Monday, April 15, 2002

Mike Vreeland is out on bail from his extradiction hearing, and they've apparently slowed up in trying to extradict him. He has also claimed refugee status in Canada (meaningless, as anyone can claim refugee status - he'll have a tough time proving his claim before a refugee board as the United States isn't usually considered to be a refugee-producing country). These are good tactical positions to be in, as he has bought himself quite a bit of time in Canada. If his story is true, the fact they haven't killed him is presumably due to his notoriety. He has also been giving interviews and writing letters to his doubters. He says three very interesting things in his Ruppert interview:

  1. When asked "What part of the U.S. government did you work for? Was it the CIA?", he replied: "I worked for U.S. Naval intelligence. What the CIA directs us to do is their business, so we have no way of knowing whether we're working for them or not." That fine distinction is very well put.

  2. He says that his information came from a ". . . document [that] was written in English by a U.S. agent, who had picked up a copy of a document that had been sent to V. Putin by K. Hussein, Saddam Hussein's son." That means that Iraq had prior knowledge, and had notified the Russians! (Might the Americans have information on Iraqi involvement in 9-11 that they can't divulge because it would also prove American foreknowledge of 9-11?)

  3. He indicates that the U. S. had 'without question' penetrated the terrorist cells.

His credibility is damaged by his talking of 'red mercury' as that is a term that only appears in spy novels and tracts written for U. S. hillbillies who fear suitcase nukes made from red mercury sold by those dirty commie Russians. In spite of the unnecessary and credibility-damaging enhancements, his basic story still makes some sense. He managed to predict the 9-11 tragedy and made his concerns obvious enough prior to September 11. He knew before anyone else that Marc Bastien had been murdered. The dramatic courtroom call to the Pentagon proves he has some connection to the Pentagon, despite their denials. Given what we know of various government warnings to the United States, not to mention that a large Israeli spy ring was concentrating on the people who would turn out to be the hijackers (the odd specific Odigo warnings made on the morning of September 11 seem to indicate a lot of Israeli foreknowledge), we can be fairly certain that at least some parts of the U. S. government had specific knowledge that the September 11 attacks were about to occur. Were internal U. S. government warnings lost in the sheer amount of information that was available to them, or were the warnings not believed by those in control? Or was a decision made to use the September 11 terrorism for the ends of the U. S. junta, who then stood down the normal air defence and staged the Pentagon attack?