Julian Assange of Wikileaks is a 9/11 conspiracy denier?

"I believe in facts about conspiracies," he {Julian Assage of Wikileaks} says, choosing his words slowly. "Any time people with power plan in secret, they are conducting a conspiracy. So there are conspiracies everywhere. There are also crazed conspiracy theories. It's important not to confuse these two. Generally, when there's enough facts about a conspiracy we simply call this news." What about 9/11? "I'm constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud." {more}


So what's really going on here with Julian? You might think having the scoop of the century about the secrets of 9/11 would be the ultimate Wikileaks goal. Or is there something deeper and possibly sinister in store for whistleblowers who could be ready to talk or release verifiable information? Is Wikileaks a limited hangout or even worse, a trap? Or is Assange just trying to keep himself safe by calling 9/11 a 'false conspiracy?'

He never stays in one place more than two nights. Is that because the CIA wants to kill him? "Is it in the CIA's interest to assassinate me? Maybe. But who would do it?" Isn't he brave to appear in public? "Courage is an intellectual mastery of fear," he says. "It's not that you don't have fear, you just manage your risks intelligently."

h/t Facts Not Fairies

Wikileaks calls for more leakers to step into its spider's web

Julian Assange of Wikileaks is a 9/11 conspiracy denier?

"I believe in facts about conspiracies," he {Julian Assage of Wikileaks} says, choosing his words slowly. "Any time people with power plan in secret, they are conducting a conspiracy. So there are conspiracies everywhere. There are also crazed conspiracy theories. It's important not to confuse these two. Generally, when there's enough facts about a conspiracy we simply call this news." What about 9/11? "I'm constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud." {more}


So what's really going on here with Julian? You might think having the scoop of the century about the secrets of 9/11 would be the ultimate Wikileaks goal. Or is there something deeper and possibly sinister in store for whistleblowers who could be ready to talk or release verifiable information? Is Wikileaks a limited hangout or even worse, a trap? Or is Assange just trying to keep himself safe by calling 9/11 a 'false conspiracy?'

He never stays in one place more than two nights. Is that because the CIA wants to kill him? "Is it in the CIA's interest to assassinate me? Maybe. But who would do it?" Isn't he brave to appear in public? "Courage is an intellectual mastery of fear," he says. "It's not that you don't have fear, you just manage your risks intelligently."

h/t Facts Not Fairies

Wikileaks calls for more leakers to step into its spider's web

The Wikileaks Video Missing Moments

 
The fact that the video was edited doesn't take away from the evidence of the atrocity. It just brings up more questions as to what is the psyops being played out here and ultimately 'who benefits.'






The 30-minute gap

Wikileaks left a 30-minute gap in its Iraq slaughter presentation, a gap which contained material somewhat less damning to the Pentagon, leaving a hole right-wingers can drive a propaganda truck through. This gap seems to put Wikileaks back into the category of Pentagon media manipulation tool. {from xymphora}

Update from Gawker

Wikileaks editor Jullian Assange told CNN yesterday that the 39 minute video is "everything we have. It is a continuous take except for one 20 minute interval." So, Wikileaks did not edit the video themselves—their source did. But the point still stands: both the "edited" and the "full" version appear to have been selectively edited. Why leave in the second attack after the cut? And how can this be called an "uncut" or "unedited" version—the implication being that this video depicts what "really happened"—when 20 minutes of less-incriminating footage was removed? It also deepens the mystery of Wikileak's military source: Who is so disgruntled as to not only leak the video, but also edit out the slightest bit of redeeming footage? {more}

The Wikileaks Video Missing Moments

 
The fact that the video was edited doesn't take away from the evidence of the atrocity. It just brings up more questions as to what is the psyops being played out here and ultimately 'who benefits.'






The 30-minute gap

Wikileaks left a 30-minute gap in its Iraq slaughter presentation, a gap which contained material somewhat less damning to the Pentagon, leaving a hole right-wingers can drive a propaganda truck through. This gap seems to put Wikileaks back into the category of Pentagon media manipulation tool. {from xymphora}

Update from Gawker

Wikileaks editor Jullian Assange told CNN yesterday that the 39 minute video is "everything we have. It is a continuous take except for one 20 minute interval." So, Wikileaks did not edit the video themselves—their source did. But the point still stands: both the "edited" and the "full" version appear to have been selectively edited. Why leave in the second attack after the cut? And how can this be called an "uncut" or "unedited" version—the implication being that this video depicts what "really happened"—when 20 minutes of less-incriminating footage was removed? It also deepens the mystery of Wikileak's military source: Who is so disgruntled as to not only leak the video, but also edit out the slightest bit of redeeming footage? {more}