-Caveat Lector- http://www.questionsquestions.net/documents2/corn2.html --[cont]--
There are type stylings and other type-nuances at the web site that help to understand whom is talking where. Om K ----- Judge Campbell called Vreeland a "man who appears on this evidentiary record to be nothing more than a petty fraudsman with a vivid imagination." But Ruppert dismisses Vreeland's past, noting he has "a very confusing criminal arrest record--some of it very contradictory and apparently fabricated." Simply a lie -- Ruppert has stated very plainly that Vreeland is "not a saint" and has never tried to deny or dismiss the existence of his criminal record. The world of spying and covert operations is not known for being straight-laced. Furthermore Vreeland has made two arguments that deserve mention: first, he claims that parts of his record were forged deliberately, following the practice of building a credible criminal "rep" which is essential if one is supposed to infiltrate organized crime. Second, if these records are all genuine, then why have they not been applied to Vreeland's extradition hearings, which would make nabbing him a snap? When I interviewed Vreeland, he said, "I have never legally been convicted of anything in the United States of America." And, he added, he has never been in prison. There are two odd bounces in this case. Vreeland claims that in Moscow he worked with a Canadian Embassy employee named Marc Bastien. Unfortunately, this cannot be confirmed by Bastien. He was found dead in Moscow on December, 12, 2000--while Vreeland was in jail in Toronto. At the time of his death, Canadian authorities announced Bastien died of natural causes, but Vreeland later claimed Bastien had been murdered. Then, this past January, the Quebec coroner said Bastein died after drinking a mixture of alcohol and clopazine, an antidepressant, and he noted that Bastien may have been poisoned--or may have been offered the medication to fight a hangover. Corn, don't play dumb and skip the context. The coroner was cautiously agreeing with the findings of the RMCP and Moscow police who believed that the computer specialist was the victim of a person - "maybe a woman" - who slipped a clopazine tablet in his drink. Had Vreeland really known something about this death, or had he made a good guess about a fellow whose death was covered in the Canadian media? And during a courtroom proceeding, at Vreeland's insistence, the judge allowed his counsel to place a call to the Pentagon. The operator who answered confirmed that a Lieutenant D. Vreeland was listed in the phone directory. Afterward, Canadian prosecutors claimed that information from the US government indicated that a person purporting to be Lieutenant D. Vreeland had earlier sent an e- mail to a telephone operator at the Pentagon, saying he would temporarily be occupying a Pentagon office and requesting that this be reflected in the listings. Ummm, yeah... what evidence did they offer? By the way, the statements and behavior of prosecutors in the case has been described by Ruppert as bizarre and contradictory, which is apparently one of the factors which swayed the exasperated judge to rule in Vreeland's favor. Could a fellow in a Toronto jail have scammed the Pentagon telephone system? And if he had, would the Pentagon now be silent about it? Why has Corn brought up this innuendo based on heresay from a clearly biased source? Wouldn't it be easier to call up the Pentagon and get a definitive statement on this? Really. Next, we ought to ask how Vreeland, from his jail cell, forged a 1,000+ page service record and had a deep-cover mole on the inside to deposit it in military archives where it could be retrieved by his laywers. Obviously an extraordinarily talented fellow. In March the Canadian criminal charges against Vreeland were dropped, and he was allowed to post bail. Explaining why charges were removed, Paul McDermott, a provincial prosecutor, says his office considered the pending extradition matter the priority. Vreeland's extradition hearing is scheduled for September. To believe Vreeland's scribbles mean anything, By the way, some people who have not decided at the drop of a hat that the letter merely contains "scribbles" have made some interesting finds. For instance, names of two Russian businessmen whose connections lead straight to some Central Asia oil interests... but Corn probably doesn't want to hear about that... one must believe his claim to be a veteran intelligence operative sent to Moscow on an improbable top-secret, high-tech mission (change design documents to neutralize an entire technology) during which he stumbled upon documents (which he has not revealed) showing that 9/11 was going to happen. To believe that, one must believe he is a victim of a massive disinformation campaign, involving his family, law enforcement officers and defense lawyers across the country, two state corrections departments, county clerk offices in ten or so counties, the Canadian justice system and various parts of the US government. And one must believe that hundreds, if not thousands, of detailed court, county, prison and state records have been forged. How stupid do you think we are, Corn? Are you asking us to believe that no one has ever had their criminal records forged before? Better hope that your loyal readers don't do any background research on this topic. It is easier to believe that a well-versed con man got lucky with the Bastien death/murder, was able to arrange a stunt with the Pentagon switchboard and either wrote a sketchy note before September 11 that could be interpreted afterward as relevant or penned the note following the disaster and convinced prison guards he had written it previously. You can believe what you need to believe. Michigan detective John Meiers, who's been chasing Vreeland for two years, says, "The bottom line: Delmart Vreeland is a con man. He's conned everyone he comes into contact with. That's why he's wanted.... He keeps going back into court for hearings because he doesn't want to come back here. He knows he's going to prison, and he's fighting. In the interim, he's coming up with a variety of stories." So, a seasoned con man who is slick enough to pull the wool over the eyes of a hardboiled ex-LA cop (and a number of other reporters) decides to concoct the story that he was a spy who knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance as his sneaky ticket out of jail?? Ummm, by definition a con is designed to be easy to swallow, not outrageous and dissonant. That's the whole point. No one is disputing that Vreeland has some shady sides to his life, but the evidence shows that he knew things he should not have; a simple "con man" theory just doesn't hold water. flashback -- Ruppert's response to Corn's first slander attack: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/030402_cornreply.html The Rest of It The Vreeland case--despite the attention it has drawn--is not the centerpiece of all 9/11 conspiracy theories. Exactly... so why then have you made it the centerpiece of this article, when there are so many other topics to discuss? After all, you did remark defensively about not having enough space to cover everything. Maybe you're hedging because you know your "refutation" was weak and built on innuendo? There is much more: A CIA officer supposedly met with bin Laden in July 2001 in Dubai. Before September 11, parties unknown engaged in a frenzy of short- selling involving the stock of American Airlines, United Airlines and dozens of other companies affected by the attacks. The Pentagon was not actually hit by an airliner. Flight 93--the fourth plane--did not crash in Pennsylvania; it was shot down. The Bush Administration, in talks with the Taliban, warned that war was coming. And that's not a complete run-down. Some of the lingering questions or peculiar facts warrant more attention than others. There was a boost in short-selling. But does that suggest the US government ignored a clear warning? Or might the more obvious explanation be true--that people close to Osama bin Laden were tipped off and took advantage of that inside information? As I understand it, investigators in the UK were unable to establish any links between the trades and bin Laden's organization, and announced this last fall. If the US investigation found any links, why would they not have been announced in order to bolster the US government's case? If the investigation led nowhere, why was that not simply announced? Why has all the hush-hush fallen over the investigation? Are they trying to make us suspicious? I don't see how this leads in any way to an "obvious" explanation, unless one is credulous. Ronald Blekicki, who publishes Microcap Analyst, an online investment publication, says most of the short-selling occurred overseas--and escaped notice in the United States. If that type of trading had happened in the US markets, he explains, it would have stirred rumors about the companies involved. "Everyone on the exchanges would have known about it," he explains. "My best guess is that the people who profited were reasonably wealthy individuals in the inner circle of bin Laden and the Taliban." What is curious, though, is that news of the investigations into the short-selling has taken a quick-fade. Neither the Securities and Exchange Commission nor the Chicago Board Options Exchange will say whether they are still investigating trading practices prior to September 11. And there has been no word from Congress or the Bush Administration on this topic. Suspicious minds, no doubt, can view the public absence of government interest as evidence of something amiss. In this instance, the lack of a credible official investigation creates much space for the disciples of conspiracy theories. Catherine Austin Fitts, former Assistant Secretary of Housing, internationally recognized economic consultant, and an expert on money laundering who has been doing some of the leading public research into Enron and related scandals, apparently must fit Corn's definition of "disciples of conspiracy theories." While serving in the administration of Bush Sr., she was put in charge of the behind-the-scenes cleanup of the HUD and S&L scandals, and continued later in the private sector working on the BCCI scandal as well. These eye-opening experiences prompted her to pursue economic reform as an entrepeneur (turning down an offer to join the Federal Reserve in the process!) and she has been advocating strongly for deeper investigation into the current Bush Administration scandals. She also happens to be a research advisor to Ruppert on economic issues. Here is her recent public statement supporting an independent investigation of 9/11, in which she places high importance on looking into the insider stock trades... http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0205/S00173.htm ...not to mention eclipsing Corn's feeble assertion that "they're just not evil enough to do something like this" with the knowing experience of an insider who has watched closeup and firsthand how these people operate. Take it from the source, folks. One note about Corn's previous paragraph: by bringing up the fact that most of the stock trades occurred overseas, he appears to me to be hinting in a backhanded way that they would have slipped past the attention of US intelligence. This is deceptive -- the CIA and other intelligence agencies use sophisticated software programs to monitor trading activity in all worldwide markets, on a constant basis. This is in no way limited to domestic markets. Their posession of such software, long denied, was acknowledged shortly after 9/11 in reference to other parts of the investigation. No airliner at the Pentagon? You can find websites devoted to that thesis. Another site, called www.flight93crash.com, offers a sober look at the anomalies that have led people to wonder if that last plane, the one in Pennsylvania, was blasted out of the sky. The alleged CIA-bin Laden meeting in Dubai has attracted intense notice in alternative-9/11 circles. The story first appeared In Le Figaro, a French newspaper, on October 31, 2001, in an article by freelancer Alexandra Richard. Citing an unnamed "partner of the administration of the American Hospital in Dubai," she maintained that bin Laden was treated at the hospital for ten days. Her story also asserted that "the local CIA agent...was seen taking the main elevator of the hospital to go to bin Laden's hospital room" and "bragged to a few friends about having visited bin Laden," but she provided no source for these details. The hospital categorically denies bin Laden was there. Even if a meeting occurred, that would not necessarily indicate the CIA was aware of bin Laden's plot. Such news, though, would be a huge embarrassment and prompt many awkward questions. But the meeting's existence--unattached to a single identifiable source--can only be regarded as iffy. The Le Figaro report did indeed attract intense notice when it first appeared: a number of the better researchers immediately red-flagged it as possibly phony, a lure for those who would jump at a "too good to be true" smoking gun, and would then later be discredited when the story would be refuted (a similar reaction occured when the French "Pentagon Hoax" came out). Ruppert revealed that Le Figaro is partially owned by the Carlysle Group, which increased these guarded suspicions. Le Figaro, however, has stood by the story despite intense official denials, and it was later found that Carlysle's ownership of the newspaper is not significant. Thus, the story has been accepted as a legitimate, though not central piece of evidence; one which must be viewed in light of other important evidence (particularly accounting for some fairly pointed skepticism in legitimate quarters whether the bin Laden's supposed estrangement from their errant son is as complete as they claim). Viewed in isolation, this report is "iffy," but as I noted before, Corn is pursuing a debunking approach of "divide and conquer" towards the evidence. This type of tactic reminds me of a slick mob lawyer who gets his client off the hook by knocking down each piece of evidence one by one on legal technicalities, dazzling and overwhelming the jury and distracting from the fact that the "big picture" with all the pieces put together carefully is quite consistent and shows an identifiable pattern of wrongdoing. Two French authors, Jean-Charles Brisard, a former intelligence employee, and Guillaume Dasquie, a journalist, have written a book, Bin Laden; the Forbidden Truth, in which they maintain that the 9/11 attacks were the "outcome" of "private and risky discussions" between the United States and the Taliban "concerning geostrategic oil interests." As they see it, Washington, driven by fealty to Big Oil, threatened the Taliban with military action and replacement, as it was pursuing Osama bin Laden and seeking a regime in Afghanistan that would cooperate with oil firms. In response to Washington's heavy- handed tactics, the two suggest, bin Laden and the Taliban decided to strike first. This double theory--it's-all-about-oil and Washington provoked the attack--has resonated on anti-Bush websites. To prove their case, the French men attach sinister motives to a United Nations initiative to settle the political and military strife in Afghanistan. Citing a UN report, they depict this effort as "negotiations" between the Taliban and the United States, in which the Americans aimed to replace the Taliban with the former King. Yet a fair reading of the UN report shows that the endeavor--conducted by the UN Special Mission to Afghanistan--was a multilateral attempt to resolve the conflict in Afghanistan that involved discussions with the various sides in that country. It was not geared toward reinstalling ex-King Mohammad Zahir Shah. That Corn would try to drag Jean-Charles Brisard, an internationally recognized terrorism expert, into his "conspiracy rumor monger" bin is truly bizarre. Several years ago, Brisard wrote what is recognized as the definitive research work on Osama bin Laden and his organization. Hmmm, I guess this only earns him the right in Corn's eyes to be labeled as a "former intelligence employee." Pathetic. Brisard and Dasquie's most dramatic charge is that former Pakistani foreign minister Niaz Naik, who attended one of a series of international conferences held by the UN Special Mission to Afghanistan, says that at the July 2001 meeting a "US official" threatened the Taliban, "Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs." (This portion of the book is similar to an earlier article in the British Guardian, in which Naik additionally noted that the Pakistani government relayed Naik's impression of this US threat to the Taliban.) The Taliban, though, were not present at the session, which was held in Berlin, and the three American representatives there were former US officials. One of the reps, Tom Simons, a past US Ambassador to Pakistan who spent thirty-five years in the foreign service, recalls no such threat but acknowledges that the Americans did note that if Washington determined bin Laden was behind the USS Cole bombing in Yemen, the Afghans obviously could expect the Bush Administration to strike bin Laden. That would hardly have been a remark to cause bin Laden to arrange quickly a pre-emptive assault. Simons--who says he was not interviewed by the French authors--believes Naik misheard the Americans on this point. Whether Naik did or not, the French authors, at best, suggest a line of inquiry rather than come close to validating their contention. Throughout this article, 90% of what Corn is offering is innuendo and hyped-up doubt, not even attempting refutation. I'm not impressed. Some more crucial questions Corn could have better spent his time on: Why did the Bush Administration, during their secret negotiations with the Taliban, default on many clear opportunities to demand the handover of bin Laden and his al Qaeda leadership? (corroborated by Laili Helms, who served as an unofficial envoy to the Taliban). Given that US invasion plans for Afghanistan were already set months before, and a vast US & UK military mobilization in the region was already being staged before 9/11, what justification for war was the weak and unpopular Bush Administration counting on to allow this plan to go forward? I find it far-fetched to believe that a disclosure about al Qaeda's guilt in the Cole Bombing would have secured anything more than airstrikes or otherwise limited attack. What was the full relationship between US policy towards the Taliban & al Qaeda and the long-running UNOCAL pipeline project for Central Asia, site the world's most strategically important undeveloped oil reserve (and subject of a 1997 book by master policy planner Zbigniew Brezhinski, who argued for a US play at dominance in the region which would require a "Pearl Harbor" style provocation)? Why weren't decisions made at the political level during the Clinton and Bush Administrations to take more aggressive military steps against bin Laden and al Qaeda? http://globalresearch.ca/articles/JAN205A.html Good God, when even the stuffy military journal Jane's Intelligence Weekly is posing tougher and more cogent questions than the big poster boy "leftists", it ain't time to start crying... it's time to start laughing. (Brisard and Dasquie also argue--without offering an abundance of evidence--that the United States, by design, did not vigorously pursue bin Laden and the Al Qaeda network because doing so clashed with other diplomatic priorities, most notably, cozying up to the oil autocrats of Saudi Arabia.) How convenient -- Corn fails to mention that Brisard heard these charges of obstruction from John O'Neill, one of the FBI's top anti-terror investigators and formerly his close friend (O'Neill died in the WTC attack, his second day on the job at a new security post there. Hmmm...) Official accounts ought not to be absorbed without scrutiny. Mr. Corn, in my view you have no credibility as a "leftist" until you start attacking official accounts with the same kind of skeptical outrage and cynicism which you are now choosing to direct instead at your reviled "conspiracy theorists." Why has every article you have written since the breaking of the Phoenix Memo story been in harmonious yet subtle lock step with the Bush Administration's transparent efforts to deflect questions of their negligence and/or culpability towards the damage-control issue of "intelligence failure" and pull off the obvious tactic of making the FBI & CIA take the fall? Clandestine agendas and unacknowledged geostrategic factors--such as oil--may well shape George W. Bush's war on terrorism. OK, I get it. We should have scrutiny, but only if it leads to safe and familiar sounding allegations of medium corruption and medium criminality. Anything which might justify Impeachment or otherwise threaten the fundamental power base of those running the system is clearly, obviously, just a conspiracy theory which must never even be considered. No urgency, no worries. The righteous, implacable enemies of Bush Administration corruption like David Corn will have it all figured out for us before long. And there are questions that have gone unaswered. For example, on September 12, 2001, a brief story in Izvestia, the Moscow-based newspaper, citing unnamed sources, reported that Moscow had warned Washington of the 9/11 attacks weeks earlier. Was such a warning actually transmitted? If so, who issued the warning and who received it? My first guess is that it was received by the mail room clerk at the Montana Department of Fish and Wildlife. But questions are not equivalent to proof. And that's why anyone who thinks that these questions ought to be plastered across the headlines so we can back these dictatorial bastards into a corner and try to pry out some truth is an overexcitable conspiracy nut? As of now, there is not confirmable evidence to argue that the conventional take on September 11--bin Laden surprise-attacked America as part of a jihad, and a caught-off-guard United States struck back--is actually a cover story. This remark is pure bluster and obfuscation. More semantic manipulations around the issue of appropriate and reasonable standards of presentable evidence at the nascent stages of a still uninvestigated political scandal and cover-up. In context, the evidence thus far is stunning. Without conspiracy theories, there is much to wonder about September 11. The CIA and the FBI had indications, if not specific clues, that something was coming and did not piece them together. Government agencies tasked to protect the United States failed. Try again -- the 13-page memo (which Corn has left unmentioned) from Colleen Rowley, one of the FBI's best and brightest, alleges that there was willful obstruction of justice by FBI management, to such an extreme extent that agents started darkly joking between each other under their breath that their higher-ups must have been working for bin Laden. We do not yet have an explanation for this and whether it was done following orders. Hey Corn, stop trying so desperately to sell us on the "failure to put the pieces together" spin. We're not buying it yet. You're making yourself look like a crank. US air defenses performed extraordinarily poorly--even though there had been signs for at least five years that Al Qaeda was considering a 9/11-type scheme. US air defenses did not perform extraordinarily poorly. They scarcely performed at all. This is an important unexplained issue, without even a remote precedent, and one which has been researched in great detail already raising serious unanswered questions. I've been learning that there are two sides to everything in life: for every amateur, credulous conspiracy nut who believes every story they hear about government crimes, no matter how far-fetched and over-reaching the explanation is, there is also an amateur, credulous conspiracy doubter who accepts the excuse of incompetence and systemic failure for every lapse by those in government, no matter how far-fetched and over-reaching the explanation is. The latter seems to be the audience which Corn would like to have. Afterward, neither the Bush Administration nor Congress rushed to investigate. In fact, Senate majority leader Tom Daschle maintains that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney both told him in January they opposed any Congressional investigation of 9/11. (The White House denies this.) Congress finally greenlighted an inquiry, but the investigation bogged down as the Congressional investigators complained that the CIA and the Justice Department were impeding their efforts. The American people are not conspiracy theorists for noting how the Bush Administration continued to dodge and lie even after the revelations about the Phoenix FBI memo and the intelligence briefings. Honest politicians with nothing to hide respond to such a situation with speedy full disclosure, in order to settle any questions of their culpability. They do not continue with a coverup and continue to play hardball with those on Capitol Hill who are trying to pursue an open investigation. This is not about f***ing conspiracy theories and "true believers." It's about f***ing common sense. Until and unless those in authority give a full accounting of what they know, which can be independently verified, the public has the right -- in lieu of full disclosure -- to begin taking steps toward drawing their own conclusions about the truth that lies behind a catastrophic failure by their leaders to perform their duties, using the evidence that is available. Bush has had eight months to come clean and provide the full truth about 9/11 to the still-traumatized American people, and continues to fail to do so. Where there is unresolved and reasonable doubt, the balance of the burden of proof is now on him, not on Corn's hysterically fantasized "conspiracy" menace. One problem with conspiracy theorizing is that it can distract from the true and (sometimes mundane) misdeeds and mistakes of government. Another problem is that dilligent and honest research into some "conspiracy theories" quickly reveals how some "leftist" media pundits like Corn have for years chronically downplayed how corrupt and blood-soaked the system really is, all the way up to the top. This in itself does far more damage to the truth than all the efforts of the world's Karl Roves and Ari Fleischers. Really, the tautological insistence by Corn and others that "conspiracy theory" is the ultimate nemesis of activism against the "real" problems of government is a divisive fear tactic which exploits the genuine concerns of those who may be vulnerable to worries about whether they are being a "good activist" or a "good progressive" who is making a practical difference. As usual, it is brought up here as an ex-cathedra dictum without justification or explanation (sometimes, when an explanation is offered, it is based on no more than an assertion that "conspiracy theory" does not conform with orthodox "structuralist" or "institutional" old-left ideology). Normon Solomon has been even more heavy-handed in this regard, with arm-waving Chicken Little announcements about people like Ruppert being "very dangerous to the movement." I think it is worth reflecting on the fact that authoritarian leaders have always justified their one-sided control with propaganda to the effect that they are saving the vulnerable from degenerate, corrupting outsiders. This is a timeless trait of human nature. But when the government is reluctant to probe its own errors, it opens the door wider for those who would turn anomalies into theories or spin curious fact--or speculation--into outlandish explanation. Oh, so true -- when is the paranoid and deranged public going to realize that government coverups are just silly, clumsy accidents? History has proved this true every single time. Besides, the Bush Administration's "Patriot" Act has only broken four articles of the Bill of Rights. That still leaves a whole bunch left! They may have also just granted new powers to the FBI to spy on citizens without almost no restrictions, but there's absolutely no confirmed direct evidence that this will actually happen. Let's not overreact here! Everybody deserves some extra time and a second chance to prove that they can do better, even Bush! Not that all who do so need much encouragement. September 11 was so traumatic, so large, that there will always be people who look to color it--or exploit it--by adding more drama and intrigue, who seek to discern hidden meanings, who desire to make more sense of the awful act. And there will be people who want to believe them. And here, the final sneering cheap shot. Minus the ones who are just cynical exploiters, the conspiracy nuts are all just frightened and hurt deep down inside, and they need to believe in something so it will all make sense! Brian Salter 3 June 2002 http://www.questionsquestions.net The "Loyal Opposition" playbook: 25 Rules of Disinformation http://www.gwb.com.au/gwb/news/photo/truth.html The Real Opposition: http://www.fromthewilderness.com http://globalresearch.ca http://www.onlinejournal.com http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq36.html http://www.madcowprod.com http://www.truthout.com http://legitgov.org http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/q.html http://www.narconews.com The red-blooded left: http://www.newmassmedia.com/nac.phtml?code=wma&db=nac_fea&ref=20672 more good thoughts on the "impossibly large and complex conspiracy" canard: http://www.swans.com/library/art8/zig075.html Ruppert is passionately shaking the trees, and where is everybody else, ye radicals? What is this hostility to the spirit of investigation? How did "conspiracy theorist" replace "communist" in the New McCarthyism? --Al Giordano, editor of Narconews.com original article: http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=66 ----- Aloha, He'Ping, Om, Shalom, Salaam. Em Hotep, Peace Be, All My Relations. Omnia Bona Bonis, Adieu, Adios, Aloha. Amen. Roads End <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
