A *serious* question about DU'ers relaying info re: Attacks on the US

[Heddi]

Hi Everyone!

I'm making this thread because as most everyone knows, recently there has been alot of talk about impending attacks on the US.

In light of the warnings that have been spoken about on DU, I was wondering if there have been other warnings, either public or private, by DUers. I ask this because at one time in the past, I received a warning of an impending attack on a city in the US from a DUer. I was wondering if anyone else has received or seen any other warnings of this nature?

I'm really interested to know because I was PERSONALLY told about an impending attack BY A DU'ER over the telephone. This wasn't something I read here and extrapolated a sinister meaning. It wasn't something I read in the paper. It was a phone call. A dire warning. I was told to leave the city I live in because THERE WOULD BE A NUCLEAR DETONATION.

I stayed, and there was nothing even remotely sinister that occured that weekend, other than having my cats vomit on my cellular biology note cards---which, unfortunately, I cannot blame on another DU'er. I must blame myself for that, having fed my cats cheap cat-food earlier in the day.

So anyone else? Or am I the only one that got privy information that turned out to be...er...less than exact?

[Shakespeare]

1. Yup. A loooong time ago, few days after 9/11

Got an "urgent" warning from another DUer (who I liked and trusted at the time) warning me that the west coast water supply had been, shall we say, seriously compromised. That's serious shit in SoCal--but it turned out to be nothing, just like yours.

[Heddi]

4. Here's what happened to me:

It was around March of last year or so. I was studying for my bio final that was coming up in a week.

I got a call from a DU'er (I'll call her "A") who told me that she had spoken to another DU'er (I'll call him "B") who called her in a frantic state stating that (basically, paraphrasing) he was getting the hell out of Seattle (where I and the 2 other DU'ers live) asap and we'd be best to as well.

I asked "A" what the hell this was all about, and she said that "B" had told her he had credible evidence of a nuclear attack that was supposed to happen in Seattle that coming weekend. I asked how "B" knew this, and she said (and of this I'm pretty sure) "Have you ever heard of MIKE Vreeland?". I didn't know who this Mike character was--_I thought it was another DU'er or something. Then she said "he's the one that wrote that letter before 9/11 that had it detailed out".

I'd seen a post or two about that letter on DU, so I had a vague idea who she was talking about.

Apparently, Mike Vreeland was in touch with "B" and told him that he had credible evidence that a nuclear device was going to be detonated in Seattle that weekend. So "B" hauled ass out of town.

I don't know if "A" left. SHe sounded skeptical but wanted me to know.

I was conflicted because I had a REALLY BIG biology test in a few days, and biology is a required course for the Nursing Program and that would set me back a whole QUARTER if I didn't take the test. Add to the fact that biology classes have HUGE waitlists---I decided to stick it out in Seattle, studying all weekend long.

Amazingly...nothing happened that weekend.

I'd be a liar if I said I wasn't tense--I was. But not tense enough to leave, and I'd feel wholly like a fool if I did leave.

NOTHING happened that weekend. NOTHING in Seattle or any other city i n the US.

It's interesting to know that doomsday scenarios have floated around to others, as well.

[sangh0]

6. Are you saying that "B" is a "she"??

I had a female DUer recommend another DUer for some charity from me. The request from this female DUer was unsolicited, and came after a few PM's from her, PM's which in hindsight, seemed designed to win my trust.

I sent the person a bank check and received a promise of repayment within a specific time frame. I never heard back from the recipient and I've wondered since then if I had been set up.

[Heddi]

8. No..."A:" is a she, "B" is a he

sorry for any confusion on that area.

Don't know if you've been set up, though.

Did your charity case happen to have a set of bad teeth? (I ask because I was solicited for funds for someone as well, but I'm too poor for me and Mr. Heddi, much less for some internet stranger)

[sangh0]

45. thanks

I must have gotten confused

:-)

[Dorian Gray]

130. Hmmm..

That's interesting. I didn't start reading DU until about a year ago, so I wasn't privy to anything of that nature.

Were these warnings one on one? Or were they posted as messages for all to see? And what do you think their motivations were? To frighten people more? Or do you think that they really heard rumors that they were trying to pass along nicely?

I heard so many stories about planned attacks right after 9-11. People said that their friends heard it through friends of friends. They were all bullshit. But, of course, I was trying to determine the motivation of people I knew to pass this information along.

[aquart]

2. Please, I've been hearing that since 9/11.

Stopped going to the TAPA board because a member couldn't stop telling me how I was going to be vaporized in the blast.

Here's the thing. Lots of people have nukes. It takes a lot to detonate a nuke. Now we know the explosives used for detonation are on the market. However, there's still the problem of delivery. If someone, after 9/11, can still fly a plane, a bomber or any other, into New York airspace and detonate, we don't deserve to survive anyway. Really.

I'm hearing that the Minneapololis St. Paul area has moved a lot of equipment. I don't know what the stuff is actually for. But that is a spread out area near Canada, right? (Have no idea, personally.) If having the heartland blow up under his watch makes BushCo think they have an excuse to declare martial law, they will be unpleasantly surprised.

None of their decisions are turning out as they expected. They are dripping flopsweat. The idea of a terrorist attack might be attractive, but the wildcard is that Spain TURNED THE BASTARDS OUT. They didn't keep their government, they tossed it.

As for martial law, BushCo does not have the troop strength to enforce it. Our army and reserve units have been gutted for this vanity war.

But if George does try it, I have one response for the aftermath: nationalize the oil industry. They have not functioned in the best interests of the nation.

[sangh0]

5. About the moving of equipment is Minn, St Paul area

There's is an 80 acre armory in the area that is usually filled with military equipment. A DUer received an email saying that a freind of the sender's had passed by the armory and noticed the nearly ALL of the equipment was no longer there.

Another poster was told by a freind (who was a trucker) that he had seen more than one military convoy on the highways in the area.

This led some to the conclusion that these were signs of a military deployment. It turns out that the armory being discussed was being abandoned, and that a large number of NG's were shipping out to Iraq from the area. The convoys may very well have been the NG unit's equipment.

Besides, even if there really is an impending attack, I really doubt this conspiracy is so widespread that an entire military unit is in one it. I also find it highly unlikely that any portion of the US military is going to invade St Paul.

[The Magistrate]

9. Well, You Know, Sir

Second-line state militia equipment is the one thing any government could be relied on to evacuate to safety in event of an impending nuclear strike....

"On the whole, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."

[sangh0]

11. I was wondering if someone would mention something like that

and the response is to point out that might let the cat out of the bag. After 9/11, the reports that FEMA had scheduled an exercise in the area has resulted in all sorts of suspicions.

It doesn't make sense to me that they would want to destroy a city, but save some trucks and equipment.

[northernsoul]

15. a few thoughts about that

There is an old armory / munitions plant in a suburb called Arden Hills, which is a 2nd-ring suburb north of Saint Paul.

I believe that this location was either shut down entirely for military usage in the early 1990's or massively scaled back. There was talk about opening a casino at that location a few years ago. They set up a public archery range on the eastern fringe.

This location is pretty close to I-694, which is one of the most-travelled freeways in the Twin Cities Metro, and frequently jammed up. There's no way the military could have done a mass convoy of material out of this location without causing a traffic meltdown, which would've been covered extensively by the local media (Twin Citians looove to complain about traffic on the 494/694 ring freeways). I think that even if they'd moved out at 3 a.m., it would've gotten attention, as the area is completely surrounded by residential neighborhoods.
If this place is still even in use by the military, the more likely explanation is that equipment is getting shipped out because it's being sent to Iraq

My gut feeling on this whole Vreeland deal is that it doesn't even come close to passing the smell test - in fact, it stinks worse than the proverbial three day floater. I do not appreciate some people scaring the hell out of us Twin Cities DUers by dropping cryptic references to our lives and homes being obliterated because it gives them some sort of thrill to feel like they're "in the know" on some bullshit conspiracy theory. We've got plenty of stress and anxiety going on right now due to events that are occuring here in reality without being told we'll die horrible deaths within the next few days. I'm sure engaging in all sorts of wild speculation is very titilating for some people out there, but please remember that real people who live in the real world are affected by the things you say.

[sangh0]

16. Yes, Arden Hills was the armory that was being discussed

Thanks for your info

[myrna minx]

34. Hear hear, NS.

We Minnesotans are real people with real loved ones who are affected by the speculations made by people here.

[seemslikeadream]

144. I am here to call you on any misstatements you make. Link?

so others don't take your gossip as gospel. I have no intention of answering any of your questions. If you do not link to statements you attribute to other posters I want others to realize that you're missrepresenting what's been said.

[pelagius]

3. It seems to me...

...that if there are DU members well-connected enough to have accurate information about impending attacks -- and there may be such members -- then it is highly unlikely they will be spreading this information to private individuals who are relative strangers through personal phone calls.

Those connected DU members didn't rise to a position where they would be trusted with perhaps the most sensitive intelligence data our nation could have because they had a history of blabbing with Internet friends.

[Heddi]

7. To me, the most striking thing

is that the information I received last March was from a DU'er that I would suspect is a well-known poster by 98% of DU'ers who have been around for more than....6 months. He is well known on this board, and while I didn't necessarily trust the information he gave me (just because it seemed really implausable and besides--if a nuclear device WAS going to go off....I guess I'd probably rather be vaporized right up front than have to go through the decades-long reconstruction bullshit afterwards---but that's just me), it was given to me, and others, under the guise of "this is legit info".

but it wasn't.

And the newest "Armageddon Doomsday Duck and Cover" terror warnings that are being spouted around DU lately...I just don't think they're credible either.

And I don't view THIS fear-mongering (By Du'ers) as ANY DIFFERENT than the fear-mongering pushed by Bush, et.al (Buy Duct-Tape! Get Plastic! Dont' Do Anything but SHOP SHOP SHOP!!!)

People are getting stressed out over something that has a very high probability of NOT happening, and that's not cool.

Especially since the last time information of this nature came down the pike (to me, at least), it was 100% bonafide bullshit.

[The Magistrate]

10. Well Said, Ma'am!

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Dorian Gray]

133. Very good point! n/p

[shance]

12. Guess what Heddi? Your still here.

What if your DU friend had actually been correct?

Wouldnt you have been tremendously grateful? The other option would have been to wind up perhaps being vaporized.

No doubt, most of us greatly resent this Administration using threats and fear to control and immobilize Americans, and at the same time that doesnt mean they don't mean to make those threats real, atleast a few of them do, because as we have witnessed multiple times, they will use force, directly or covertly, and won't hesitate to do so, unless of course they are exposed.

Why do you think horrific situations are often tipped off. Because of the usage of our mouths, and many of the real heroes in our Intelligence. You and your city might perhaps have been salvaged by some courageous, caring people. You probably will never know. But today you are safe and sound. That in itself is something for all of us in the states to be grateful for and not take one day for granted, as I have been prone to do on more than one ocassion :)

I need to say Hedda, I wonder what the overall point is you are trying to make?

I would imagine and hope your intent is not to cast doubt on the gutsy and caring DUers who believe that this forum is a valuable tool for relaying important information to other individuals and to promote effective and positive change.

I myself worry far more about the individuals like one who is presently trying to shut down every investigative thread, acting like a bratty, obnoxious sixth grade and ruins the quality of the threads. Hes either a mole or he/shes simply a bitter, lonely jerk.

I do feel protective of DU because its a good place for free expression. It goes through its growth spurts but overall its a great venue.

[The Magistrate]

13. Oh, Please

"Investigative thread" is a damned odd way to express the meaning "rumor-mongering," fellow.

"The lives people try and lead...."

[shance]

22. Why Lord Magistrate, hast thou lost thy elegant words of response?

Who art thou to differentiate between an investigative thread and rumor-mongering.

Do inviduals have to be put in harm's way before its an official *investigative thread*.

[sangh0]

27. IMO, in order to be an "investigative thread" there ought to be some

investigation.

[Heddi]

31. One man's "investigative thread" is another person's "rumor Mongering"

I'm not spreading rumours. I'm telling the truth.

i'm relaying *MY* experience with a certain DU'er who has, in the past, made similar claims of impending nuclear doom. In the past, MY experience with this DU'er hasn't been as mind-shattering as I was told it would be.

Why is that rumor mongering???

Isn't it *JUST AS MUCH* rumor-mongering to tell Du'ers that live in a certain city that a tremendous catastrophe will maybe happen in their city, but maybe not, but there's been all this movevemnt, but it may be nothing, but you should be alert...you should be prepared...but if nothing comes out of it, you can't hold us responsible because we were just passing on information?

THAT Is rumor mongering.

I just asked a simple question---whether any other DU'ers had been contacted PRIVATELY (as I had) with warnings (as I had). I shared my experience, what I was told, what the originator of such information had done (and not done), and my perception if it.

That's not rumors. That's the cold hard fucking facts.

[sangh0]

37. Becauae, when some DUers post their experiences, they're courageous

but when you do it, it's rumor-mongering

[Heddi]

41. Ah yes. The old "up is down" argument

I remember that well. It seems to have taken legs as of late and grown into an entity all of its own.

I particularly like when *I* say something, it's just some chick on the internet.

But

when OTHER people say something, holy jesus god almighty. IT WAS WRITTEN ON THE INTERNET AND THEREFORE ERGO IT IS TRUE AND IF YOU QUESTION THE VERACITY OF A CLAIM MADE ON THE INTERNET YOU'RE ONE OF 'them'

:cue ominous music:

it's so clear

[Sterling]

53. " Who art thou"

It does get a little old doesn't it. You would think some poeple would realize it and cut the tired act.

[sangh0]

54. Some of the more wizened folks

appreciate wisdom, spoken intelligently.

[Sterling]

59. Yes it would be nice to see some.

Still waiting. Civil discourse is great too. Still waiting on that as well.
Why don't you stop peeing in the pool?

[sangh0]

61. I like my pool heated

.

[The Magistrate]

70. Thank You For The Laugh, Sir

The method is crude, but the warmth guaranteed....

[sangh0]

75. I took your word on it

You really CAN'T keep an honest man down.

(That's how it went, right?)

[The Magistrate]

82. Not Quite, Sir

You cannot cheat an honest man, and that is perfectly true. Just about every grifter's con in existance depends on offering someone the perception that they have a chance at some undeserved windfall or opportunity to take advantage of someone else in some way or other, and an honest person would turn down any such opportunity.

It applies, in my view, to these matters of "conspiracism" as well, although the good offered to most believers is not pecuniary, though of course the original promoters of these beliefs tend to profit by them. Instead, what is offered is an undeserved feeling of superiority, of being one of the initiated elect, of knowing things the common herd cannot fathom, and this without the work of study and understanding, and the rigor of assessing reliability in accordance with rules of evidence and standards of proof.

Once belief is given over, this feeling of superiority comes wrapped in an excellent mechanism for defense of the illusory priviledged status. Argument in opposition to the view is viewed as grounded in the ignorance and inferiority of those who do not share the initiation into the inner secrets. Any sources cited in opposition to the revealed word of the promoter are simply disinformation contrived to keep the herd ignorant, and can only impose on lesser creatures than an initiate. These lines will be stuck to hard, for to accept argument against the view is to threaten the feeling of superiority desired above all, and that would overthrow the whole construct of the personality.

"A thing that explains everything can explain nothing in particular."

[sangh0]

14. An investigative thread?

Could you tell me please, exactly what has been uncovered by the investigation?

[Heddi]

17. I'll thank you to use my name, HeddI, not heddA....but aside from that

I might have put more credibility into the threat if the person who was running around (literally) CONTINUOUSLY warning other DU'ers about impending this and verified that had actually GONE TO THE MEDIA with their fears.

But he didn't.

I know he didn't because when he warned about the LEGITIMATE, IMPENDING NUCLEAR ATTACK ON SEATTLE, I asked if he had gone to the media with it. I WORKED at a major news outlet in Seattle at the time. I gave this DU'er PERSONAL, non-published emails for news staff. NOTHING was ever reported. I know because I went in after that weekend and asked "hey, did you guys get a call/email/letter/morse-code from a person named XXX" and they said no. Got nothing.

If this was SO certain, SO legitimate, SO pending---why only notify the DU'ers in the area? Are non-DU Seattleites not worthy of saving their hides should the bombs start raining down?

Right before the call was made to me, the DU'er who was (and still is) making these accusations made a cryptic post on DU--something to the effect of "I'm leaving for a while. You might not see me. I can't tell you why. But if you don't see me again you'll know why but I can't tell you"---

The fact that no nuclear device was detonated in, on, or around Seattle has NOTHING to do with this DU'er---he had high-tailed it out of the fucking STATE when he made the warning call--ONLY TO DU'ers. To say that he was some courageous soul who saved the lives of millions is really going for a stretch.

He did nothing but plant fear and doubt in myself and others. My staying had nothing to do with him, and had I not had a biology final coming soon, I STILL wouldn't have left.

The point I'm trying to make (and I thought it was pretty clear) was that in March, 2003, the VERY LEGITIMATE AND VALID AND ALL KNOWING VREELAND character had personally tipped off another Du'er to a BONAFIDE, IMPENDING, NOTHING-YOU-CAN-DO-ABOUT-IT nuclear disaster that WAS GOING TO HAPPEN---not "May" happen, or "might" happen, or "Could Happen" But that WOULD HAPPEN in Seattle on X date.

It didn't happen. THAT MEANS that the 100% verifiable, true, will-happen scenario was total and utter bullshit.

I don't know if the Du'er doing the fear-mongering was paranoid, or mentally unstable, or had any ulterior motives and enjoyed seeing other people tremble in fear. Maybe he actually BELIEVED the information he was given.

But it was wrong. And that makes me SERIOUSLY doubt the latest "Vreeland" predictions..no....CERTAINTIES since he wasn't just a little bit wrong last time. He was completely, unoquivicably, without a doubt 100000% wrong.

That's one hell of a track-record for someone who is sitting on the lap of the world's most powerful people and knows what's going on before they do.

The all-knowing, all-seeing Vreeland certainly dropped the ball on the Seattle-Armageddon. I have no faith that he's on target with the latest hysterical fear-mongering bullshit that has been fed, as of late, to DU'ers.

[Heddi]

18. And one other point

You mention that I'm here, and what if my friend was right, would I be extremely grateful?

No, if he was right (and he's not my friend), I would be dead because I didn't leave the city that was GUARANTEED to be obliterated by nukes.

I didn't leave. I would have been vaporized had this person been correct.

It's hard to be thankful when you're just atoms floating in space, eh?

[shance]

23. LOL! Your threads are spreading exactly what you protest against !

Its the hypocrisy that is the problem with your posts Hedda which reveals your agenda.

If you don't want to believe what someone tells you, then be an adult and draw your own conclusion.

[sangh0]

24. Then why are you objecting?

You think it should be discussed, and HeddI's actions help it get discussed,

And still, you complain.

If you don't want to believe what someone tells you, then be an adult and draw your own conclusion.

I've got a better idea. Instead of HeddI drawing her own conclusions and keeping quiet about it, why dont you show us what a good idea it is by taking your own advice and demonstrating the technique?

[shance]

25. HeddI - talk to the hand babe. You protest against what you create.

You waste my time with these manipulative threads and agenda.

[sangh0]

28. Hey babe!

That wasn't HeddI

And if you want me to do something with your hand, bring it closer.

[northernsoul]

29. apparently, some people can never have enough attention

sangh0, this whole Vreeland episode has really opened up my eyes to the reality that some people really get their thrills from acting like they've got a lot of 'top secret' information about impending disasterous events, which they will only refer to in the most cryptic of terms. I don't know what the pathology is, maybe it's delusions of grandeur, maybe it's good old fashioned paranoid schizophrenia, but it's here and it's real. I also notice that certain people simply can't stand to be challenged or be asked to provide some kind of relevant, credible evidence to back up their claims and will lash out reflexively at anyone who threatens to shatter the fantasy.

I hope that people who get their kicks from trying to scare people get the help they obviously need and I hope that gullible people who are taken in by incredible stories learn to discern reality from paranoid delusion and malacious rumor.

[sangh0]

33. I suspect narcissm

.

[Puglover]

109. Northernsoul

South Minneapolis here. Actually I suspect this more has to do with some folks identifying abit to much with our state bird.
:crazy:

[Dorian Gray]

135. Or

Maybe it's just watching too much Alias, where cryptic works. In real life? Not so much.

[Heddi]

26. FOR THE SECOND TIME, MY NAME IS HEDDI

and I would *love* to know what my agenda is---maybe, just maybe to point out bullshit that *I* have experienced? Bullshit that was passed off as bonafide, gonna happen, straight-from-the-horses mouth information? Information that told me, in no uncertain terms, that the city I live in was going to be leveled within 48 hours.

In case you missed it the several times I pointed it out (which you obviously have), I *DID* draw my own conclusions. I opted to *gasp* stay in Seattle. I wouldn't have been drawing my own conclusions had I left on the advice of some internet stranger with a hankering for predicting something bad happening so he can gloat and say "See...I toldya so".

I am an adult. I have drawn my own conclusions. Perhaps you should go back and read, and re-read what I have written and point out to me where I didn't draw my own conclusions. Point out what my agenda is. Although I have a feeling that I'll be told my agenda is to "stop the spread of the trooooth" or something equally laughable.

And I'll remind you again. My name is Heddi. H-E-D-D-I. I've pointed it out twice. I'm afraid that I'm going to have to draw my own conclusions, like an adult, and extrapolate that because you've twice misspelled my name, that you've also most likely misinterpreted things that I've said in my posts. Of course, that much is obvious since you think I have some sort of Agenda...actually I do. See, I'm a Bush Operative. I have single-handedly spread Dis-Info about all DU'ers that are on the trail of the Bush Family and their evil deeds. *I* Planted a nuclear bomb in Seattle. Actually, I planted 15 of them, but thanks to those nosy kids on DU, my plan was foiled and Seattle still remains as the glimmering Emerald City of America.

Dash it! DASH IT ALL TO HELL! you've found me out :eyes: :laughs heartily:

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sangh0]

32. So may I assume

you have nothing to say on the subject and you just dropped in to engage in a little name-calling?

[Heddi]

36. My old debate coach once said

"Why debate the facts when you can be an asshole instead?" He said it was much easier on the mind and soul, and really let you off the hook research-wise.

Now, mind you, I'm not calling, insinuating, or suggesting that anyone in the world, much less on this thread, is an asshole.

I just was looking through my old debate ledger and was reminded of that quote.

[sangh0]

38. More like

"why debate the facts when that will reveal you have none?"

They don't answer the questions, and when you point that out, they use that as a sign of hostility, which they then use to justify their disappearance.

[Heddi]

42. Yeah. I like how

1) I have an agenda
(I do? I was just sitting here eating a quesadilla and putting off doing homework...but okay...I guess....)

2) I need to be an adult
(mommy said once I had hairs on my toot-toot I was a grown up. Is that not true anymore?)

3) I need to form my own conclusions
(By forming my own conclusions, I need to take at face value, with no questions, something that a stranger off the internet says, and pick up myself, my husband, my cats, and my fish, get in the car and head to who knows how far away and hope the wind doesn't blow in my direction. Yeah. That's forming my own conclusions :shakes head and wonders when she entered bizarro world: )

My phrase du jour: Everyone thinks your stupid when you're silent, but when you talk, you prove everyone right*

* there's another more correct form of this saying but I'm far too lazy to think of it right now. Of course, it's apparent that for many people, thinking isn't necessarily an important thing when having a discussion

[H2O Man]

49. A slightly different version:

It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.


I appreciate your having posted the information on here that you have. I'm reminded that troubled people see the world in a troubled context, and good people see the world in good terms. You are a good person, and I think this thread might help others see the good that is really here on DU. Life is a good thing, and we do not need to be afraid.

[sangh0]

55. Reminds me of another, somewhat related, old saying

The only thing worse than a fool, is the one who argues with them

I thought that might have some relevance here

[H2O Man]

57. These are the old sayings that

Tommy "the Rabbi" Trantino and Rubin used to use! They'd say: "What do you have when a wise man argues with a fool? Two fools!"

Tommy wrote "Lock the Lock" circa 1974. I'm not sure if you may have heard of him/it, but you impress me as being well-read. "Barry Freed" used to visit Tommy when he was living along the Hudson River, getting the award from Senator Moynihan on tv. Ah, the good old days.

[sangh0]

60. Heck that rings a bell

but I'm not too good with names and proper nouns. I don't remember "Lock the Lock" at all, but Tommy rings a bell.

[northernsoul]

44. ah, the power of self-fulfilling prophecy

A lot of the mentally ill people I've seen in the criminal justice system were people who had delusions that others were out to get them, so they engaged in behavior that ultimately did cause people to be out to get them. It's quite sad, really.

[Heddi]

35. I hear there's great meds for paranoid schizophrenia as well as

those who suffer from delusions of grandeur and delusions of persecution.

Those might be an option for some people as well.

Of course, those are NEVER as fun as whipping people into a frenzy over "what my friend said" (whose credibility has been more than shot several times since he started posting)

Heh. And they say religion is the opiate of the masses.

[Dorian Gray]

134. I don't quite understand

what your problem with Heddi is. If people have given information that has created fear in a good percentage of the Seattle DU population AND has been proven wrong, then her points make sense! Why should she believe what Vreeland is pointing to NOW when it did not come to fruition THEN? If you could answer that question, then there would be no need for snide remarks.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

79. How do you know he didn't lie about Vreeland?

I've met lots of DU'ers. Most are normal people and you can take most of what they tell you to the bank...I've met a couple nuts too!.

My point is...how do you KNOW this person actually talked to Vreelans (and I am not convinced Vreeland is legit...he could be deliberate disinfo...i.e. there to deliberately discredit all those who question)

[The Magistrate]

84. That Thought, My Friend, Has Crossed Many Minds

So far, no proof beyond bare assertion has been vouchsafed that anyone here ever spoke to this Vreeleand fellow....

[Heddi]

87. I don't know anything about this character

and I question these things:

1) does this Vreeland character exist
2) If yes, is he in contact with DU'ers?
3) If yes, WHY some make contact with some anonymous dude on the internet to spread tales of disaster and woe?
4) Why is the DU'er who has such hot-handed information (which I'm sure several intelligence agencies--both here and abroad would LOVE to get their hands on) allowed to continue to post

Since Election 2000 I don't know what is up or down anymore. I can't tell the disinformation from the dissed-disinformation.

What is truth? What is reality? What is a lie?

I don't know if this DU'er actually talked to Vreeland or just got signals from the mothership transmitted through his dental work.

I put no crediblity in this Du'er at all. Vreeland--no vreeland---does it even matter at this point?

[Zomby Woof]

96. Dammit, Heddi!

I lived in Seattle at the time, and you never sent me even ONE PM warning me! Harumph! x(

;-)


I have had it with the tinfoil creeps on DU. Never once, not once, have any of these treacherous cretins been right about ANYTHING. Always unsubstantiated hysterics and dark paranoid utterances, wrapped up in the pretense of exclusivity and superiority. For openly disagreeing with the usual suspects, I have been called:

A freeper.
A cointel blackops double agent. :crazy:
Ignorant.
A sheep.
Republican. :hurts:

I have had it with all of them, and I really hope this latest crap drops a nuclear bomb in their bowl of Froot Loops. :tinfoilhat:

[northernsoul]

19. Heddi, I think the sad truth is

that some people get their sick thrills from scaring people to death.

Like you, I have events going on within the next week that have a great deal of bearing upon my professional future. Leaving town on the say-so of some anonymous internet poster is not an option for me.
Although nobody has contacted me personally, I have seen printed statements here which are at least insinuating that my family and I have a few more days to live.

Now, as incredible as these claims are, the very concept of just about everybody I love being incinerated sets off certain primordial alarm bells within my psyche. I have to admit that even though my rational minds knows that such claims are bizarre and unreliable, the same cortex of primal fear that Buscho manipulates so very well does get tweaked when I see these claims. I've got plenty of anxiety about what the weeks and months ahead may hold for me and for the world, and this was just about the straw that broke the camel's back.

Sadly, it is apparent that certain personalities out there get a kick out of creating such anxiety. It must feel very powerful to get people to believe that you have somehow been singled out to hold vital information about their future, and that you can warn them of their certain and impending doom. It must really be thrilling to type phrases like "think about it... Twin Towers, Twin C----s", as if you dare not speak the truth as it is too terrifying to contemplate (even though anyone with a 5th grade education can figure out the reference to the Twin Cities).

I, for one, will not give anyone the pleasure of letting them scare me because of their own sick ego problems. Not George Bush, not Mike Vreeland and his tinfoil-hatted adherents.

[Heddi]

20. I think you're right

The DU'er "B" who passed on this first-hand info has a history (at least in my eyes) of being a bit...er...loopy. He's made several threads in the past about being followed, being traced, having his mail sorted through...and why? I guess there are other comments I want to make about this poster but seeing that the rules prohibit calling out posters, I don't want to say ANYTHING that could be used to identify this DU'er and cause my posts to be deleted or my account to be shut off.

I've had other run-ins with this poster and his audacious claims in the past. We both live in Seattle. Until very recently, I worked at a very large and reputable news-source located not just in SEattle, but throughout many major cities in the US.

This poster once claimed (and taking a bit of artistic license, you know---don't want to idenfity anyone) that there had been a major....disaster.....in a neighborhood that's right around the corner from me. Supposed to be this HUGE cover up by the police and fire depts and news stations and print media.

So I drove around the corner and whaddya know---the "disaster" that was supposedly large enough to knock him out of his socks 5 miles away (figuratively) hadn't happened. NOTHING he claimed that had happened did. In my artistic license, an entire building was supposed to have been blown up---there was nothing. The police were supposedly spending hours cleaning out the evidence of a terrorist attack. My friends at the news desk said that NOTHING had ever come across the wire or scanner. There was no building explosion (obviously) and there was no coverup.

When I challenged him on this, I got a bunch of hufflepuff about how I must be one of "them" blah blah blah.

He's gone around fear-mongering that he's being followed and watched and taped and photographed coming to and from his home, to and from his job, the FBI went racing after him down some deserted street and cornered him and told him some crypic, threatning warning....such bullshit. NONE Of it is true. When asked for facts, he gets all offended that someone would DARE question the irrefutable "B" and never answers questions, or gives deliberate nonsensical 'crypic' messages.

I think he takes the advice of "Live your life as if you were being filmed" far too seriously, and his incoherent ramblings are just too much and I actually find them comical. As if some nobody that posts on a messageboard has suddenly, out of MILLIONS of people posting on political message boards, gotten into the scope of the FBI and is being trailed by the CIA and such---it's too much, and his credibility with me hasn't been shot once, or twice, but DOZENS of times.

He's a fear monger and a rumour monger and loves to be vague so when he's challenged, he can run to his little groupies and cry "CENSHORSHIP" or "DISINFO!" and make anyone who dares questions his stories as being anti-information, anti-US, anti-DU, anti-Truth.

It would be funny if he wasn't constantly getting a 6-inch boner from making people freak out.

[northernsoul]

21. the sad truth is that we may well have some wierdos here

I think we've got to realize that while 99% of DUers are absolutely salt-of-the-earth folks who are also a hell of a lot of fun to chat with, the simple law of averages dictates that we're going to have some among us who... well, let's just say they're not entirely psychologically healthy.

You're right, these hijinks would be laughable if they weren't causing so much needless and unwelcome anxiety out here.

[myrna minx]

39. Thank you for this thread...

I live in Minneapolis and have been rattled by these speculations. As if we don't have enough to worry about with the elections, I don't need strangers arguing about whether or not my family and friends are about to be blown to smithereens. Your thread has brought me great comfort. I was able to "read between the lines" regarding "a" and "b" and feel at ease. Now, I am off to work for Wellstone action. Thanks again.

[Heddi]

43. Hey! Thanks for the word of support

Us rumour-mongers (with agendas, no less) need all the help we can get these days...you know....mongering rumors and agendaizing and stuff :)

Good luck with the Wellstoning!!!

[Dorian Gray]

136. Heddi

I have no idea which poster you are referring to, but it sounds like his motivations were not so much evil as he may be slightly ill. It sounds like he is suffering from paranoid schitzophrenia. Especially if he believes he is being followed like he is. Or maybe he really liked the movie Conspiracy Theory and wanted to emulate Mel Gibson's character.

[Heddi]

40. What will happen when the latest "attack" doesn't happen

Since it's been predicted well into the future. Since someone wrote it down years ago. It's gonna happen. Fer Sure.

What will the pro-demolition proponents say then? WHY would something that is so written in stone NOT happen?

Was it thwarted? (I have a feeling that will be the answer most given).

CERTAINLY it won't be because of erroneous, or downright WRONG information.

Certainly it won't be because the DU'er who was told this was wrong. It will not be because the person who GAVE the information was wrong.

No.

It will be because someone notified someone else. Because someone stepped in. Because it was thwarted, stopped, rearranged, change of plans, not happening now, change to another city.

I anxiously anticipate the back-peddling and "Well, I never expressly said THAT....." threads.

BTW--this information is BOUND to happen. I have it on good knowledge from a friend who's first in line for the 2nd in line post at the CIA and FBI. And they told me. They said so. So when it doesn't happen, don't blame me. I'm just the messenger. When it doesn't happen, that doesn't mean that it wasn't GOING to happen, it jus tmeans that it didn't happen. That's all. Nothing else.

[H2O Man]

46. I was amused by the self-professed

"Attorney with over 30 years " of experience involving COINTELPRO cases, who was unable to correctly write COINTELPRO until I did it for him. Second, he stated that something that was a third-hand version of a prediction that MAY have been made by this Vreeland constituted "evidence" .... though unless court is being held inside a comic book, is very obviously not evidence. Last, he was unabled to name a single COINTELPRO case he had worked on. Gosh, sounds real to me.

[sangh0]

47. I like the "proof" that Vreeland is ONI

"Proof" means "the poster's personal opinion"

[H2O Man]

48. I tried to gently point out

Vreeland is now 38. It was stated he "retired" from ONI in 1988 as a lieutenant. Doing the math, we find a 22-year old lieutenant retiring from ONI. I have enjoyed conversing with the person who posted this, and find him to be decent. But one need only do that simple math to see that there is zero chance of that particular claim.

[Jose Diablo]

62. Sounds like Vreeland has all the marks

of a disinformation specialist.

If there is a grain of truth, then the disinformation would serve the purpose of discrediting the grain of truth from being investigated thoroughly.

An effective way to bury damaging information.

Sounds like Vreeland is spreading a smoke screen. And that has been his function all along.

Still sounds strange why he would purposely get caught. That doesn't make sense. Getting tagged with a marked credit card is way below a guy like this. Think about it, he gets across the border into Detroit, runs free for what, 3 years, then travels to Minn and in the middle of nowhere he uses a 'dead' card. Why? It's too pat. And why now?

Maybe I am just giving the guy too much credit, maybe he is a dope. Or maybe it is just noise in the events, and means nothing.

[sangh0]

63. If he's a disinfo specialist, then why believe him?

Sounds like Vreeland is spreading a smoke screen. And that has been his function all along.

So why believe a professional liar?

Still sounds strange why he would purposely get caught.

So now Vreeland WANTED to be arrested? GBnC, who actually spoke to Vreeland, said that was not true.

Do you have anything to back up your claim?

[Jose Diablo]

65. "Do you have anything to back up your claim?"

If you read my post you will see why I am speculating he was trying to get caught.

For example, crossing the border into Detroit from Canada is not easy without phony papers. I presume he had phony papers because he had warrants for his arrest and after 9-11, border crossings from Windsor were not easy if somebody wanted to talk to you.

I am beginning to sense an overly aggressive posture. This thread reminds me of a club in Detroit called the Animal House. It was on 8 mile road. The club had mud wrestling each Wednesday night. This thread reminds me of a mud wrestling tag team.

In either event, if you wish to quote me, please include enough in the quote to answer your own questions.

Have a nice day.
:)

[H2O Man]

66. I thought your post was very clear ....

and that it indicated that you do not believe anything that Vreeland is saying, and question what his true motivation is. I did not see anything that would indicate you had anything favorable to say regarding him.

[Jose Diablo]

50. I thought the dates mentioned for attacks were

Oct 27. Maybe I am getting threads mixed-up.

[sangh0]

52. Several dates have been mentioned

Unspecific info seems to be SOP

[ParanoidPat]

68. The dates were mere speculation on the part of others.

Vreeland never mentioned a date that I've heard of.

He wanted to use my phone for a collect 3 way call from the jail but my universal lifeline service is no frills. I don't have 3 way calling.

I was not a direct party to the call but have been told that he said "soon", "to disrupt the election" and "next week".

Andy and I discussed what to do with Vreelands allegations considering his rather strange history. We also talked about the possibility of this being some kind of setup to discredit the BBV work by branding us as "conspiracy theorists".

We both agreed that the Feds had to be notified but were unsure of whether to go public with the information. It was a hard decision. Do we risk 2 years of work to keep this election honest and exercise an "abundance of caution" by leaving a public record of Vreelands claims or do we just say nothing? We did leave a time and date stamped record of the claims on a 3rd party server that could be pulled as evidence should the worst happen.

Then the story of his arrest broke and someone posted it here. It just seemed like the appropriate place to post what Vreeland had alleged.

At no time did either of us attempt to hype the story or panic people.

Others came forward who claim to have heard the same allegations through separate channels. E-mails were received by both Andy and I about allegedly strange happenings at an armory in the area.

As far as proof is concerned, there will be two phone bills that have a record of the calls, the one from the jail and Andy's. The e-mails have the header information. Even the PM's from this site will back what was said and when. All of the above have time and date stamps on them. They will clearly show that we were discussing details of the allegations before the news even broke that he had been taken into custody.

The story is out in the public, the Feds have been notified. With any luck this guy is just some freak with an agenda attempting to play us as suckers. On the off chance that something does happen, someone in the Government will have a lot of explaining to do.

[The Magistrate]

72. Well Then, Ma'am

We will all look forward to your putting up facsimilies of the telephone records, at least, for verification of the claimed contact. That would coinstitute the first scintilla of proof there is anything the least actual in any of this brouha. On what date do you usually receive the bills?

[ParanoidPat]

76. Well Sir, it's Sir.....

.....and I do not anticipate getting either Andy's bill or the one from the jail. I can barely pay my own! (Hence the Universal Lifeline el cheapo plan.)

I can ask Andy. :)

Like I stated above, Andy asked me to facilitate the call and I was unable to.

[The Magistrate]

83. My Apologies, Sir

This old machine often breaks connection getting to and from long subjects, which makes me afraid to dare looks at the profiles at times like this.

But unfortunately, this is one more instance of a possible real proof for any of this receeding farther into mist....

Who is Andy?

[ParanoidPat]

88. Andy Stephenson aka God_bush_n_cheney

Associate Director of Black Box Voting.org and former candidate for Secretary of State of the state of Washington. :)

Not your average tinfoil hatter.

[seemslikeadream]

89. Thanks so much for posting ParanoidPat

It's been very difficult for me to see what one poster has been saying.

[ParanoidPat]

90. You're more than welcome.......

.....I just don't know what to think any more. All I know is this Vreeland character has a really strange past and much of what has been reported in the press about him makes no sense whatsoever.

Last I heard he was in jail in Canada fighting extradition. He was such a bad person wanted on so many charges I just figured he'd never get out.
Next thing I know Andy calls and tells me he just got off the phone with him and tells me this story of nuking the Twin Cities as a follow up to the twin towers.

While I'm trying to figure out :wtf: to think, the story of his arrest appears.

If I had it to do over again, I think I'd still go public with it just in case. Tough decision. :(

[sangh0]

81. Well then I would like to thank you for the explanation

I appreciate your taking the time to put together a coherent narrative. If I understand you correctly, the threat is not an attack, but some sort of mischief concerning the election.

If that is indeed the case, then I think you did the right thing with respect to notifying the authorities. I'm also glad to hear you considered the possibility you were being played. However, I do still one criticism, and it's a serious one, imo.

If this is indeed a non-violent threat, then why didn't those who know better put a firm stop to all the talk of nuclear bombs, etc.? In fact, why was it even posted?

By posting this info here, you may very well have jeopardized the investigation into this, turning something that could have been a huge plus us into nothing. I don't see how posting what was posted would help prevent this threat, especially when we don't know the nature of the threat.

Unless I'm reading you wrong, and Vreeland did mention violence.

[ParanoidPat]

86. Yes Vreeland supposedly mentioned 4 one megaton devices.....

.....that's what we made sure to document on the 3rd party server*.

The thing that really upsets me is that I've worked with Andy for a while now and have grown to trust his judgment in situations dealing with elections officials. I trust him based only on my own personal interactions with him, much of which have taken place right here for some time now. I have no reason not to believe him. (Vreeland OTOH, who knows?)

I can't for the life of me understand how he would have known about Vreeland's arrest a full day before the first mention in the press if he hadn't talked to him or at least someone who knows him. Actually I was a little shocked to see that thread!

*By third party server I mean one that neither Andy or I have any control over. That was my idea, just in case we were picked up or something, there is a place we can point to that backs up our claim of what was said and when. :)

[sangh0]

91. That's odd

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x924780#931358

GBnC says he never mentioned nukes. So who did Vreeland make this claim to?

[ParanoidPat]

93. Read post #210 in that thread carefully.......

.......Andy did not say that Vreeland never mentioned it, he said that "I never said there was an upcoming nuclear attack", meaning Andy himself. If you read the entire thread, he's right.

Now I'll tell you flat out that Andy relayed to me what Vreeland told him and I was the one to divulge that detail. That was a deliberate strategy to protect Andy and his credibility with BBV.

Andy has 'plausible deny-ability' should someone accuse him of making such claims. He never said that Vreeland did or didn't say that, and if he's smart, he won't say anything else one way or the other that can be twisted by people who are out to discredit what he's been doing with BBV. I'm beginning to suspect that this is what it's really all about.

We made sure to document the gist of the conversation on a server that neither of us has any administrative control of. There is a time and date stamped file that can be pulled up should we need to prove what Vreeland said and when he said it at a later date.

Please understand that this is the only way I could think of to get the message out into the public domain without compromising 2 years worth of very important work on Andy's part.

I'm expendable working in the background as I do. No one really knows who I am anyway. Andy is on the front lines and we can't afford to have him discredited.

I hope this makes some sense to you because it's making less and less to me all the time. :)

[The Magistrate]

95. One Small Question, Sir

You say you are beginning to think this is all about discrediting the Black Box Voting organization. Your meaning is not quite clear to me. Do you mean that persons here on the forum who consider this mere rumor-mongering are attempting to discredit that organization, or do you mean Vreeland is attempting to discredit Black Box Voting by involving one of its principals in rumor-mongering?

[ParanoidPat]

98. Sir, I am most definitely beginning to suspect both.....

.....after having read the several threads that have sprung up related to this.

Now can you understand why I suggested the "plausible deny-ability" route? :shrug:

Allegations of this magnitude made by a character the likes of Vreeland, who went from being an International fugitive under multiple indictments fighting extradition, to a free man who made it across our border seemingly with no problem, need further investigation.
But who should be the ones to investigate them?

I have lost faith in our government to conduct investigations based on the rule of law only. Without adequate public pressure and oversight, it seems our elected representatives are at will to pick and choose which laws, either domestic or International, are worth upholding based on the politics of the situation.

I give Vreeland about as much credibility as I give this administration at this point. In a situation where I have no other information to go on other than the claims of an enigmatic figure who is discredited by an untrustworthy government, I feel I have no choice but to make public all that I know of the situation and let each person make their own judgment as to what or who to believe.

I have always respected and valued the wisdom and insight of your posts and would greatly appreciate your take on this rather strange set of circumstances.

If you were in the same position as I, how would you have handled it? Please feel free to PM the answer if you would rather not reply publicly. :)

[sangh0]

102. After thinking about this, this still makes no sense

I do appreciate your efforts at clarifying the facts. However, there are still important details that have been left unclear, and most disturbingly, they tend to center around THE MOST IMPORTANT aspect of this threat - the idea that nukes are involved. We are now on the sixth day of discussing this, and still no one has stepped forward and said "I heard Vreeland say that the Twin Cities were going to be nuked with 4 1-megaton nuclear devices"

Supposedly, at least one DUer is concerned that the Twin Cities may get nuked, but no one is willing to say who it is that heard Vreeland issue this warning. But everyone time I ask about, several posters start vouching for GBnC's honesty, judgement and integrity, while GBnC dodges with the legalistic "I never SAID..."

Another important question that hasn't been answered is why ANYONE posted ANYTHING about the possibility of a nuclear attack. You seem to indicate that this whole warning may have been contrived to undermine BBV. If that might be the cause, then why post it? And since someone did decide to post it, how come no one is saying "I heard Vreeland say that?"

As you are well aware of, the SOURCE of info is just as important as the info itself when it comes to determining the validity of said info. The effort made to conceal the ID of the person who heard Vreeland say this is an effort of deception, which undermines the credibility of anyone seeking to use their credibility to warn of danger.

Also, the posting of this warning is being described as being motivated by a desire to help prevent this attack, but it seems to me that any public mention of this info would most likely impede the investigation and allow the escape of the perpetrators. I'm not sure what you expected any DUer to do. It's not as if any of us know about the location of unaccounted for nuclear devices.

To be honest, the actions of those who claim to be motivated by a desire to help are inconsistent with those stated goals. Their actions have done nothing to prevent an attack, and have only inflicted pain on some, while doing no one any good that I can see. And that's the best case.

[The Magistrate]

132. Well, Sir

If in your situation, as you have described it, very high on my list of things to do would be to sever all contact between myself and any of my associates, and this Vreeland fellow. He can do nothing for you, and can readily bring you into disrepute through association with him. He is incapable of harming you, however, unless you assist him in the doing by taking him up into your circle. It is probably not too late to do this: even if some harm has already been done, it is certain that more will be done if the association continues, and that additional damage would best be foregone. The first rule of holes applies; you and your associates are in one, and had best stop digging, as the first step towards getting out of it.

The "Black Box Voting" project is a very important one, and must not be risked. The organization identified with Ms. Harris has gained a credible repute, and the problem it assails is a real one, that needs some organization to maintain focus on it. There is a touching belief among people at large that if honest figures are fed into a machine, honest figures will emerge from it, but there really does not seem much reason to suppose this is actually the case, for it seems clear that a person evilly disposed and possessed of certain skills could make those figures dance to any chosen tune, and that there is no way to check and prove afterwards this has been done.

To allow this project to become associated in any way with a creature like Vreeland, as you are clearly aware yourself from your comments above, is to risk its falling into discredit. Allow yourselves to be associated with Vreeland, and people will have a ready reason to reject your disturbing warning concerning electronic fraud in our elections: "Sure they think this is all a conspiracy to steal elections," people will say, "They think the Twin Cities will be nuked to disrupt the elections, and that Russia and Iraq collaborated to attack New York and the Pentagon, and who knows what other lunacy...."

But reflect that this is a line of attack you have yourself opened the effort up to. Vreeland made a call to one of your associates, but no one made your associate accept and continue that call; no one made any of you decide to lend the least degree of credence to the content of that call; no one made any of you decide to disseminate the contents of that call publicly, and in a way that clearly associates yourselves with it. Any damage or discredit that results is wholly self-inflicted, and no blame for it can be laid by you and your associates on anyone but yourselves.

It seems to me that Vreeland and the body of his claims has been adequately investigated, and amount to nothing more than the hoax of a sociopath and mythomane who has for years got his living by various frauds, and developed quite a skill in that line. It is a mistake to confuse the scale of a charge with the seriousness of a charge: a charge can be serious only if there is reason to believe the person making it is in a position to possess facts to back it up. There is no reason whatever to suppose Vreeland is in a position to do this, and a good deal of reason to suppose he has made the thing up from whole cloth. You yourself state you give him "about as much credibility as this administration", and others who count as supporters of treating him seriously here acknowledge him to be a proven liar and font of disinformation. That ought really to settle the thing: he is lying to you, and to everyone else, and that is an end to it. No reason whatever exists to take him seriously.

The reappearance of Vreeland is no thing to be particularly troubled by: international fugitive and such has a splendid ring to it, but the fact remains that the actual charges underlying the affair are small ones, dealing only with property and not with violent danger to the populace. Such things are near the bottom of the police queue in all countries. Vreeland was granted bail in Canada, and seems to have skipped out on it, as people sometimes do. To acquire papers or otherwise slip across a border is really not that difficult: you are probably a law-abiding person, and therefore possess a certain faith in the omnipotence of the authorities, but any person who has lived outside the law for any period of time will be aware from his or her own experience that the authorities are easily evaded in most matters, and wield a net of extraordinarily coarse mesh, that takes up minnows more by accident than otherwise.

Your complaint about the picking and choosing of laws by the current administration is far too broad to affect this particular matter: that is the common practice of all government, in all times and places, to a greater or lesser degree. In some respects the current administration is particularly egregious in this regard, but that has no application to the case of Vreeland and his hoaxing. It has some application to the Geneva Accords, and to various bribery and election statutes, but not to this.

"If your mother says she loves you...check it out."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[ParanoidPat]

152. Thank you Sir for an honest heartfelt reply.

There's an old saying, "the more you stir shit, the more it stinks", so rather than try to stop the shit from spinning I'll just cover the pot.
It should eventually settle on it's own. :)

You are absolutely correct in that the BBV issue, and election fraud in all of its ugly forms, deserves the full focus of our attention and energies at this critical time.
I shall endeavor to ignore all such distractions hence forth unless they rise to a sufficient evidentiary level required to raise a legitimate alarm.

I also accept that by making Vreelands allegations public we have both lent a certain amount of undeserved credibility to his outrageous claims and have left open a possible line of attack against our own positions on unrelated issues.

There's no sense in crying about it since I can't undo what has already been done. All I can say is,
"We got punked dude! I ain't gonna' let that shit go down again!" :evilgrin:

Thanks again for your thoughtful insight into our role in this disturbing mess. I shall definitely take heed of your sage advice should I ever again be confronted with similar circumstances.

For now this post shall bring this issue to a close for me as I have far more serious matters to attend to. To echo your eloquent words,

LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS! ;-)

[The Magistrate]

156. Fair Enough, Sir

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[sweetheart]

51. Why buy bullshit?

Honestly, they're selling something, that "we" are paying for hand
over fist... something as useful as moon-property.

Its a big lie, and simply is not worth the ridiculous cost of stripping
our civilian society for bugbears, werewolves and giant pumpkins.

[insultedVeteran]

94. Do not buy

I am not buying the Lies.

WWIIVet

[foreigncorrespondent]

56. Heddi...

...I think I know who person B might be. Without mentioning any names, you go back over the history of this particular persons posts and you will see that this person often posts stuff which are based more on rumour than anything. When I and a few others have confronted this person in the past to supply viable evidence he hasn't come to the party with the goods.

Just ignore what this person says. Unfortunately a lot are suckered in by him and will give you a headache if you say one word against him.

I truly believe he lives in dreamland and really has some sort of control issues. Remember that all these are is just a way of gaining control over someone.

Have a good night. :)

[H2O Man]

58. sounds like good advice ....

apparently several DUers have had similar experiences.

[Heddi]

67. Sadly, many people DO believe what this person says

and frankly, I just don't understand why.

He has been proven to be a certifiable liar on several occasions---personally by me (with the HIDDEN SECRET BUILDING BLOWING UP IN SEATTLE THAT NO ONE KNEW ABOUT), and by other DU'ers.

When he made his "seattle is gonna dieeeeeeeee" call last year, he was in his car and out of the state faster than jack rabbit on a date. NEVER called the media--why? I even GAVE HIM private emails to my publisher, editor, and several reporters. WHY NOT CALL THEM? If something so impending as a nuclear disaster in Seattle is gonna happen in less than 48 hours, shouldn't more than a handful of DU'ers know about it?

After that whole fiasco, he left and wasn't heard from for several weeks. Turned off his Inbox and when he came back and questions from myself and at least one other DU'er were posed as to "gee, what happened with the nuclear winter bit?" he responded with this tale of whirlwind driving around the country, dodging FBI agents here, giving the runaround to CIA ops there, being cornered in a corn-field by swarthy govertment-types threatning him about what he knows blah blah blah.

The thing I find most telling---and I don't know why other DU'ers don't really realize this:

1) It's most likely very possible that DU and it's posts, if not individual POSTERS have been or are being 'monitored' (for lack of a better word) by FBI-type individuals. I don't think that this 'surveillance' is limited to DU by any far stretch----but I say with pretty good certainty that any time someone shows up on the internet with talk of "I just spoke to an ex-spook who sezzzzz....", ears are going to prick up and people who (honestly) should be watching out for that kind of thing are going to start monitoring the information.

2) Here is someone on DU, who talks not once, not twice, but FREQUENTLY about being in contact with this Vreeland character, in addition to others.

3) The same person on DU talks not once, not twice, but FREQUENTLY about being in the confidence of FBI agents, talking to FBI agents, being followed and harassed one day by FBI agents and being embraced and made an honorary spy the next

Now let's say this DU'er with the 'inside scoop' is right on the money. EVERYTHING he says is right on. He really DOES have first-hand knowledge of things that have been planned by those so high up as to even surpass GW Bush. Let's just say all of this is true.

Why would the FBI (or whatever other goverment agency watches this kind of stuff) ALLOW this Du'er to continuously---often---nearly weekly in some cases----spread such secret, clandestine, and not-for-our-ears information?

If you are to believe the stories that are told on DU, ANYONE who tries to thwart the Bush Empire's plans are 'offed'. Found dead of mysterious causes. Suicide by shooting themselves in the back of the head---that kind of thing (which I'm not saying DOESN'T happen--because it most certainly does)

If you are to believe the stories that are told on DU, ANYONE who isn't killed by the Bush Crime Family is "dissapeared". Never heard from them again. Sent to Gitmo. Cannon Fodder. Whatever.

So assuming that this DU'er really does have the inside scoop---not just the inside scoop with regards to OTHER countries invading/bombing/attacking the US---but even MORE outrageous---the inside scoop on OUR OWN GOVERNMENT bombing/attacking the US----do you think that "the powers that be" would allow this DU'er to come here and post all of this information?

It just seems like it's a simple security issue, to me, and the extraordinary claims made CONSTANTLY by this DU'er certainly should raise the red flags to ANYONE working in ANY kind of intelligence.

Yet he's still here.

Yet he's still posting 'super-duper top secret' info on a regular basis.

TO ME---THAT is a red flag--TO ME---that this character isn't legit. If he was legit, then:

1) Seattle would be nothing but a really big ugly dead zone right now (and it's not, although ask me that when it's been raining for 9 months straight and I may give a different answer)

2) The building he SWORE UP AND DOWN was blown to smithereens in Seattle would actually HAVE been blown to smithereens, instead of being a wonderful example of ugly urban condominiums in the heart of a small seattle neighborhood

3) He wouldn't be posting such top-secret information on a public messageboard with thousands of regular posters and no doubt millions of lurkers and passers-by

THAT, to me, is one of the SIMPLEST reasons that this character isn't legit.

Of course, there's also the fact that he's nuttier than a pecan tree in full bloom....

[Minstrel Boy]

69. There is, at least, a third option.

You say:

"If you are to believe the stories that are told on DU, ANYONE who tries to thwart the Bush Empire's plans are 'offed'.... ANYONE who isn't killed by the Bush Crime Family is 'dissapeared.'"

The third option, and one many times most frequently employed, is to poison the well by feeding a person disinformation.

And I believe that all of us who have said Vreeland merits attention also freely admit that he has been used to this end in the past.

[Heddi]

71. But this isn't just 'okay' disinfo

this is seriously NOT cool to PURPOSEFULLY cause people to panic, have anxiety, etc---over some "maybe, possibly..." bullshit end o' the world story du jour.

Look---

9/11 happend literally 2 months to the day after I moved to Seattle. First time living in a big city, 3,000 miles away from my family. 9/11 caused SEVERE anxiety in me. It was diagnosed as a very mild form of PTSD. For WEEKS afterwards, I could not..literally COULD NOT be alone in my apartment. I was afraid. I jumped every time I heard a siren---which was really a pain in the ass since I lived on First Hill in Seattle---the hospital district---so there were sirens every 5 minutes.

I couldn't sleep. Hated the dark. Freaked out when the phone rang and found myself GLUED to the television, lest I miss the next big thing.

I finally got over that, though.

However, when this DU'er made the Seattle-Nuclear promise last year, ALLLL of those anxieties, fears, etc, that I felt after 9/11 came back SO strong. Again, I was afraid of the dark, didn't like being alone, felt constantly on edge---jumpy.

I know I"m not the only one who felt that way after 9/11 and I know I'm not the only one who gets the heebie jeebies whenever the weekly fear mongering posts come down the pike.

This Vreeland character may be a figment of someone's imagination for all we know.

All I *DO* know is that it's rather cruel to play this game of "this is DEFINITELY going to happen...maybe" and get people freaked out. This is a MAJOR inconvenience for people. It's a major stressor, and those who are continuing to spread this fear and disinformation are extremely cruel to those who live, or who have loved ones who live in this area.

Pushing your agenda is fine. Using the emotions of others to do so isn't.

Call it disinfo. Call it fear mongering. I see no difference between DU'ers doing it and the Bush Administration doing it.

[Minstrel Boy]

73. No disinfo is okay.

These aren't okay times.

Your worries are ours.

[sangh0]

85. There was disinfo in those threads

.

[Deja Q]

64. We were attacked in 1993, probably as a result of the neo-cons activities

prior to 1993.

Chances are, there will be another.

As it seems likely that * allowed the first one, I expect the next big one to occur 02 November 2004.

why not?

[ScreamingMeemie]

74. Am I the only one totally confused by this thread?

:shrug:

[chimpy the poopthrower]

77. It's a carry-over from other threads.

Some people were posting rumors of an attack on the Twin Cities and supposedly this was a warning from the guy who supposedly "predicted" 9/11 from a jail in Canada and was supposedly some kind of ex-spy. And a DUer claims to know this person and that's how they got the warning. Still confusing, isn't it? I think if you missed the original threads, you don't have to worry about this one.

[ScreamingMeemie]

78. Ahhh. Thanks

:hi:

[Texasgal]

92. No you aren't.....

I am EXTREMELY confused as well!

[RaleighNCDUer]

80. Well, I had a nightmare the other night about Seattle being

nuked. Why Seattle, I don't know. Never been there.

I've lived with nuclear terror for decades, was a kid on an army base in Germany during the Cuban missle crisis, and never dreamed about it.

Still, that's less than solid info so I wouldn't put too much faith in it.

[The Minus World]

97. Neon Warning Signs

I doubt that, if you were in the same position as the poster who claims to have had direct contact with Vreeland, you would have reacted any differently. Were you put in his position, would you have immediately said "this man has been known to lie, so this is undoubtedly a lie and should be dismissed entirely", or would you consider any statement regarding matters of life and death on such a large scale, worthy of consideration?

So, it has been established that there is a possibility that what Vreeland has said, regardless of his past, may be true.

It follows, then, that he is either doing this to save lives, or for purposes of disinformation.

That has been established, as well - by everyone.

Does it follow that the discussion of this information should be considered needlessly inflammatory? I hope not. Especially considering the fact that the discussion of such matters was handled in a semi-discreet manner at the beginning, in comparison to the "VREELAND IS CRAZY -- DON'T READ WHAT HE SAYS" threads that I'm seeing all over GD now.

I don't know about you, but my reaction when I read the threads is that nobody is attempting to widely disseminate what might turn out to be "disinformation"; yet it is now *spattered* all over the walls of DU, thanks to threads like this one. This kind of drama-over-drama is intensely counterproductive, regardless of how you feel concerning the veracity of the original Vreeland claims.

If you honestly feel that DUers should not be discussing these matters with one another, then wouldn't it follow that you'd come to terms with the chatter, rather than raising the decibel level and risk confusing more people?

[chimpy the poopthrower]

100. Well, make up your mind.

Do you want to keep this quiet or do you want to get the word out? I think it is this cloak-and-dagger stuff that is turning people off. You say that "the discussion of such matters was handled in a semi-discreet manner at the beginning". Surely you don't seriously think that discussion of a possible attack on a metropolitan area can be kept "semi-discreet" -- and why would anyone want it to be? If the point is to warn people of an impending disaster, shouldn't that information be broadcast as widely as possible, even if it is necessary to attach a disclaimer about Vreeland's reliability? What would be the point of keeping it discreet?

And if it's rubbish, I think the debunking should be announced far and wide as well. I don't think the "debunking" crowd, such as Sangh0, are trying to compound the confusion. On the other hand, the crowd that is pushing the original story have been infuriatingly mysterious about the whole thing. If the point is to warn people about some potential disaster, shouldn't they be trying to... I don't know, warn people? I mean there is a time for discussion and a time for yelling from the rooftops. Supposedly Vreeland has this information only because of his "spooky" connections. So why would anyone think DUers would have anything valuable to contribute to the discussion? This isn't something we can go out and research for ourselves.

[Minstrel Boy]

101. But don't you think

if people were "yelling from the rooftops," they would rightly be accused of fear-mongering?

And don't you see how people are conflicted about what to do with a warning they are not persuaded is genuine, and yet also believe must be taken seriously?

It's a no-winner, really.

[sangh0]

103. Funny you should ask

But don't you think if people were "yelling from the rooftops," they would rightly be accused of fear-mongering?

Actually, there was a thread about Vreeland in GD in which the thread starter promised to "shout this from the rooftops". But suddenly, that's become the wrong thing to do.

It seems as though some people thought they could issue a QUIET warning about a possible nuclear attack on US soil. Ironically, we've been hearing about how the people who thought this was something that could be handled in a low key way are people who have the good judgement to vouch for the judgement and integrity of others.

[seemslikeadream]

105. link?

[sangh0]

111. here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=23345

You see, it's better to explain and provide the link when requested, then merely cut and paste links and say "Go figure it our for yourself"

[seemslikeadream]

113. Context of statement

My Sources say Vreeland is a "Total Fraud" HOWEVER

Edited on Sat Oct-23-04 07:27 AM by seventhson
even stopped clocks are right twice a day.

I still say Vreeland should be investigated on the "October Surprise" claim related to the Twin Cities.

I apologize for folks being nervous about this, but I did NOT originate this story.

ANOTHER poster made the claim on THIS thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

and I repeated it to try to get more coverage and more info so the story could be checked out by the media and by the proper law enforcement authorities.

I WISH I knew more about this man and this story and there is tons of info out there, but figuring out which is reliable and which is disinformation is VERY difficult.


My October Surprise thread URGES an investigation (and states clearly that it could be a totally fraudulent and fabricated story) here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


But I did check this out with folks I trust and they say he is NOT to be believed. That he is a total fraud.

I told them I hope they are right.

But whether or not they are right I am still hoping that this story will spur enough interest by homeland security or SOMEONE with authority and the MEDIA to interview this man and find out what, if anything, his STORY is. If an October Surprise like this happened and I remained silent and inactive then I would feel terrible. Worse, I would feel negligent and spineless and cowardly.

My goal is to be sure NOTHING happens. And one way to DO that is to SHOUT FROM THE ROOFTOPS every time something suspicious is on the radar, whether it is Osama being turned over by the Chinese in a deal with the Busheviks or an alleged dirty bomb or ANYTHING in the twin cities or anywhere. Get it out in the open and either confirm or at least vet the story. Expose it before the rethugs can use it for scare tactics or for real.

Hopefully leaking and exposing Rove's game plan or possible game plans will thwart it and defend America.


now the other several mispresentations?

[sangh0]

118. If you see a misrepresentation

why aren't you telling us what it is?

My goal is to be sure NOTHING happens. And one way to DO that is to SHOUT FROM THE ROOFTOPS every time something suspicious is on the radar, whether it is Osama being turned over by the Chinese in a deal with the Busheviks or an alleged dirty bomb or ANYTHING in the twin cities or anywhere. Get it out in the open and either confirm or at least vet the story. Expose it before the rethugs can use it for scare tactics or for real.

Since the stated goal is to "get it out in the open", I'm sure you can tell me who heard Vreeland say that the Twin Cities were going to be nuked.

[seemslikeadream]

119. Good now you have only 8 more to account for this morning

[chimpy the poopthrower]

107. That's why I say make up your mind.

If the person who supposedly received this information went to the FBI, that was the right thing to do. If they had some reason to believe that the FBI was not taking the threat seriously, and they wanted to warn people, I can see trying to get the word out through other sources, like the media and the Internet. If some people accuse them of fear-mongering, so what? Aren't the lives of innocent people more important? If the point was not to warn people, what else could the person hope to accomplish by posting that rumor on the Internet? Information-gathering? As I said, no one on DU is likely to have additional information about this unless someone else also has a "spooky" friend like Vreeland feeding them tips. Instead of crying "fire" in a crowded theater, it's like starting a "fire" whisper campaign. What can be accomplished by that?

[Minstrel Boy]

108. And that's why I say it's a no-winner.

Imagine if the unlikely and God forbid happens, and afterwards, it's learned that DUers had foreknowledge, but chose not to pass the warning to the public.

Imagine if the likely happens - nothing - and DUers were screaming "Run for your lives! Save yourselves!"

There's no mystery or malice to the half measures you see here. It's simple, human uncertainty.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

110. So it's more important to not look like an ass than to save lives?

Then it's just as I thought. The people making these claims don't have the guts to shout "fire" so they choose to whisper it instead. But I say again: there is no way to be discreet about such a thing, and why would you want to be? If I had knowledge of a potential attack in the US, I would notify the authorities ASAP. If I felt the authorities were not taking it seriously, I would go to the media. If the media didn't believe me, I would take it to the Internet.

I understand that the persons who supposedly received this warning had their own reservations about the source (supposedly Vreeland). Fine -- nothing stopping them from attaching a disclaimer to their warning stating that the source is not always trustworthy. If there is even a possibility that this is true, I agree it should be taken very seriously. But the people who are saying it may be true don't seem to be taking it very seriously themselves. That is the problem I have with this.

People are starting thread after thread about this Vreeland character and his arrest, and whenever anyone shows any skepticism they get all snotty about it even though they themselves have their own doubts. Do they "get" that a potential upcoming attack on the US is the most important part of this story? They are not trying to shed any light on the facts but actually seem to be making the story as convoluted and inaccessible as possible. Is the goal to warn only the "cool" DUers who are hip enough to follow all the ins and outs of this business? That's what I'm trying to figure out.

Supposedly the Vreeland crowd wants to warn people, but they don't want to be held accountable in case it turns out to not be true. They want to get the word out, but to do it in a "discreet" manner. I (and others) have asked on multiple threads for some kind of summary about what the facts are, but no one has the time to spare to provide one. But lots of people apparently have lots and lots of time to spend chiding the skeptics for their rudeness at not taking this story at face value.

[Minstrel Boy]

114. Every - and I mean every - mention of Vreeland's warning

has been come with the very disclaimer you suggest.

How could we be shouting from the rooftops when we have skepticism of Vreeland's word? Yet how could we keep quiet when we believe his pre-9/11 warning was unheeded by authorities?

As for starting thread after thread on Vreeland, I think you'll find that this and another with the most traffic were started by sangh0.

on edit: I thought I was in another thread. sangh0's started the two others that are still going strong. This one, by another debunker.

[sangh0]

117. Every mention of Vreeland's warning omits naming who heard him say it

How could we be shouting from the rooftops when we have skepticism of Vreeland's word?

Then why did one of the posters who have been PM'd about this say that he was going to "shout it from the rooftops"?

Yet how could we keep quiet when we believe his pre-9/11 warning was unheeded by authorities?

If you don't want this to be kept quiet, then why the resentment over the attention I've brought to this issue?

As for starting thread after thread on Vreeland, I think you'll find that this and another with the most traffic were started by sangh0.

I agree, but for some odd reason, the people who want this to get attention, resent the attention I've brought to this issue. And now that people are interested and willing to hear the facts concerning this, we suddenly hear of a desire to stop talking about this.

Shouldn't you be trying to inform people of this potential threat, instead of focusing on my character?

[sangh0]

115. They've been silent on the most important fact

After 6 days, NO ONE has yet to say "I heard Vreeland say that nukes were going to be used against the Twin Cities"

All we know so far is that "someone on the Internet" heard Vreeland say that. No one has said that they were the one who heard Vreeland say it.

But everytime the issue is raised, posters start talking about how much integrity GBnC has. Rather obvious, don't you think?

[seemslikeadream]

116. link?another misrepresentation

three days, it's been three days

Man Who Says He Predicted Sept. 11 Attacks Arrested seemslikeadre... Mon Oct-25-04 09:35 PM

another of many misrepresentations

[sangh0]

120. You're right

It's been three days. I thought it was Friday that this was first raised.

[sangh0]

121. So who heard Vreeland say nukes were involved?

I noticed you don't respond to that question.

Or any others. The next question you ask me will have to be preceded by an answer to one of my questions.

[seemslikeadream]

126. That was your question not mine

[sangh0]

128. So who heard Vreeland say nukes were involved?

Yes, that's my question. Did you figure that out by yourself?

[seemslikeadream]

137. I am here to call you on any misstatements you make

so others don't take your gossip as gospel. I have no intention of answering any of your questions. If you do not link to statements you attribute to other posters I want others to realize that you're missrepresenting what's been said.

[sangh0]

139. So who said they heard Vreeland say Twin Cities would be nuked?

I am NOT here to persue specific posters. I am here to find out the facts surrounding this rumor.

When you respond to my questions, I'll respond to yours.

[seemslikeadream]

140. I am here to make sure you never again missrepresent what other have said

I don't care if you respond to me or not

[The Minus World]

148. Hear me Out

I don't believe anybody was attempting to warn anyone else about an "impending disaster".

GB&C obtained information he knew to be volatile due to the suspect nature of its source, and he decided that he'd make mention of it on this board. If you watch the snowball of circumstances, you'll see that, as the story was in its natal stage, the discussion was somewhat productive. Now, of course, I don't want to believe what Vreeland has said is true,- I don't think anyone here wants that - but the question is "would you have made the same decision, had the same information been given to you?"

Let me pull a "Rumsfeld" here and do a little semi-Socratic Q&A:

Do I think that the claims that Vreeland made are true? Well, I have no way of discovering whether they are or not, so I cannot say either way.

Do I think that GB&C is a credible individual; someone who wouldn't be jumping into random tinfoil scenarios for his own personal gain? Yes, I do, frankly.

Do I think that GB&C did the right thing by bringing the discussion out into the open? His intentions are his own. If he honestly believed that he needed to take this information, tainted or not, out into the public (not just DU, but to the authorities as well) in order to avert another attack, then I applaud him.

Do I think that Vreeland could be a source of disinformation? Well, of course he can. But, due to his alleged foreknowledge of 9/11, I think it's safe to say that a little looking into his claims is in order.

I think my mind is, and has been, pretty made up on this subject.

[The Magistrate]

150. Answer This One, Sir

No. 145 below....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=24255&mesg_id=24398&page=

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[The Minus World]

154. Done

With all due respect, you have mischaracterized what I have said, and I hope you read my reply for a clarification.

[sangh0]

104. Once again, the promoters of this scare state opinion as fact

I doubt that, if you were in the same position as the poster who claims to have had direct contact with Vreeland, you would have reacted any differently. Were you put in his position, would you have immediately said "this man has been known to lie, so this is undoubtedly a lie and should be dismissed entirely", or would you consider any statement regarding matters of life and death on such a large scale, worthy of consideration?

This is BS. I, for one, would NEVER have posted about it on DU. I have yet to here ANYONE explain why that was done beyond the "glittering generality" excuse that "maybe we could help prevent the attack"

How are WE supposed to prevent a nuclear attack? With Google?

[seemslikeadream]

106. link?

[sangh0]

122. Who heard Vreeland say that the Twin Cities would be nuked?

Answer my question, and I'll respond to yours.

[seemslikeadream]

123. You have the obligation to prove your statements

[sangh0]

124. So do you

still waiting

[seemslikeadream]

125. What statement of mine are you refering to?

[sangh0]

129. So who heard Vreeland say nukes were involved?

that's my question

[sangh0]

131. Funny how no one wants to take credit for warning us

Isn't it?

[seemslikeadream]

138. That was not my statement

find the link yourself or don't say it was stated unless you can prove it.

[sangh0]

141. Who heard Vreeland say Twin Cities would be nuked?

I didn't say it was you. I asked who it was.

Do you know?

[spooked911]

149. It was laid out in the blog Rigorous Intuition, which led back to DU

I tried following the original DU threads and the specific threat seemed to come from nowhere.

The clearest confirmation of this whole terror threat was on this blog:

http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/

[Old and In the Way]

157. I totally agree, this is a very important question to be asked.

Who heard Vreeland say Twin Cities would be nuked?

Why isn't anyone coming forward with this answer? If anyone were to confide in me that they have evidence that a large US city (or a small one for that matter) was going to be nuked, I'd be concerned enough to share this with the proper authorities. I'd even do, as ParanoidPat suggested above, and document the shit out of my notification to these same authorities.

But put it on the web in an anonymous forum? No, I think that's irresponsible. If this rumor caused someone to go into cardiac arrest or caused the death(s) of people in a panic stampede, I wouldn't want that on my conscience.

But the question sangh0 asked is very important to this conversation. Someone must take responsibility/ownership for this information from Vreeland. We ought to know who is enabling Vreeland's message here.

Who really knows this person's agenda? Is it to discredit legitimate lines of inquiry that this board is engaged in? A personal axe to grind with the administrators? As the largest forum for progressive people on the Internet, I'm very concerned about anything that can damage our reputation as a credible source of information.

[seemslikeadream]

142. I am here to make sure you never again missrepresent what other have said

not to answer your questions.

[seemslikeadream]

143. I am here to call you on any misstatements you make

so others don't take your gossip as gospel. I have no intention of answering any of your questions. If you do not link to statements you attribute to other posters I want others to realize that you're missrepresenting what's been said.

That was not my statement

[myrna minx]

112. AND, why would Senator Dayton move his office from

DC to Minneapolis, if a terrorist attack was eminent in the Twin Cities??? This fear mongering is so irresponsible. As one who lives in Minneapolis, I do not appreciate it one bit. Based upon all of this "investigating," am I to drop my get out the vote clipboard, quit door knocking, flee the state and not vote? Just what is the point of this crapola? You are correct, sangh0, this is BS.

What is more BS, if anyone cared about these "life and death on such a large scale," matters, why not post a thread in the Minnesota forum? :shrug: Well that didn't happen. No, it is not about protecting we poor Minnesotans from annihilation, it is about power. The power to influence people with a "little secret."

[The Minus World]

151. Devil's Advocate

You have not addressed the question, but I can assume from your prior statements that you believe that every shred of information regarding this claim is worthy of consideration.

A discussion burgeoned on this message-board, which - if you remember - had some members making cautious, cryptic statements regarding the matter to one another. If you consider that to be reckless, I tend to agree with you there. What's more reckless, though, is creating an even larger environment of immediate dismissal, where people come to get their rocks off by posting "this is bullshit" and little else.

You seem to be dealing in black-and-white:

"If the info is verifiably true, then shout it from the rooftops. If the info is verifiably false, then stop posting this fear-mongering rubbish on DU."

Have you considered the fact that maybe this information is neither verifiably true nor verifiably false? You have surely considered that this is all hearsay, but have you considered that this is hearsay whose trail runs from a con-man/whistleblower to a respected DUer who was surely confused about what he should do with such volatile information? Sure, posting this information on DU is not the first step I'd take - and it's possible that it wasn't the first step taken. But, as you can see, this is all but black-and-white.

As for those doing the research: I know that there are some individuals here that are profoundly skeptical about the Bush administration, and don't put a "pre-election terrorist attack" past him. Whether this Vreeland story is simply meant to play into those anti-Bush insecurities, or whether it is a genuine attempt to warn others, is another matter altogether, and should be discussed.

I stand by my statement that the whole shifting of the Vreeland debate, from one of discussion and analysis, to one that demands that the original posters are vilified, is largely negative.

[The Magistrate]

145. Honestly, Mr. Spork

Your No. 97 above displays a certain basic confusion....

If told any of this personally by Vreeland, Sir, my reaction would be along the lines of chortling, "Good one, Del! You're a damned funny man! Sorry you're too broke for much at the commissary...." and then, after hanging up the telephone, checking the refrigerator to see if there was any of that Colby cheese left while the wife was not looking....

But of course, Vreeland would not be in contact with anyone but those he knows or suspects would react more along the lines of, "God, Del! How can I help you stop this damnable plot! It's awful the way the traitors in our government persecute a patriot like you! Anything I can do to help, Del, anything at all, you just let me know!"

You claim it has been established that there is a possibility that what he says now is true, regardless of his past history, but what you base that statement on is unclear. It seems you feel that follows from the belief that any statement regarding the possible loss of life on a mass scale must be considered possibly true. This is nothing but the application to a novel field of that comedic exercise in religious conversion known as Pascal's Wager, that the possible benefit of a promised salvation is far too great if true for the possibility it might be false to weigh substantially in the balance. That, of course, is a mere invitation to refrain from the use of intellect and reason in reaching a considered judgement. You might as well say that the sum it is possible to win in a lottery is so great that a ticket in it must be brought, and indeed, that doing so can be viewed as sensible retirement planning.

In your claim Vreeland does this either to save lives or to spread disinformation, Sir, you leave out of the account the sovereign motive of human action, namely self-aggrandizement in its manifold forms. You ommit the likely possibility the man does this to feed the myth of himself that he has created, and the possible pecuniary reward of gifts from followers and supporters, of adoring letters from those his tales have captivated, and the various comforts these will offer, and the glow that comes from being the focus of attention not as a petty criminal of shabby stripe, but as an international man of mystery, a romantic character for the ages.

Perhaps the most amusing element in your remarks in the accusation that those who consider Vreeland's "warning" nonesense are responsible for its wide dissemination. That, Sir, is damned rich indeed. When persons attempt to spread panic by proclaim obvious nonesense in the most foreboding of tones, those who point out that it is nonesense, and maintain that it is nonesense against the efforts of those who credit it to claim otherwise, and that usually by bare assertion and the shabbiest and most niave of arguments, are not those responsible for the nonesense they expose. The responsibility for the spreading of the nonesensical rumor rests with those who themselves spread it, and seek to argue it ought to be taken seriously. You seem to be stating that persons who view this sort of thing as swill ought simply to keep quiet in the face of those who seek to spread it, and never argue or speak out against it, which, since you seem to view it as something to be taken seriously, is understandable, if a tad self-interested. You are really asking, it seems to me, for your views to be met by nothing but agreement or silence, but that is not the way of the world, and it is certainly not the way of this forum. If you, Sir, do not wish for this Vreeland nonesense to be spread all over this forum, then refrain from arguing that others treat it seriously, and belabor the persons who put it up for our consideration in the first place.

"Kill one, warn one hundred."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[The Minus World]

153. A Formidable Opponent

Please do not mischaracterize me. You dedicated your first paragraph to the subject of how you'd dismiss Vreeland entirely; however, you've utilized the second paragraph to adopt a stance that logical analysis should not be compromised, regardless of the enormity of the threat.

"Some statements Vreeland makes are False Statements."
"Some statements Vreeland makes are Vreeland's Most Recent Warning."
"Therefore, Vreeland's Most Recent Warning is a False Statement."

OOA statement: this is a logical fallacy, in that it applies the "subjective" nature of the first statement to a "universal" conclusion.

Did you not make the analogy of lottery tickets? A small negative, in order to facilitate a greater good? As we step back from this analogy, we see that you liken forewarning to "buying a lottery ticket," and the possible aversion of an attack to "winning the lottery." While winning the lottery, and possibly averting an attack are both undeniably "good," it is more accurate to say that, to make the analogy sound, the purchaser of said lottery ticket would have to be buying the ticket, not in the selfish hope of winning an exorbitant sum of money or fame, but in hopes that he would avert a tremendous evil (one that may or may not exist).

When speaking in self-canceling terms, such as "information" and "disinformation," I assume that you, the reader, would be able to deduce that "self-aggrandizement in its manifold forms" would only come from selfish interest, and such a statement would fall under the umbrella category of "disinformation." You see, I have also left out that Vreeland might be making these statements because he may enjoy prison food. Does it not follow that he would deliberately "inform" or "disinform" others, in order to acheive his desired goal?

When you dismiss this as "nonsense," (my position is clear, if you look at the previous paragraphs: these warnings should be considered and not rejected outright) it is counterproductive. There are individuals on this board who admittedly do not know whether these allegations are nonsense or not, but choose to discuss it openly. I do not equate such discussion with "shouting from the rooftops"; the statements made by Vreeland are neither verifiably correct or incorrect, and it is up to the reader what he or she will do with the knowledge that such a threat may exist, as ominous as it may be.

So, there are those who are actively engaged in trying to make sense of this situation. Then there are those who are actively engaged in trying to make the aforementioned group look like absolute lunatics.

[The Magistrate]

155. Cute, Mr. Spork, But No Cigar

Disinformation is a term of art, meaning lies used as a weapon in some cause beyond the person telling them, such as mischaracterization of the capabilities of an item of military equipment to decieve an enemy's expectations, or a claim that some political figure is associated with some tendency unpalatable to a group of voters. Self-aggrandizement, being a private cause and good, does not come under the general meaning of the term.

Syllogisms are an astonishing poor tool for analyzing human behavior, and the best way to phrase the point is this: Vreeland has lied on every particular so far, therefore the way to bet is that any further statement he makes is false. When the statement made requires belief in any number of preposterous propositions if it is to be viewed as true, the decision to disregard it is even easier. The point you urge amounts to suggesting good old Charlie Brown should not expect Lucy to jerk away the football this time as he runs to kick it, despite the fact that every single time before this one, she has done so. Clever people derive easy livings from folks who think like that.

A further weakness of your position, Sir, is this. You seem to imagine consideration of this matter to be a thing requiring some tremendous amount of time and deep searching, when it is nothing of the sort. It is false to assert, as you do, that persons who consider these things mere swill have not considered them: the fact is, they have considered them, and dismissed them as swill. The persons you describe as trying to make sense of the situation are, in fact, urging that these statements be taken seriously, and Vreeland be treated as a serious figure. Neither of these things are in the least compatible with making sense of the situation, but are rather attempts to inject as much nonesense into the discussion as can be contrived.

"My god, man, slap yourself and think!"

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[The Minus World]

160. My "Cute" Reply

Let me put it another way: either the information is "correct" or "incorrect" regardless of the context of the statements or the motives of the individual making them. We have no way of verifying correctness or incorrectness, so we can only discuss and speculate. Some DUers have been searching for a nugget of truth in a pile of uncertainty, and other DUers have chosen to focus only on the uncertainty as the centerpiece of the debate.

I provided a syllogism in order to clarify something that I've been attempting to convey all along (apparently, I haven't been eloquent enough): namely, that it is fallacious to assert that one "knows" that this man's information is true or false either way. Essentially, you are claiming that a "subjective" statement applies to a "universal" conclusion - cute little syllogisms aside, it is a fact.

Now, it can be assumed based on his past, that Vreeland is a liar, but some believe that his pre-9/11 warnings are credible. There are many who can vouch for the credibility of the DUer who relayed Vreeland's claims, however, the quality of said claims is the essence of the debate. As I stated above: there is no way for either you or I to know whether these claims are absolutely true or not, so it is fallacious to make a "universal" decision about them.

I'm glad that you and some others have gathered so much information about this subject that you're willing to "dismiss (it) as swill," however, I'm certain that most would agree that none of us have enough information to make a decision either way. To use your words, "it is false to assert" that a concrete conclusion can be made, based on the tenuous information given.

As for your approach: it is disappointing that a person as eloquent as yourself cannot suspend the impulse to indulge in unnecessary personal criticism ("My god, man, slap yourself and think!") when you engage others in conversation.

[The Magistrate]

161. As You Wish, Fellow

Humans differ from a pair of a dice in many ways, you know. It is true that no previous fall of the dice influences the current cast: the chance it will come up seven remains one in six, even if no seven has turned up in the previous eight casts, or if three sevens have, and anyone who thinks he can divine a pattern in their successive falls and use this for prediction is doomed to failure. Humans are something else. Humans do behave in patterns, that can be sussed out and understood, and these understandings do have predictive value. Humans repeat their behaviors, and do not really change much in their characters. An honest man tells the truth, a liar lies, and there is little either can do about it.

Those who search "for a nugget of truth in a pile of uncertainty" do so because they have a predisposition to view events in certain ways, that leads them to imagine there is a "nugget of truth" there in the first place. Beginning with this belief, they must find some means to support it, or else alter the way they view events in the world about them. The latter being a most difficult undertaking, it is no surprise it is avoided, and predisposition and naivite combined to find some nugget's gleam amid the dross of the mine.

The fact that some people believe things that are obviously, even self-evidently, false in my view does not trouble me one whit. There are people who believe any number of things, from the native superiority of Caucasian people through the creation of the earth in seven days to the shepherding of human development throughout history by extra-terrestial beings, and all of these people can cite what passes to them as convincing evidence for these propositions, and may do so till Hell freezes over without affecting my conviction their beliefs are nonesense. The intellectual processes by which they support these notions have no credibility whatever to me, and those notions can find no footing in my own understanding of the world and events within it, and the people who move and make these events. Any person has, of course, the right to think and act in a way that makes it clear to me he or she is an idiot, but no one has the right to be taken seriously in their beliefs, by anyone whom they cannot move by demonstration of their understanding and comprehension of the matter at hand and its total context to conclude that those beliefs are indeed things to take seriously.

"I'm going home now. Someone bring me some frogs and some bourbon."

[The Minus World]

163. Now it's getting philosophical...

As this has developed into somewhat of a discussion of metaphysics, rather than one about Vreeland directly, let me approach it from that angle.

I agree that human actions are not arbitrary and that one can develop rational assumptions about even that which he does not know, based on conditioning through prior experience. You will find no debate on that topic of interest.

Consider, though, the circumstances which drive the honest man to lies, or the man of lesser moral character to tell the truth; consider that man can commit an act of good through Hobbesian self-interest, or an inadvertent act of evil by following what John Stuart Mill would call the concept of internal sanction, or conscience of the greater good.

To then say that one who has had a history of lying is incapable of telling the truth, even under condition of preventing a major loss of life, would be an affront to the basic principles of logic. For one to presuppose to glean, superficially, the essence of an individual's character based on a two-dimensional resume and excited gossip online, would be an indictment based on hearsay.

The "patterns" you speak of are truly complexities within complexities; not simply behaviour garnering a "three strikes and you're out" or "you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists." A man can spend his life a liar, a thief, a republican, yet have moments when an internal necessity compels him to consider the greater good; neither you nor I are in a position to make that judgment against a one Mike Vreeland. That his life has followed the greater arc of deception does not provide that he is incapable of suspending such behaviour for a temporary act of conscience; given the information he passed along, these are circumstances which might provide for such an altruistic act.

When I spoke of a "nugget of truth," you seized it as an opportunity to assert that there are some who are "predisposed" to view things in certain ways, or to "alter" their perception of certain events somehow in order to justify their deluded beliefs. Actually, the "truth" I was referring to is not the undeniable "truth" of the claims being discussed, (since I have already, repeatedly and vigorously asserted that we do not, and cannot know whether Vreeland's warnings are based in truth or lies) but rather the "truth" about whether this Vreeland individual is to be believed. This is, yet again, another matter of separating the statement from the individual. Vreeland may be a liar, but you cannot provide any proof that suggests that this particular claim is a lie, save that it came from the mouth of a man who is known to lie under different circumstances.

While I agree with you that mankind suffers for its own delusions, it is important for one never to consider oneself met with the pinnacle of earthly wisdom; contempt for those who challenge you may be fit behaviour for tyrants and dictators, however, such self-proclaimed rigidity may be your downfall. Oftentimes, a humble man will realize of an idea, once a thing he considered to be "nonsense" while he was impetuous and young of age, it now makes perfect sense to him. Such is growth and the development of intellect.

While it is doubtful that I will ever learn to agree with the activities of a liar who willfully harms others through his lie, I can still attempt to understand, through analysis of circumstance, what his motivations were at the time. That you are troubled with those you consider to be wrong, simply evidences the fact that you have not taken the appropriate measures to fully consider their positions in relation to your own.

Thank you for your attention.

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WoodrowFan]

127. brief and to the point

Good ol' Zombywolf, short and to the point. :yourock:

[hunter]

146. Fuck you, ZombyWoof!

Hah, made you look. And then bloody hell, it's off to the 9/11 dungeon with us all...

Quite honestly there are maybe three or four people on this planet who I'd pay attention to if they called me with news of impending nuclear doom. My wife is one. (I wouldn't even pay attention to my mom, unless she was using her "true voice," and even then I'd question her quite a bit.)

Anyone who comes to DU seeking to strengthen the foundations of their reality is going to get hurt. There's a lot of silliness and an unacceptable amount of mean-spiritedness one must wade through while seeking any particular truth here.

The BBV issue has illustrated this point very well. (And look! Here on this thread are some of those BBV people, including myself... All I need now is an email from Carlos, and the universe will be right again...)

It is my great luxury that I can reveal myself as a "real" DU person to anyone I want to, and I have. My DU superhero fantasy identity doesn't have to remain all that secret.

One of the coolest DU-related experiences I've ever had was when someone, out of the blue, said, "Oh shit, you're hunter." (In case you want to know, I'm the tall quiet skinny guy who sometimes brings his kids to public meetings. Send me a pm for the "really?")

But I digress...

ZombyWoof says "Fuck paranoid wackjobs."

While we are at it, maybe we should kick a few Zombies too.

I first logged onto the internet in 1979, and I was a perfectly awful creature back then, and probably deserved all the flames I got. But I survived, and my very thick skin is now my flame suit.

So flame on against me if you must, ZombyWoof -- I must say you are being unkind to the paranoid wackjobs and the people who have been hurt by them. I think you often contribute to the mean-spiritedness here.

Since I already know you are a bad dog, the appropriate response would be something like "Boohoo."

Heh. Bring it on.

[LARED]

147. No warnings to date

I work in a industry that is high on the potential target lists for terrorist.

I receive information on a regular basis from state authorities when there are threats or warnings. I usually know about warnings 3 to 5 days before it is public knowledge.

To date there are NO threats that have been communicated, and as far as I know there are no plans to issues alerts during the election either.

[peacetalksforall]

158. It is very obvious that a team is at work here to shut people up.

This should be a place to explore it all and let it shake out, not get attacked and misquoted relentlessly.

The clues to behavior here fit a legalistic good cop, bad cop discreditng set-up or put-down.

No one drives this hard to set up or put down without a mission or a pay-off.

Anything is possible...twin statues (Bamien), twin towers, twin cities.

Should I be glad or not that the FBI knows?

[The Minus World]

159. Exactly. n/t

[The Magistrate]

162. You Have Rumbled Us, Fellow

We must take to the hills in good time, clearly, now that you have seen we are a dedicated team of operatives assigned to the task by the Combine, which pays us precisely what our efforts are worth....

"The lives people try and lead...."