Peter Meyer and Peter Lance: Are they disinfo agents?

[Eagle54]

Hello. I am writing about the 9/11 researchers Peter Meyer and Peter Lance.


Peter Meyer is the owner of the website www.serendipity.li On his website, Meyer has written extensively about the many falsehoods in the official story of 9/11 and about his belief that 9/11 was an inside job. Meyer also has published articles written by other writers, articles that talk about 9/11 being an inside job.

In the summer of 2006, I wrote two articles about the connections between 9 passengers of the 9/11 hijacked planes (including Todd Beamer) and the state of Israel. I sent these articles to Peter Meyer. I have posted these two articles onto the SOTT message board in recent months.

When Meyer received the articles, he said that they were interesting. However, he also said that he was feeling discouraged by the failure of the 9/11 truth movement. Meyer said that he wasn't going to be publishing anything on his website for the foreseeable future. However, at roughly the SAME time, he published some more writings by himself and/or by other writers. Meyer simply did not publish MY stuff.

So, is Peter Meyer some kind of shill for Israel?



Let's now talk about Peter Lance. Mr. Lance has written the books "Cover Up" and "Triple Cross". In these books, he writes extensively on the basic, elementary mistakes on the part of the US Government that allowed the World Trade Center bombing of 1993 to take place. Lance seems to believe that the US Government was simply incompetent. However, it seems that these "mistakes" are so basic that they might have been made ON PURPOSE.

Also, some time ago, Lance participated in a panel discussion on 9/11 with Alex Jones and David Griffin. Jones and Griffin believed that 9/11 had been done by the US Government, but Lance believed that 9/11 was a result of US Government incompetence. So, is Lance a disinfo agent?

 

[Mr. Premise]

Questions about two 9/11 researchers: Are they disinfo agents?

What do YOU think? You seem to have some facts from having dealt with one of them. Have you done any research on their backgrounds, associations?

 

[paulnotbilly]

Questions about two 9/11 researchers: Are they disinfo agents?

When Meyer received the articles, he said that they were interesting. However, he also said that he was feeling discouraged by the failure of the 9/11 truth movement. Meyer said that he wasn't going to be publishing anything on his website for the foreseeable future. However, at roughly the SAME time, he published some more writings by himself and/or by other writers. Meyer simply did not publish MY stuff.

So, is Peter Meyer some kind of shill for Israel?

Might be a slight case of the ol' green-eyed monster, if you think he's a shill - look at the articles that were published - do they have an agenda? Do they have the same point of view despite (allegedly) being from different writers?

Also, some time ago, Lance participated in a panel discussion on 9/11 with Alex Jones and David Griffin. Jones and Griffin believed that 9/11 had been done by the US Government, but Lance believed that 9/11 was a result of US Government incompetence. So, is Lance a disinfo agent?

Much the same was asked last year about Jim Marrs, he's written a number of interesting books and it was asked if he was disinfo due to him being linked on rense's website.

What do YOU think? You seem to have some facts from having dealt with one of them. Have you done any research on their backgrounds, associations?

 

[Laura]

Questions about two 9/11 researchers: Are they disinfo agents?

I had a funny experience with Peter Myers myself which included him spreading defamation about me written by Judy Andreas. He does not seem to be very discerning about the material he sends around, and also seems to be a bit egotistical. Don't know anything about Peter Lance.

 

[Christophera]

Questions about two 9/11 researchers: Are they disinfo agents?

Let's now talk about Peter Lance. Mr. Lance has written the books "Cover Up" and "Triple Cross". In these books, he writes extensively on the basic, elementary mistakes on the part of the US Government that allowed the World Trade Center bombing of 1993 to take place. Lance seems to believe that the US Government was simply incompetent. However, it seems that these "mistakes" are so basic that they might have been made ON PURPOSE.

It is my understanding from reading excerpts from transcripts of the court hearings that defense for the bomber actually got the FBI to admit the encouraged a mock bombing at first, then switched out bogus explosives for real ones. This happened over a period of months.

One of the surprising pieces of information was that the orginal parking place for the van was up against the core base. Later the FBI directed the hiackers to move it out from the core and that this would cause greater damage to the unsupported floor spans above.

Generally; and this comes not just from 9-11 disinformation observations but observations relating to any sensitive, secret aspect which is a concern of those who are secretly in control; no person who will expose secrets is given any power to expose secrets.

What is said here is that those who have material power, and that is secondary to the kind of power it takes to move material power, are very careful to not allow any power to come to any person who might use that power to expose secrets. This same rule goes for the ability to share information easily on a large scale, or media access. Any media whatsoever. Acess to publishing or film/video production and marketing/distribution.

The use of that rule says that those who are easiest to hear or percieve are the most likely to be using misinformation and disinformation. Tis' only logic.

 

[Eagle54]

Questions about two 9/11 researchers: Are they disinfo agents?

It is my understanding from reading excerpts from transcripts of the court hearings that defense for the bomber actually got the FBI to admit the encouraged a mock bombing at first, then switched out bogus explosives for real ones. This happened over a period of months.

One of the surprising pieces of information was that the orginal parking place for the van was up against the core base. Later the FBI directed the hiackers to move it out from the core and that this would cause greater damage to the unsupported floor spans above.

Generally; and this comes not just from 9-11 disinformation observations but observations relating to any sensitive, secret aspect which is a concern of those who are secretly in control; no person who will expose secrets is given any power to expose secrets.

snip

So, the FBI admitted in open court that the FBI was involved in the 1993 WTC bombing?

Where can I find these transcripts online?



As for Lance and disinformation, the following link is a December 20, 2006, article about Lance in a Santa Barbara newspaper:

http://independent.com/news/2006/12/conspiratorial_incompetence.html


In the above article, we have the following statement:

<<
But after five years of research, Lance said he hasn’t uncovered “a single shred of evidence

 

[anart]

Questions about two 9/11 researchers: Are they disinfo agents?

<snip>

So, the FBI admitted in open court that the FBI was involved in the 1993 WTC bombing?

Where can I find these transcripts online?

It does sound like those transcripts would be interesting - do you have a link, Christophera?

As for Lance and disinformation, the following link is a December 20, 2006, article about Lance in a Santa Barbara newspaper:

http://independent.com/news/2006/12/conspiratorial_incompetence.html


In the above article, we have the following statement:

<<
But after five years of research, Lance said he hasn’t uncovered “a single shred of evidence� that the government knew about 9/11 or helped it happen.
>>

So, maybe Lance IS a shill for the US Government.

Well - it certainly sounds like it from that statement. There are so many 'shreds' of evidence that a 'coat of many colors' could have been sewn.

Now, about exposing secrets and being given the power to expose secrets, what about the *websites* that expose secrets?

Alex Jones and Jeff Rense have websites that attack the government, and you guys say that Jones and Rense are shills. But what about the Wing TV website?

Lisa Guliani and Victor Thorn attacked Jones and Rense for being shills. However, if Lisa and Victor are true opponents of the government, wouldn't the Wing TV website have been shut down?


In general, I'm starting to get confused as to who is a shill and who is not. :)

I thought that Jones and Rense were legitimate, and then Lisa and Victor showed that Jones and Rense were shills.

I thought that Chris Bollyn was legitimate, but then he was arrested and he started attacking Mike Piper, Lisa Guliani, and/or Victor Thorn (I'm having trouble remembering exactly whom Bollyn attacked).

I thought that Lisa and Victor were both legitimate, and then Lisa and Victor had some big spat, and Lisa claimed that Victor was being condescending to her.

I've read Lisa's posts on this forum, and I find her to be credible, but I'm kind of getting confused by all of this.

Well - don't feel alone - it is confusing and it is designed to be that way. As far as the government shutting down sites that tell the truth, it seems that directly attacking anyone who is telling the truth actually tends to lend credence to what that site is saying - so that is avoided at all costs. You've probably read the Bollyn thread on this forum, so you can put those pieces together (and wonder, at this point, if he ever wrote any of the articles attributed to him since his behavior and writing since has been so bizarre). As far as WINGtv - all indications at this point are that it was a legitimate entity limited only by it's underestimation of what it was up against. At this point (unless things have changed recently of which I am unaware), 'it is no more' - so - I suppose, any ability it had to actually shine some light on the truth is also 'no more'.


But, yes, it can be confusing - that's why paying very strict attention to not only what is being written, by by whom and why is so important. Those who do not have humanity's best interests at heart are literally fighting for their lives - this is not a game - so nothing is off limits as far as what they will do and who they will use to further their cause. But, I figure if you've found this forum, you've probably figured that part out by now. ;)

 

[Christophera]

Questions about two 9/11 researchers: Are they disinfo agents?

<snip>

So, the FBI admitted in open court that the FBI was involved in the 1993 WTC bombing?

Where can I find these transcripts online?

It does sound like those transcripts would be interesting - do you have a link, Christophera?

No. When I read it about 3 years ago I assumed because of the discussion in the forum (democraticunderground) that the link was in, that many people knew of the issue that originated in the trial of the accused bomber. In posting on the subject since then I found that a few generally were aware of those transcipts. In searching more recently for a new link, I was unable to find the information at all.

In the time since 9-11 it appears that information is not accumulating and that it is instead disapearing. Which is exactly what you would expect if there was a sizable campaign of disinformation in effect.

It would seem that if the many 9-11 non profits are competent and sincere that accumulation and preservation of pertinent evidence would be a primary purpose and so this should be archived somewhere.

 

[Laura]

Questions about two 9/11 researchers: Are they disinfo agents?

I assumed because of the discussion in the forum (democraticunderground) that the link was in, that many people knew of the issue that originated in the trial of the accused bomber.

Hmmm... democraticunderground... now there's a "reliable" source for you. (sarcasm)

I've never heard of this and I've been digging in the whole 911 thing from day 1. I suggest you drop what you can't back up with hard data. Or at least describe it accurately as "undocumented claim" that is interesting, but no cigar.

 

[Joe]

Questions about two 9/11 researchers: Are they disinfo agents?

I had a funny experience with Peter Myers myself which included him spreading defamation about me written by Judy Andreas. He does not seem to be very discerning about the material he sends around, and also seems to be a bit egotistical. Don't know anything about Peter Lance.

Peter Myers a different person. Peter Meyer is the owner of the Serendipity site.

Joe

 

[Christophera]

Questions about two 9/11 researchers: Are they disinfo agents?

I assumed because of the discussion in the forum (democraticunderground) that the link was in, that many people knew of the issue that originated in the trial of the accused bomber.

Hmmm... democraticunderground... now there's a "reliable" source for you. (sarcasm)

I've never heard of this and I've been digging in the whole 911 thing from day 1. I suggest you drop what you can't back up with hard data. Or at least describe it accurately as "undocumented claim" that is interesting, but no cigar.

democraticunderground wasn't the source, just the place where the link to the source was. It is not information I generally spread, that type information is on my web site. This is simply a reminder of what I found in my research which is related. It is a lead another might follow. I have ADHD, and cannot keep track of sources in all areas effectively. Trials of early bombers is pretty far from the 9-11 disinformation, I normally don't search that far. I stick with issues I know well and then organization is built in.

From my perspective if no supporting links can be found today, it simply shows how effective disinformation is.

If what I read was untrue and ultimately misinformation and I shared it without knowing it, how much damage would that do to the movement?

 

[Niall]

Questions about two 9/11 researchers: Are they disinfo agents?

the movement?

 

[Christophera]

Questions about two 9/11 researchers: Are they disinfo agents?

the movement?

Ok. corrected. the "wanna be" movement.