WikiLeaks Discrediting Someone by Calling Them a "9/11 Conspiracy Theorist"?
I've been told before that WikiLeaks upholds the mainstream narrative of the September 11, 2001 attacks in the U.S. I never looked into it though. But as I scrolled through the WikiLeaks feed a few days ago, I saw a retweet from @WikiLeaks for an MSNBC video that quoted them:
What kind of Senator provides an unquestioning platform for a Infowars 9/11 conspiracy theorist with a long history of lying and conceals the established facts which demonstrate exactly the opposite: the tape was moved to the day of WikiLeaks' publication?
Source
The person WikiLeaks refers to is Jerome Corsi. WikiLeaks was responding to Sen. Richard Blumenthal, who himself responded to WikiLeaks on MSNBC by saying:
"It's not about me, it really is about what the Special Counsel knows and can prove about Wikileaks coordinating with the Trump campaign"
Source
WikiLeaks wanted to discredit Corsi, and they did it by casting him as a "9/11 conspiracy theorist." You only call people that to devalue what their saying, to discredit them. This indicates to me that WikiLeaks in general, or whoever controls the Twitter account, either accepts the mainstream official version of 9/11, or if not, at the very least doesn't like alternative theories to be talked about.
Calling someone a "9/11 conspiracy theorist" is done by those who accept the official 9/11 narrative. It's done to discredit what someone is saying, not by demonstrating what they are saying is wrong or false, but by trying to assassinate their character.
WikiLeaks (or someone in charge of the Twitter account) seems to have little respect for people who question the establishment version of the 9/11 event. Otherwise, they wouldn't have used the term "9/11 conspiracy theorist" to try to discredit someone or devalue what they say when 9/11 or questioning the official narrative has no bearing on the matter at hand.
Thank you for your time and attention. Peace.
If you appreciate and value the content, please consider: Upvoting, Sharing or Reblogging below.
me for more content to come!
Like what I do? Then consider giving me a vote on the Witness page :) Thanks!
My goal is to share knowledge, truth and moral understanding in order to help change the world for the better. If you appreciate and value what I do, please consider supporting me as a Steem Witness by voting for me at the bottom of the Witness page.
I'm going to guess whoever has control of the Twitter page thought they were being clever using the terminology. I don't follow the Q thing, as it seems a bit of a psiop to me and from what I remember Corsi is one of the main advocates for their messages. Going to guess he has had the hat hung on him from elsewhere so guessing the Twitter person for Wiki decided to use it to hit at him.
For sure, I consider Q a psyop as well. This hacker is far too favorable to the alt-right.
For a while Q was popular on Steemit too - like wikileaks still is - eventually people woke up to what utter bollocks it is, but for a while some whales were promoting it heavily - suspicious much?
LOL - we are CIA..
Bots much?
Maybe @v4vapid has a comment on this?
Or @ausbitbank?
I personally don't have much to add except that such comments do not do wikileaks any favours.
Like @krnel, I've been aware of this aspect of WL for some time and it really does irk me as the 9-11 official story is so full of holes one has to bend over backwards and contort themselves into impossible positions in order to buy into that abysmal fraud.
That being said - I think it's important to remember that the WL twitter account is shared by multiple individuals who may have different beliefs when it comes to 9-11 and conspiracies.
On one hand, I think it's unfortunate that over the years Wikileaks and Assange have refused to call 9-11 the false flag that considering the available evidence.
On the other hand, I think that this relates more to the perceived credibility of Wikileaks in public opinion and in the broader media landscape. Just imagine how WL would be portrayed in the msm if they publicly claimed 9-11 was an inside job / false flag?!
Think about how WL is being smeared RIGHT NOW as a tool of the Kremlin.
The msm would have a field day with headlines of "9-11 deniers Wikileaks are in the news today this time claiming..." - Just pause and imagine this for a moment. It could completely destroy the trust and credibility they have built up over the years. Instead of shedding light on corporate and government crimes they're forced to spend increasing amounts of time and energy on the smear campaigns against them by 'reputable' publishers like the Guardian. Or fighting JA's extradition to the US via the UK (and Sweden) for alleged sex crimes.
I completely sympathize with people who think WL is compromised because they do not subscribe to the 9-11 conspiracy. However, could it also be possible that WL is simply holding themselves to a higher standard as publishers. As individuals, maybe many (or all) of them see 9-11 for what it truly is but they simply do not have the documentation/evidence to back it up and therefore refrain from making claims that they cannot substantiate and could make the organization look foolish.
If they ever did come out and speak about 911 truth I think a good portion of the public would fully support them but the US propaganda machine and msm would work day and night to discredit and destroy WL (as they're already doing). Sadly, even with tangible evidence the US population prefers to remain ignorant and asleep and may not be receptive to it. The knowledge of the truth behind 9-11 would be too difficult for many to face. I'm sure you've met people, as I have, that when presented with 9-11 evidence (Building 7, NORAD drills, hijacker incompetence, etc) they vehemently defend the officially story. So it's quite possible that they see taking a public stand on this position is a losing battle.
TL;DR
Perhaps Wikileaks prefers to maintain their journalistic credibility than to acknowledge a 911 conspiracy without documented evidence.
Thanks for your detailed response here. I personally do sense a bit of protective intention in your angle here ;)
I think that the nature of the evidence for 911 is clear to anyone who looks and given the massive amount of data available and wikileaks' speciality in looking into such data, it's too much of a stretch for me to say that that they just don't have the evidence available to challenge the mainstream narrative. I appreciate and respect the idea that they might not want to cross the boundary of being lumped in with 'crazy 911 conspiracy theorists' without total and absolute evidence of exactly what happened (which could possibly only come in the form of numerous perpetrators openly admitting to it.. but even then it could be denied).. however, here's the thing.. They could just never mention 911 and remain neutral on it, but they haven't - they have specifically chosen to side with the mainstream BS narrative - as far as I can see. They are, of course, free to do what they like - but it's not really demonstrative of journalistic credibility to me for them to do that. What if they decide that they don't like a certain sub group of humans next week - what does that imply about their impartiality?
I'm not accusing wikileaks of anything and I have literally no idea who is even running it at this point - I just see this as an eye opening event in their story.
I do think that given the evidence of Assange's background in some kind of cult as a child and other aspects to all of this - it is sensible to consider wikileaks just as likely to be compromised as any other group. I don't hold them in any special category in that regard, I consider ALL humans to be open to compromise in the most unexpected ways and have seen it in realtime in my own life several times with people close to me.
Remain vigilant! :)
Yes, these same thoughts also occurred to me. Why not say nothing on the topic if they don't have evidence...why make these sorts of comments about "conspiracy theorists"?
legit reaction, imo. why say something at all?
possibilities:
Honestly though, I can't say or know what the reason is.
As for the chance Wikileaks decides they don't like a particular subgroup of humans... that seems rather extreme, don't you think?
Before JA was silenced, they were vocal supporters of the Catalonian independence (which has been used to silence JA in the embassy). I think their track record of supporting the oppressed is quite clear.
I mentioned the unlikely possibility of them targeting a sub group of humans, not because I think it is likely to occur, but because to me, taking such a position on 911 is demonstrative of being biased, just as it would be biased to say that "all 'insert racial group here's are idiots". To me it's pretty extreme to substantiate the NIST report. lol
:)
It's just a dumb position for them to take - if they are trying to not lose credibility, they need a strategy for that which doesn't lose them credibility ;)
WikiLeaks is just as trustworthy as other sources, but I'm confident they get things right most of the time. In this case, they're wrong since they themselves even threatened to release documents pertaining to the 9/11 case (and the redacted 28 pages, when that was a thing).
Yeah, they are pretty decent all around ;)
Interesting, I do like how you refer to the one who controls the account though instead of a blanket statement about the organization.
I wonder what the motive behind that is.
Posted using Partiko iOS
Could be to distance themselves from that group, or they just dont like 9/11 alt theories ;)
It's just another form of control. Most don't want to be shamed or scorned for their opinions, and the powers-that-control the media's narrative know this and abuse it.
Like with anything these days, one has to do just a little research to realize that the public at large has been lied to on a grand scale.
As Shakespeare once wrote, "All the world is a stage."
Yup, it's a big act by actors/liars who step on truth to get ahead.
Very interesting! I had not seen this.
It puts a twist on things. Have you seen Josh Reeves movies ? The Secret Right volumes 1 and 2?
Posted using Partiko iOS
No I have not. What are those about?
They cover a deeper look into council for national policy and others and shows how they control and create conspiracies to further there agenda. Good info.
Posted using Partiko iOS
If they had labeled Jesse Ventura that way, I wouldn't have a problem with it either.
Corsi does a dis-service to humanity, so did Venturas 9/11 appearances in shows.
So... ...nothing definitively negative to me by wikileaks.
Understandable. Ventura on 9/11 was pretty lame brain shit indeed.
Personally, I wear that intended "disparagement" as a badge of honor.
It's "conspiracy fact relater," though, to be accurate.
I'm a bit embarrassed to admit this, but for 2 1/2 years on Steemit I've been putting a sock in it and trying not offend whales. But that shit is all over now. What I really think:
Wikileaks is a zionist psyop and Julian Assange is con man and a shill. I know a bunch of other people on Steemit think the same, but big money (CIA?) on Steemit worships wikileaks like the holy grail, so we say nothing. Bugger that - wikileaks is a scam.
http://www.maskofzion.com/2010/10/wikileaks-is-zionist-poison.html
Wikileaks is only as good as their sources, they have an agenda just like any other organization. If they didn't have an agenda then they would drop the news as soon as it could be verified as true instead of "waiting for the right moment". They are playing politics.
Wikileaks is pure zionist propaganda (like all media)
"it is one of the biggest disinformation projects in modern history, and it may be the most dangerous because it is masquerading as an organization of truth. The information released by Wikileaks isn’t new; it isn’t groundbreaking; it doesn’t hurt the US as much as people think, it’s fractional really; and it is overloaded with as much as propaganda as the day-to-day Zionist media is"
http://www.maskofzion.com/2010/10/wikileaks-is-zionist-poison.html
Hi @frot, I imagine I'm among the 'whales' that worship WL. I've had a lot of open and candid discussions about WL as psyops with @steemtruth and even supported his research on the topic.
https://steemit.com/wikileaks/@steemtruth/deconstructing-julian-assange-and-wikileaks-his-childhood-in-a-cult
While I disagree with @steemtruth's conclusions, I always respected the research and the cordial discussions (on discord - P.A.L.) we had about the topic.
Something that I hear often from WL detractors is that they do not have leaks that expose Israel or Russia. Just to test out this theory I went to the WL webpage and entered 'mossad' and got 10,000 hits for the query.
Here's one from the Global Intelligence Files labeled "Mossad ran 9/11 Arab "hijacker" terrorist operation"
https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/13/1332210_-analytical-and-intelligence-comments-mossad-ran-9-11-arab.html
Certainly, this is a single file and a Wayne Madsen article that was emailed btw operatives but there are literally 10-of-thousands of files on Israel.
Maybe the question is, has anyone gone through this material? Is there anything damaging towards Israel/mossad in WL? Are the files simply 'disinformation' as your link suggests?
To tell you the truth, IDK. I like to search through the archive as a hobby but I'm just one person and cannot claim to know what is or is not in there and what may be significant likely depends on the one's focus and interests.
I can only say that from my own experience with the archive is that I've learn some very valuable things from its documents that I would not have known about or found anywhere else.
Maybe #deepdives will do a special Isreal/Russia edition in the future - not that it can prove/disprove your theory about WL in general but it might be interesting at least ;)
I know we disagree on this point, but I agree with you about a bunch of other stuff.
I do think steemtruth was bang on in that post!
And really - there is no excuse for their 911 cover up!
I love the way bots with 51,000 SP delegations "don't play favourites" Yeah right!
But at least back in Aug 16 some bots actually called themselves bots - now that most of the accounts on Steemit are various types of bots they are not so obvious.
Although even back in Aug 16 most of the really powerful bots were fully set up and are still running things now
Hi @krnel!
Your post was upvoted by @steem-ua, new Steem dApp, using UserAuthority for algorithmic post curation!
Your UA account score is currently 7.363 which ranks you at #61 across all Steem accounts.
Your rank has not changed in the last three days.
In our last Algorithmic Curation Round, consisting of 111 contributions, your post is ranked at #83.
Evaluation of your UA score:
Feel free to join our @steem-ua Discord server