Home » Blogs » juandelacruz's blog

Sibel Edmond's new 9-11 truth free website

juandelacruz's picture
Submitted by juandelacruz on Mon, 2009-05-18 02:07.

SE has a new website 123 Real Change at:

http://www.123realchange.blogspot.com/

For someone who is touted by Jon Gold and 911blogger.com as an important figure on 9-11, her site seems to have no relation at all to 9-11 truth.

In 2 days, there are suppose to be new whistle blower posts according to http://www.911blogger.com/node/20117

If they are anything like her past revelations I would fall asleep trying to read them. Searching her testimony for relevance to 9-11 is like looking for a needle in a haystack (and finding out there is no needle).

Another kick to the ribs of that placidly still equine lying on its side called LIHOP. No offense to the species Larry H.

»

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
juandelacruz's picture

Note to real whistleblowers

Submitted by juandelacruz on Mon, 2009-05-18 03:49.

If you are a real whistleblower, be very careful posting it on Sibel's website. She may be a mole planted in the truth movement to inject false info.

What makes me think she is tainted or works for the wrong side? If you follow her story, she was heavily touted in the truth movement as holding secrets so important that she had to be gagged by so many court orders and what not. She was hyped to make people believe that what she knew would bust the 9-11 case wide open. The hype kept on coming and coming and people got tired of waiting for what she had to say. Then in articles here and there (British papers) she revealed what she knew. Look them up yourself, they were mostly on corruption, espionage, weapons smuggling. None of them were directly related to 9-11 and they were compatible with LIHOP, a version of 9-11 truth that has been discredited and at worst is a manipulation of narratives to let the real perpetrators get away.

So, if you have any secrets to tell for the greater good, do so, but be very careful about Sibel and her website.

»
Annoymouse's picture

I second that Juan

Submitted by Annoymouse on Mon, 2009-05-18 13:19.

Juan, my feelings about Sibel match your own.

»
juandelacruz's picture

What is Sibel's take on CD?

Submitted by juandelacruz on Mon, 2009-09-21 05:48.

In a comments section Sibel says she will delete discussions of CD. She states no direct position on whether she believes in CD or not.

Sibel Edmonds said...

Zica:
the first question: For now, yes. This site is focused on the MSM, macro issues such as our civil liberties, secrecy...Because of various groups who have blended with the 9/11 cause bringing in disrespectful, irrational, and simply nonsense attitude I chose to distance myself from the entire topic 2 years ago. This is the case also with several dozens credible government intel/law enforcement WBs, 9/11 family members, and solid independent journalists I know. It is unfortunate, but it's the reality. It's a free Internet blog world. There are 1000s of sites dedicated to various speculations/theories; which is fine. People can go there and talk about it as much as they want. They don't belong here, and I don't want to get distracted by theory/speculation overload; neither do I want to take away from solid discussions/comments posted by those I respect. This is the last time I am writing about this.

Question2: I don't know who he is. So far I have 10 people booked, and that takes care of the next 3-4 months. We'll discuss the next series when the time comes.

July 23, 2009 9:56 AM

 

http://123realchange.blogspot.com/2009/07/podcast-show-1.html

What is the problem here? Controlled demolition (CD) skeptics and deniers have one thing usually in common - they support the story that Muslim terrorists were mainly responsible for the WTC attacks. The CD theory cuts the crap because it becomes impossible to reconcile Muslim terrorists as the instigators and relegates them to a patsy role - whoever wired the WTC buildings with explosives becomes the most direct link to the top of the conspiracy. In my opinion, it is for this reason Jon Gold tries his best to discredit CD.

Sibel Edmonds is here avoiding CD, in fact banning discussions of CD. She is also not stating her position on the issue. If she states now that she believes in CD, she will lock down her options in the future. Kevin Ryan tried to spin CD along with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Pres. Bush, fortunately that idiotic story did not get traction at all ( http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2314 ). If she says she does not believe in CD, she will look downright stupid and loose credibility in the truth movement.

I posit a guess that avoiding CD is to keep her options open to introduce a new 9-11 narrative in the future (most likely a false one).

»
gretavo's picture

I have little doubt that Sibel Edmonds is insincere

Submitted by gretavo on Mon, 2009-09-21 14:01.

We're well beyond the point of giving her the benefit of the doubt. Her words are reminiscent of the Daily Kos argument that "there are plenty of places to discuss those things, this is not one of them". It's a way of implying you don't agree without having to actually say it--that in itself is quite deceptive, in my opinion. Moreover, we know that her claims, while possibly true, have little bearing on 9/11 itself, except insofar as one accepts that bin Laden had anything to do with the destruction of life and property on that day. Sibel Edmonds and her promoters need to be shunned by the truth movement--her case is yet another litmus test that readily identifies fake truthers.

»