+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: 911 (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-6.html)
+--- Thread: 9/11: The Social Network - Daniel Hopsicker joins the dots (/thread-5497.html)
9/11: The Social Network - Daniel Hopsicker joins the dots - Anthony Thorne - 22-01-2011
Another solid and well-researched article by Daniel Hopsicker on the criminal networks involved behind 9/11, and the drug traffic trade that always seems to be on the periphery of this event. Also note Hopsicker's oblique mention of a major 9/11 book due out in September this year (he didn't write it, but he assisted with its research) that sounds like it might make some big waves in the mainstream when it appears.
http://www.madcowprod.com/01192011.htm
9/11: The Social Network - Daniel Hopsicker joins the dots - Peter Lemkin - 22-01-2011
Anthony Thorne Wrote:Another solid and well-researched article by Daniel Hopsicker on the criminal networks involved behind 9/11, and the drug traffic trade that always seems to be on the periphery of this event. Also note Hopsicker's oblique mention of a major 9/11 book due out in September this year (he didn't write it, but he assisted with its research) that sounds like it might make some big waves in the mainstream when it appears.
http://www.madcowprod.com/01192011.htm
Great dot connecting...and can't wait for this book!!!!!
9/11: The Social Network - Daniel Hopsicker joins the dots - Jan Klimkowski - 22-01-2011
Great dot-joining by Daniel Hopsicker and to be read in its entirety.
Quote:While Mexican drug cartels make $30 billion transporting drugs to the U.S. drug market each year,a highly-placed source tells me, the American drug lords make $120 billion.
It is not a trifle. But it is a misunderstanding.
I'm sure Henry Kissinger can explain.
Just as George W Bush attempted to have Henry deliver the "Kissinger Commission" version of 9/11...
9/11: The Social Network - Daniel Hopsicker joins the dots - Magda Hassan - 26-01-2011
A thing of frightening beauty. Great connecting there. I'm looking forward to reading his new book.
9/11: The Social Network - Daniel Hopsicker joins the dots - Peter Presland - 26-01-2011
Agreed about the dot-connecting but.....
But before Hopsiker is duly cannonised, have a look at this article. It puts him in a rather less flattering light, with detailed, well reasoned research.
OTT?
Maybe, but I remain agnostic on a guy who presents himself as the standard-bearer of the Gary Webb legacy and - were an Official Narrative fall-back position to become necessary - whose over-arching thesis on 911 would fit the bill
9/11: The Social Network - Daniel Hopsicker joins the dots - Anthony Thorne - 28-01-2011
Always good to be cautious, but I don't quite buy the thesis of the article Peter links above, nor do I really find it that well researched.
"At this very moment in time they are getting him ready for the major talk show circuit. They are grooming him as the atom bomb to destroy the 911 truth movement.."
Hopsicker wishes he had this much attention. Sander Hicks' THE BIG WEDDING has a chapter on Hopsicker which notes how DH, in an attempt to get airtime for some of his drug traffic expose videos, appeared on camera onetime in interview with another figure who was later linked (loosely, indirectly, I forget all the details) to unsavory right-wing racist groups. Hicks states right away that he doesn't feel that Hopsicker shares any of those aforementioned racist viewpoints, but that he made a clear error of judgement (or failed to properly research his interviewee) by appearing with the chap on camera. When questioned about the incident, Hopsicker argued with some frustration (if I recall the chapter accurately) that it was hard enough to get any airtime anywhere. (I could be misremembering the section in THE BIG WEDDING but I recall this is a fairly accurate paraphrase of it). Anyway, this is hardly the act of someone carefully grooming themselves in preparation for appearances on mainstream TV.
Citizen Spook Blog then quotes a prior article by Hopsicker and critiques it for not being aggressive enough regarding the likelihood of direct US government involvement in the attacks. Hopsicker's article is dated as November 7th 2001, barely a handful of weeks after the attacks themselves. I date the first 9/11 truth book as probably being Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed's THE WAR ON FREEDOM from 2002 (later revised by that author into THE WAR ON TRUTH), the first Western mainstream media questioning of the event being Barrie Zwicker's late 2001 / early 2002 analysis in Canada, and the first major articles seriously digging in to the inconsistencies surrounding the attacks being those by Michael Ruppert and Stan Goff through early 2002 onwards. (Ruppert's OH LUCY! YOU GOTTA LOTTA 'SPLAININ TO DO. A TIMELINE SURROUNDING SEPTEMBER 11TH' is probably the most notable of those). German author Mathias Broeckers was questioning the event nearly immediately after the attack but his articles didn't appear in English translation until 2006. The sporadically brilliant Xymphora blog managed four or more years solid of important 9/11 analysis (before drifting perhaps too heavily into aggressively anti-Zionist polemics) but even that blog didn't get all its ducks in a row regarding 9/11 until probably the turn of 2001 / 2002. Hopsicker's failure to completely dive into all the inconsistencies of the 9/11 story since then is worthy of comment, but I'm prepared to cut him some slack regarding an article written less than eight weeks after the event. Sibel Edmonds and Coleen Rowley, to name two of many, have been equally careful about pointing direct fingers but their own critiques remain of great merit. To date, I think Webster Tarpley has appeared on mainstream US TV more often than Daniel Hopsicker.
Hicks accurately notes Hopsicker as being the point man in establishing Atta and his cohorts as being lovers of pork chops and devotees of drugs and strip clubs, not really behavior typical of radical muslims preparing for holy suicide. In the Hicks book, asshole 9/11 Commission member Richard Ben Veniste reacts with dismay and snide anger when Hicks mentions both Barry Seal and the above Atta facts in an interview. Anyone that gets under the skin of creeps like Ben Veniste deserves some credit, and Hopsicker deserves recognition for keeping those facts in the public spotlight, even if only to a minor extent.
As an aside, though I haven't finished listening to the whole thing, there's a pretty good (and long) interview between Alex Jones and Hopsicker here -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37ZU-yBOdt8