tragedy is
"The real racist tragedy is when you have 9/11 people who know nothing about history or foreign policy or politics who advance theories that completely ignore smoking guns, like the CIA/ISI connection. Their theories tend to veer into the esoteric."
Sander Hicks
"The process of inquiry and dialogue and choice and rationality itself necessarily means that the lousy, kooky theories will be discarded by the process."
Sander Hicks (...a prophet perhaps?)
okay, JPass, but give a listen to what Sander said recently
http://noliesradio.org/archived-popular
There's an archived interview from April 7 on  Kevin Barrett's "Fair and Balaced" with Sander Hicks. Scroll down to find. I have to listen again, but I thought he mentioned Israel.
doesn't matter what he says now
he'll say anything to try to get back some credibility, just like some people will go ahead and embrace David Griffin, who doesn't believe there were any Arab hijackers, who doesn't think AA77 hit the Pentagon, who believes that the twin towers and building 7 were demolished with explosives, because they know that to continue to oppose him at this point would spell their end as convincing fake truthers, and hey, at least DRG pays some lip service to Able Danger, right? now where would the truth movement be if it had followed Hicks from the beginning? Or Ruppert? Where would we be if we didn't know when to dump people like Nico Haupt, Uncle Fetzer, Mike Delaney, or Dan Hopsicker?
Delmart Vreeland...
...was Mike Ruppert's "smoking gun" in Crossing the Rubicon. I remember getting all excited until I realized what it was all about. This guy had basically scrawled something illegible on a napkin that Ruppert and others somehow interpretd as "Osama bin Laden is going to attack America". It made absolutely no sense, and later we would see Ruppert "melt down", "quit the movement", and move to Venezuela. The message we were suppose to get was clear--give up hope, truthers, we lost! Pathetic.
-gReT
hah get a laugh
Sander had his own Delmart Vreeland: Wild Card fiasco. In retrospect, it was soooo goofy. Delmart Vreeland had Sander Hicks running around town jumping into this limo, switching to another limo. Thank god as these guys were playing cloak n' dagger we had people like DRG doing solid research and producing valuable and usable information.
for Sander with love
http://www.cooks.com/rec/search/0,1-0,crow,FF.html
ah yes...
Col. Sander's Kentucky Fried Crow recipe!
?
Is that JG denying what Kate said about their uncomfortable meeting? (anonymice post is below this post but possibly not visible to all)
who knows?
could've been a disruptor pretending to be him, but yes for the record someone claiming to be Jon Gold said that what he *actually* told Kate was to tell us all to fuck off. And I deleted it because we don't let anonymous posters a) claim to be someone specific or b) insult us with foul language.
The jerk has no shame. I
The jerk has no shame. I guess you need to have none in order to work as a disinfo agent.
I'm as likely to suspect...
...that it was someone's (not JG, i.e.) way of causing trouble.
that never
was heard by my ears...it was a very brief encounter, as i was in line for book signing and turned quickly from JG to DRG....
whattt?
jon gold was very polite
as I suspected
someone trying to stir up trouble. someone seems to think we wuz all born yesserday!
thanks
Sir Gret...for keepin' it clean~
who is this someone? any
who is this someone? any hints?
apparently Jon Gold denies he agreed that "demolition is it"
http://www.911blogger.com/node/16943#comment-215077
Just pointing out a lie...
"Kate of the Kiosk" DID approach me during the event where I introduced David Griffin, however, I NEVER said anything to her other than to tell her friends to stop being assholes.
Edit: Oh yea... almost forgot... sorry, no, I don't have any "handlers." Other people, I'm not so sure of.
Submitted by Jon Gold on Thu, 08/27/2009 - 10:17am.
no mention of assholes, unless
it was after i turned around....
Is Jon Gold then implying
Is Jon Gold then implying that KoK is lying? There are only 2 outcomes to the question, as Kok wrote:
"...Later as I approached DRG for book signing, Jon was unavoidably right there, so, after a pause and another eye-to-eye, i reached out a hand. "Ahh, Kate of the Kiosk! you're part of that WTCDemolition group!"..."Yeah, Jon, (wagging my finger at him) looks like demolition is it." JG: "Yeah it sure does now!" ..."
Given Jon Gold's long record of lying - such as claiming that WTC was not demolished (given all the evidence that has already been presented to him) - I trust Kok's word on this.
Jon Gold, shame on you. Man up to what you said. If you want to flip flop on what you think, go ahead and just admit you made a mistake, but don't claim not to have said what you already did.
After a couple of
After a couple of 911blogger's voiced support for CIT in a Stephen Jones Pentagon thread,lemming YT swoops in to break up the "circle jerk". I swear, the more that obvious shills and morons like YT and Arabesque and others attack CIT the more I look at the work they do. :
http://www.911blogger.com/node/21024
Professional disinfo police(self appointed) Arabesque and Victoria Hoffman hould be showing up shortly to smack some knuckles im sure. The more things change.......
I noticed...
...that unlike all other pentagon threads, this one at 911blogger was actually put in the "news" section rather than the "blog" section, meaning it might reach some new people. That's exactly what happened; apparently metallus2 had missed all the previous CIT conversations. He posts the youtube link, says "what I've watched so far is good" and then proceeds to be surprised by the downvotes.
Chris Sarns is still trying to have his cake and eat it too, arguing for both a north side approach and an impact. Adam Syed said it best: "Everyone across the spectrum from Jim Hoffman to Pat Curley understands that a north approach rules out an impact."
Yeah, it's good to see that
Yeah, it's good to see that not everybody there is a zombie of the Arabesque/Jules/YT/Hoffman/Gold/Col. Jenny/I could go on and on variety. Just most of them. Speaking of which, Im kind of surprised this AtomicBomb guy hasnt been booted yet considering hes calling some of these people on their bullshit.