Cryptome Website: Intersting Intel Site

[zenbudda]

cryptome.org

I tried doing a search on this board to see if any of you guys/gals had anything to say about it. it came under my radar due to a post about the guy behind the site on liveleak. it has some stuff i've never encountered before (pdfs, pics, links to other websites).

Here's a sample copy/paste from the site:

greece-police2.htm    Greece Police Photos 2                           March 14, 2010
cryptome-sar.htm      Cryptome Falsely Accused - Dump PayPal           March 14, 2010
wtc-nist-wtc7-no.pdf  NIST Denies Access to WTC 7 Collapse Data        March 14, 2010
google-spy.pdf        Google Lawful Spying Guide                       March 13, 2010

whitehouse-spy.pdf    White House Lawful Spying Guide                  March 13, 2010
frb-spy.pdf           Federal Reserve Board Lawful Spying Guide        March 13, 2010
jpmorgan-spy.pdf      JP Morgan Lawful Spying Guide                    March 13, 2010
jpmorgan-code-spy.pdf JP Morgan Code of Spying Guide                   March 13, 2010
gs-spy.pdf            Goldman Sachs Lawful Spying Guide                March 13, 2010

Liveleak link containing an audio file radio interview.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a45_1268596144

[zenbudda]

Here is more on this site (interesting stuff if you look at it):

dhs-quakes.htm        DHS Family Preparedness for Earthquakes          January 27, 2010
ciso-docs.zip         Canadian Spy Operations-Training Documents 1     January 27, 2010 (3.2MB)
haiti-galore.htm      Haiti Photos Galore                              January 26, 2010
doj-spy-04-08.pdf     DoJ Pen Registers and Traps-Traces 2004-08       January 25, 2010
us-un-haiti.htm       US and UN Growth in Haiti                        January 25, 2010

dos012110.htm         Hillary Clinton Remarks on Internet Freedom      January 22, 2010
pm012010.htm          Obama Memo on Gov Contractor Tax Cheats          January 22, 2010
cybermilitantism.htm  Celebrity Cybermilitantism Superficiality Update January 22, 2010
ms-decafme.htm        Decafme Gets Microsoft COFEE Takedown Notice     January 21, 2010
screwing-vets.htm     Screwing Our Veterans Is Boundless               January 21, 2010


MC Spooks 1           Monaco Spying Service 1                          February 27, 2010
KGB-Chair 31          Spy Lord: Confessions of the KGB Chairman 31     February 26, 2010
FBI-CFR               FBI Confidential File Room                       February 26, 2010

KGB-Chair 30          Spy Lord: Confessions of the KGB Chairman 30     February 24, 2010
MUTC                  Defend the Homeland - Win the Peace              February 24, 2010
WDIM                  What Does It Mean: German Troops in US Homeland  February 24, 2010
Spy Watch             The People We Pay to Look Over Our Shoulders     February 23, 2010
NCTC Awry             National Counterterrorism Center SNAFU           February 23, 2010

Interesting stuff on there. KGB spy lords. DHS preparedness for earthquakes.

[zenbudda]

http://cryptome.org/islam4uk/246.htm

Why Islam won't leave the UK. They really DO believe that THEY are in the right. How much more obvious does this have to be?

I'd really like to hear from some of the intel experts to see if this cryptome site is what they represent themselves to be. If they are, i'm going to consider this one of my news sources.

[American Patriot]

This is on their site:

13 March 2010
http://cryptome.org/0001/wtc-nist-wt...-nist-wtc7.zip (37MB)
These photos show World Trade Center 7 (WTC 7), New York, NY, before and after its collapse on 11 September 2001. There has been considerable controversy about the cause of the unexpected collapse of the lightly damaged building. NIST asserts that the collapse was caused by an unprecedented thermal circumstance which must remain confidential.
A previously unpublished letter dated 26 January 2010 from NIST to a requester denying access to certain WTC 7 investigative material on the basis that release "might jeopardize public safety."

More 9-11 truthers.

Forget it.

[zenbudda]

i humbly disagree. they are simply stating facts:

1. These photos show World Trade Center 7 (WTC 7), New York, NY, before and after its collapse on 11 September 2001

true

2. There has been considerable controversy about the cause of the unexpected collapse of the lightly damaged building.

true

3. NIST asserts that the collapse was caused by an unprecedented thermal circumstance which must remain confidential.

true

4. A previously unpublished letter dated 26 January 2010 from NIST to a requester denying access to certain WTC 7 investigative material on the basis that release "might jeopardize public safety.

debatable but most likely true.

why do you assume they are "truthers"? ironically, they are "truth"ers as far as I can tell. this site makes copies of other sites in an attempt to archive what is being broadcasted over the internet. they let the public come up with their own assertations. i don't see any statements being made specifically about anything from the owners of this site.

i defend this standpoint to the sense that from what I can tell, cryptome shares a common goal with taa in that they archive "the ongoings of internet information". do they archive things that may be controversial? yes. well, so does anomalies. but that doesn't neccessarily make anomalies a bad site or a "truther" site.

until I discover a bias, or someone points one out, i see this site as being an interesting resource of information. news? eh, maybe I misrepresented what this site is about, because I can see now that it's not "news".

[American Patriot]

i humbly disagree. they are simply stating facts:

1. These photos show World Trade Center 7 (WTC 7), New York, NY, before and after its collapse on 11 September 2001

true

We all have opinions Zen. Mostly they are either wrong, misinformed or they are dead on accurate. There's rarely anything in between.

When it comes to the September 11th attacks, without exception every person that attempts to lay blame on the US Government is lying or misinformed.

Pictures are pictures. Those same people (Not this site, but the ones who keep saying that Building Seven was deliberately blown up by the government) also made all these idiotic statements about how "windows were being blown out just before the floors above them were pancaking".

In fact, what they were seeing was not "explosions" on each floor "weakening" the floor below. They were seeing the air pressure from the collapsed floor above blowing windows OUT as the collapse occurred.

In other words, you can apply anything you like as a theory to any situation and make it appear worse (or better) than it is. Facts, however are facts.

2. There has been considerable controversy about the cause of the unexpected collapse of the lightly damaged building.

true

False. There IS NO CONTROVERSY about the collapse of that building. The fact was the front (or side, I forget which) was actually heavily damaged and internally several fires managed to weaken the structure. Whether they finally decided to do something to drop the building manually is truly not important now.

Why? Because it was a DANGER and was not going to be brought back into structural integrity. Period.

There's no "controversy" except what the idiots claim there is. And if you and others BELIEVE the government was some how responsible for the ATTACKS on the WTC and the Pentagon, then I put you squarely in that category.

3. NIST asserts that the collapse was caused by an unprecedented thermal circumstance which must remain confidential.

true

Tell me something. What is "NIST"? I'll tell you. The National Institute of Standards. They used to be called the National Bureau of Standards (and own the radio station WWV, WWVH etc, and set the measurement standards for the United States, including time, frequency and physical measurement standards).

What has NIST to do with the World Trade Center ANYWAY?

4. A previously unpublished letter dated 26 January 2010 from NIST to a requester denying access to certain WTC 7 investigative material on the basis that release "might jeopardize public safety.

debatable but most likely true.

"Most likely true" is a cop out. It is either true, or it isn't. You (and they) either KNOW it is true, or you (or they) know it to NOT be true. There is not an in-between here. If there is documentation to show that NIST (of ALL possible organizations!) somehow denied access to data then where IS THAT DOCUMENTATION.

I can make all the allegations in the world, but if I don't have any data to back them up, they are simply allegations. Allegations as we all know are usually accusations without any basis in fact.

why do you assume they are "truthers"? ironically, they are "truth"ers as far as I can tell. this site makes copies of other sites in an attempt to archive what is being broadcasted over the internet. they let the public come up with their own assertions. i don't see any statements being made specifically about anything from the owners of this site.

Any site that continues to perpetuate mythologies surrounding so-called government conspiracies are not to be trusted.

It's one thing to discuss the situation logically and chronologically, such as we do here - or for that matter use such information from a site like that to either back up your position or to take someone else's position apart.

But ... merely posting such material without any sort of peer review, scientific data to back it up, any other sort of vetting is giving these people (the people who wrote the original articles) some kind of credence they do not deserve.

i defend this standpoint to the sense that from what I can tell, cryptome shares a common goal with taa in that they archive "the ongoings of internet information". do they archive things that may be controversial? yes. well, so does anomalies. but that doesn't neccessarily make anomalies a bad site or a "truther" site.

Archiving the ongoings of internet information is fine (if indeed that's what they do) but they aren't. I posted that little blurb specifically for a reason... I will leave it to you to discover the reason for now. If you can't sort it out, ask me later and I'll explain it.

until I discover a bias, or someone points one out, i see this site as being an interesting resource of information. news? eh, maybe I misrepresented what this site is about, because I can see now that it's not "news".

I'm not saying you were right or wrong on this at all. I merely stated MY opinion on what *I* think THEY are. I don't know if I'm 100% right - but I've always had a knack for seeing right through certain things. It doesn't take a genius to see the facts and be able to read them for him or her self.

I guess my biggest issue is (as it has always been with Anomalies for instance) while a site might be a "good site" it is good because the people who visit take the time to examine the facts, NOT to go off on "belief tangents" and assume things are true.

A case in point is the Richard Hoagland BS that we carried there for a couple of years until Hoagland turned into a complete asshole. He was trying to convince people that the government is behind every sort of thing you can imagine.

Given the fact I actually have and still do work for and with the government in some aspect, and know for a FACT that some of the things Hoagland was saying weren't only wrong, they were lies there was a problem.

I can NOT sit and let people go off on these conspiracy tangents without a fight. Sorry. Not going to happen on my watch.

A discussion is one thing. A repository of data is another. Neither of them are necessarily factual in any depth or aspect of the data or discussion unless the data provided is VETTED and REAL.

Therein lies the problem.

[American Patriot]

Let me make a few more points.

The FIRST thing on their site states:

Dump PayPal and coms who cheat by secret gov-com steal of private data. Cryptome welcomes documents for publication that are prohibited by gov-coms worldwide, in particular material on freedom of expression, privacy, cryptology, dual-use technologies, national security, intelligence, and secret gov-com complicity -- open, secret and classified documents -- but not limited to those. Documents are removed from this site only by order served directly by a US court having jurisdiction. No court order has ever been served; any order served will be published here -- or elsewhere if gagged by order. Bluffs will be published if comical but otherwise ignored. Send to.

Ok... why does Rick have a problem? Many reasons.

1) Let's dump Pay Pal and coms who "cheat" by "gov-com" (a made up word to imply that the government and "big business" are somehow in cahoots to "steal" our information.

2) "are prohibited by gov-coms worldwide, in particular material on freedom of expression, privacy, cryptology, dual-use technologies, national security, intelligence, and secret gov-com complicity -- open, secret and classified documents -- but not limited to those."

Take this apart. Classified material by its very nature protects the national security of our country. It's not secret because the government wants to keep you and I in the dark. It's SECRET because we want to keep adversaries (such as Russia, China, North Korea) in the dark. We don't WANT them to have our technology. If you and I have it, there's a damned good chance they will get it.

Generally every little internet organization out there - including Ron Paul, the Alex Jones' of the world, the KKK, The Black Panthers and a good number of Liberals as well as Conservatives have this idea that everything the government does is completely wrong.

I personally think the government is fouled up too... however, this doesn't mean that because they can't manage budgets and want to tax the crap out of us that they can't defend the country or keep track of proper paperwork. It also doesn't mean that it's a conspiracy! It also doesn't mean that this group has the RIGHT to demand all our classified material be made public.

3) The first document from NIST. In reading this it is very OBVIOUS to me why some data was withheld. They stated "public safety". Think about this. The data contains information that if it were to fall into the wrong hands, someone intent on causing harm to the public, could use in a way to indeed cause that harm.

For instance... if I knew that NIST determined something about the standards of the US building codes for instance that made ALL buildings dangerous if you removed a certain screw or bolt (to thereby cause collapse of a building) then I could use that information to bring down buildings all over.

Why would you, or Cryptome or anyone else fault NIST (or any other organization) for withholding certain data.

I have to laugh every time I see an FOIA request. EVERY SINGLE ONE of them are prefaced by some conspiracy that people are trying to link. They aren't trying to SOLVE something, they are trying to PROVE a conspiracy. EVERY ONE I've ever seen in my many years in the business.

4) The guy has an axe to grind with Paypal and apparently ebay as well. In fact, those organizations do good work in preventing things like information theft and identity theft. At least they work very hard to prevent it. That someone is upset with his site because he is posting possibly classified material is actually laughable. *I* am upset with it (though I see nothing there that is actually classified, I see him claiming it might be etc).

It's one thing for a person to have an axe to grind and make his statements publicly, he has that right.

It's another to post classified information.

It's ANOTHER THING to post information and CLAIM it is classified.

One is probably not always the best way to go about things.

One is ILLEGAL.

One is really, REALLY stupid.

If you post classified material that you know to be classified on a public site you could very well find yourself in a world of trouble. This site, were he to post real classified data would find his site shut down, the FBI (among others) investigating him and his ass put in jail until they can figure out what to do with him and how best to do it to him.

By CLAIMING he can and will post classified, he will find he might end up being "watched" and people putting pressure on his ISP to close him down.

There's a little thing call "sedition"... look it up. While it doesn't fit the exact definition of this issue, it is a 'catch all' and could technically be used.

There's a similar site (wikileaks) that tried this - here's an article about them:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...ikileaks-army/
http://www.metafilter.com/90112/Just...out-to-get-you
http://www.maclife.com/forums/post/1720374

Now, check this out...http://freegovinfo.info/node/853

Read down a bit and you find the TRUTH...

wikileaks

Submitted by Steve Butcher (not verified) on Wed, 2008-02-27 00:24.
There is no such thing as a "legitimate national security concern." I could care less about weapon access codes, bad actors or anyone else. Knowledge trumps paranoia any day of the week. The key to exposing greedy, malevolent and covetous people--whether their names are George Bush, or John D. Rockefeller--is to shine a light on their beds. You can be certain that such people will have their own accolytes working many sleepless hours to shroud their actions. A free press was listed as the first amendment to the United States Constitution, and no wonder; cold exposure and transparency are even more vital today.

THIS is PRECISELY why I bring all this to light. There are MORONS like this out there that honest-to-God don't grasp the nature of all this.

There is "no legitimate national security concern".

And THESE my friend are the kind of people who are ACTUALLY RUNNING THE GOVERNMENT RIGHT NOW!

[American Patriot]

Ok.. last comment.

I'm not saying "Don't read them".

I'm saying, through all of this, "read carefully and vet what they said. Don't BELIEVE what you read unless you are able to VERIFY EVERYTHING!"

Rick

[zenbudda]

We all have opinions Zen. Mostly they are either wrong, misinformed or they are dead on accurate. There's rarely anything in between.

agreed.

When it comes to the September 11th attacks, without exception every person that attempts to lay blame on the US Government is lying or misinformed.

i will debate this to the point that the government admitted very blatantly that different agencies had access to different pieces of information regarding the hijackers on 9/11. they either did not have the resources, did not communicate across channels correctly, or just completely fumbled. my ex wife is an intel officer and spoke of potential terrorist attacks by water contamination, dirty bombs and yes, hijacking planes and using them as weapons. so the evidence is there that the government knew "something" was up, but were not able to stop it. but before you rip that apart, let's examine what i'm refering to. who is "government" in this context? in "my" eyes, government is ANY government agency, including political positions. CIA, NSA, military, FBI, senators, congressmen, you name it. anyone who receives federal funding in my opinion is subject to be coined "government" in my eyes. as a community, the government DOES have some responsibility here. in fact, i remember some government officials acknowledging this. i will pause on re-researching this and posting links, but if you need proof (or don't remember) i will be happy to supply evidence of my end of the argument.

also, being misinformed is VERY easy to do now a days. but why is it, when a democrat is in office, all right wingers don't trust the government. but when a republican is in office, everything is fine? (vice versa of course). you really must understand, I HATE politics. i hate politicians and salesmen just as much. any idea or product worth buying doesn't need a sales pitch. but i understand the necessity of these positions so i move along. i will always hold our government under a microscope, i don't care who is in office. and i don't think it's unpatriotic to question ANYTHING that the government does. it IS unpatriotic, however, to persist with government bashing even after proof has been given.

Pictures are pictures. Those same people (Not this site, but the ones who keep saying that Building Seven was deliberately blown up by the government) also made all these idiotic statements about how "windows were being blown out just before the floors above them were pancaking".

In fact, what they were seeing was not "explosions" on each floor "weakening" the floor below. They were seeing the air pressure from the collapsed floor above blowing windows OUT as the collapse occurred.

In other words, you can apply anything you like as a theory to any situation and make it appear worse (or better) than it is. Facts, however are facts.

let it stand as a fact that the cryptome website never made those assertations. i understand that you are pointing out what the conspiracy theorists think, but my point is that cryptome is not making those claims. personally, when it came to 9/11, the only thing i thought was weird was why these goons weren't stopped ahead of time and that we went to war with Sadaam. the way the buildings fell, in my opinion, a mere coincidence with demolition falls.

False. There IS NO CONTROVERSY about the collapse of that building. The fact was the front (or side, I forget which) was actually heavily damaged and internally several fires managed to weaken the structure. Whether they finally decided to do something to drop the building manually is truly not important now.

Why? Because it was a DANGER and was not going to be brought back into structural integrity. Period.

There's no "controversy" except what the idiots claim there is. And if you and others BELIEVE the government was some how responsible for the ATTACKS on the WTC and the Pentagon, then I put you squarely in that category.

this honestly surprises me to see you say that there was no controversy over 911. let's define controversy from dictionary.com:

a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion.

this is why i'm surprised. everyone knows there was controversy. i "think" (and i'm hoping) what you meant was that the only controversy was that the 9/11 attack was linked to the US government. is this what you mean? either way, the statement listed on cryptome is NOT false. it is true. it accurately described 9/11 "theories". controversial theories.

Tell me something. What is "NIST"? I'll tell you. The National Institute of Standards. They used to be called the National Bureau of Standards (and own the radio station WWV, WWVH etc, and set the measurement standards for the United States, including time, frequency and physical measurement standards).

What has NIST to do with the World Trade Center ANYWAY?

Who is NIST? http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/industry.htm. here are some things they are supposedly good at: aerospace, construction, electronics, Homeland Security!!!!!!! http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/f...t/homeland.htm

I would say their opinion matters a lot, wouldn't you? I just did more research on NIST and it seems they hire experts in just about every field of science...for measurements!!!! (these scientists know how to analyze data and take measurements and come up with scientific results). You don't see ANY linkage between how NIST could provide some sort of "proof" that the towers collapsed on their own? Just because they are withholding some information about how hot it got inside the building and how it stressed the metal beams does not make it a "conspiracy". maybe this report shows how weak are buildings are to these sort of attacks? why assume that cryptome is suggesting that they are hiding this report for "conspiracy" reasons? i can post more evidence to support why NIST's opinion would matter in this instance but it can easily be found on their site that i linked.

"Most likely true" is a cop out. It is either true, or it isn't. You (and they) either KNOW it is true, or you (or they) know it to NOT be true. There is not an in-between here. If there is documentation to show that NIST (of ALL possible organizations!) somehow denied access to data then where IS THAT DOCUMENTATION.

I can make all the allegations in the world, but if I don't have any data to back them up, they are simply allegations. Allegations as we all know are usually accusations without any basis in fact.

ok, look at file 00-wtc-nist-wtc7-no.pdf in that zip file you linked back. the letter is right there. which further proves my point. all this site is doing is listing information that have available.

Any site that continues to perpetuate mythologies surrounding so-called government conspiracies are not to be trusted.

It's one thing to discuss the situation logically and chronologically, such as we do here - or for that matter use such information from a site like that to either back up your position or to take someone else's position apart.

But ... merely posting such material without any sort of peer review, scientific data to back it up, any other sort of vetting is giving these people (the people who wrote the original articles) some kind of credence they do not deserve.

i agree with the 2nd paragraph here. i don't agree with the first paragraph because it is not proven that they are not to be trusted or are just promoting conspiracies. so far, i have spent maybe 3 hours total on that site and most of it is purely "informational". now is the information real? i have not gone down the avenue of proving how much of it is real. the photos are real. i mean if you read that site more closely, you'll find stuff you whole heartedly agree with (like islamic websites trying to rally people in britian to push sharia law). i'm not asking anyone to believe this site by face value. i definiately asked for a "peer" review. and my review so far still stands with this site being an information archive on topics that most people like to pollute with bs. this is the raw info.

Archiving the ongoings of internet information is fine (if indeed that's what they do) but they aren't. I posted that little blurb specifically for a reason... I will leave it to you to discover the reason for now. If you can't sort it out, ask me later and I'll explain it.

i have a hunch that you are suggesting that they are archiving ONLY those things which are currently controversial, and not all things that are not controversial (a lot of information to archive btw). if i'm wrong about that, please let me know.

I'm not saying you were right or wrong on this at all. I merely stated MY opinion on what *I* think THEY are. I don't know if I'm 100% right - but I've always had a knack for seeing right through certain things. It doesn't take a genius to see the facts and be able to read them for him or her self.

i didn't take it that way. :-) if i wanted to swim in my own idea of everything, i definately woudlnt' have posted it here lol. i can rely on a few of you to let it rip. i can't say i agree with everything, but that's the point of the post. i do acknowlege that i'm only 36 and you have far more experience in life to see things that i may not see. but, my experiences in life most likely are different, so logically speaking, i may see some angles on things that you may not agree with.

I guess my biggest issue is (as it has always been with Anomalies for instance) while a site might be a "good site" it is good because the people who visit take the time to examine the facts, NOT to go off on "belief tangents" and assume things are true.

A case in point is the Richard Hoagland BS that we carried there for a couple of years until Hoagland turned into a complete asshole. He was trying to convince people that the government is behind every sort of thing you can imagine.

Given the fact I actually have and still do work for and with the government in some aspect, and know for a FACT that some of the things Hoagland was saying weren't only wrong, they were lies there was a problem.

I can NOT sit and let people go off on these conspiracy tangents without a fight. Sorry. Not going to happen on my watch.

i cannot provide any further comment on this. i agree with what you said, but i think this is more of a tangent on our discussion versus focusing on cryptome. until it is proven that cryptome has a conspiracy agenda, i'm not certain i can jump in and say "you're completely right".

A discussion is one thing. A repository of data is another. Neither of them are necessarily factual in any depth or aspect of the data or discussion unless the data provided is VETTED and REAL.

Therein lies the problem.

100% agreed. part of the reason why i'm here. ;-)

and let me add one more thing. i knew this post would tak ea while so i did not include a lot of social pleasantries. for that i apologize. i was just trying to get information out as quickly as i can. hopefully you won't take anything i said as insulting or condescending (which is easy to do over the internet without hearing tone of voice).

[zenbudda]

I see you posted more but i won't have time to respond. i did read through it and it seems you bring to light some things that i wish to respond to but am unable to. thanks for your interest! i will be back later with a response.

[American Patriot]

Zen, any time. I'm not trying to argue with you about what you read, rather what others read.

I don't see it as a problem for us to read all we can get our hands on. It's information, information is knowledge and knowledge is power.

However, the issue isn't you and I reading it. It's the naive people who read those files and take them as gospel.

That's the problem.