Agents provocateur? How the hell can you really tell
Tue Jun 7, 2005 19:31
64.140.159.108
Agents provocateur?
How the hell can you really tell valid criticism from clever deception?
By John Kaminski - skylax@comcast.net
Honesty is a tricky business. What happens when an honest assessment of the situation actually works against your ultimate objective? What do you do then, when one of life's little riddles sneaks up and bites you on the butt?
Well, first you examine your long term objectives. What is your ultimate purpose? What is it you are trying to do? And finally, what the heck are we here for, anyway?
Then you review the short term goal. What is it I was trying to accomplish? And does that immediate achievement justify sitting on facts you suspect to be true, but don't dare say? And ultimately, will aspiring toward the short term goal actually work against your long term objective?
I could at this point veer into the murky territory that both links and repels men and women, but in the dull interests of decorous propriety, I will not, except to say the classic male example of this conundrum typically is a confession of undying love in pursuit of minimally sincere sexual activity, producing a result where one’s long term objectives are inevitably polluted by the short term goal. (Ooh, I can just hear those speculative wheels spinning crazily in the minds of voyeuristic cybergossipers, but let me stress this I am only using this as a hypothetical for-instance.)
More to the point — and in fact exactly on it — is my perspective on the events of September 11, 2001, the day the world changed. Or, as I have said in the title of my booklet, "The Day America Died."
I remember that day all too well. I was standing in front of my TV. I had just awakened and flipped it on, intending to zap the clicker to ESPN to catch the latest sports news, a typical daily habit that occurs just before I stumble into the kitchen to make my coffee. By chance, the tube was set to NBC, where the plastic Today show commentators were talking about a plane that had crashed into the World Trade Center. So I never changed the channel. I just stood there, eyelids glued apart, and watched as plane number two glided into the south tower, and into history.
I just stood there, I don't know for how long. Eventually I turned around, made the coffee, and listened to the aghast commentary of the NBC crew. I don't remember now what it was triggered my next verbal outburst, whether it was Katie Couric reporting the government saying it was Osama bin Laden who was behind the attacks, or some vaguer speculation about Arab terrorists.
I only know I turned around, stalked into the living room, and then with the most certain self-assured vehemence I have ever shown in my life, started bellowing: "No way! No freaking way!"
I knew then, right then and there, that 9/11 was an inside job. That this was not the work of Arab terrorists, unless they played some minor diversionary role in a complex and deliberately confusing cast of characters. That this was done at the behest of the people who control our lives, who wanted to create a stultifying example that would be branded into the minds of the muddled masses in order to create a war mentality to justify their criminal intent to make war on the whole world, and make a handsome profit from it.
Nothing I have seen, heard, or read since has caused me to feel even the merest shadow of a doubt about what I felt at that moment. All those millions of words, mostly written by people who have no stake in anything media-related or politically purposeful, have only reinforced my conviction.
The highest, most important leaders in our land, and other countries as well, were behind the scheme to kill thousands of American citizens in order to justify an intensified assault on the oil-producing countries of the Middle East and elsewhere. Time and the telling of hundreds of more lies have only deepened my conviction, and proved it far beyond a reasonable doubt. The plans for these wars were drawn up BEFORE 9/11, and the lies utilized to execute them have become well-established in the public eye, at least for those interested enough to take a look.
So I began to write about it, firing thought cannons into cyberspace that were read by thousands of readers but which had little or no effect on the world at large. Gathering every fact I could from each mind who cared to comment on these matters, I soon amassed an array of speculative evidence from a variety of researchers that convincingly confirmed my initial emotional impressions.
I always thought the government's lies were the best piece of evidence, what with Cheney, Rice, and Myers all saying "we had no idea something like this could happen" and then the FBI announcing the names of ALL the hijackers later in the day. When Bush announced the invasion of Afghanistan as a response to 9/11, it soon became evident that this demonic target-shoot has been planned years before the towers had been hit.
But more tangible evidence quickly followed: Why did the FBI quickly confiscate that videotape from that gas station across the street from the Pentagon that would have clearly shown exactly what hit the Pentagon? Because it would not have verified their story — that is the only reason it could be.
And that is legitimate probable cause for a thousand prosecutions, if we had a law enforcement apparatus that actually tried to enforce the law.
Why is there no evidence of the so-called hijackers actually being on the supposedly hijacked airliners? Or even if they were, of having no snowball's chance in hell of executing the impossible aerobatic maneuvers necessary to do what the government said they did? There were no hijackers. And no reason to invade foreign countries.
The time the towers took fall is what I consider the smoking gun. There is no way structures of that mass and complexity could have free-fallen the way they did without the 47 core columns of each twin tower being expertly severed by explosives. The minimal fires supposedly caused by the plane crashes were neither hot nor widespread enough to cause the buildings to fall at all, never mind the way they did, conveniently and neatly into their own footprints.
No way! No freaking way!
However, it wasn't long before I dared verbally venture into these matters when I ran afoul of people with different opinions as to what actually happened.
And as it stands today, the 9/11 skeptics movement is in total shambles, with the dominant personalities far more interested in pushing their own personal view of things and advancing their own interests than they are in convincing the public they need to focus on the American criminal politicians who were behind the whole caper in the first place.
And this is a truly tragic twist, because now that the American public, weary from the continued flimsiness of government lies about current events, is ready to confront the biggest lie of them all — 9/11 — the 9/11 skeptics movement has deteriorated into trivial bickering that serves no purpose at all other than reveal the shallow, selfish motives of many of its participants.
I receive about 2,000 e-mails per week, most from people who are intensely interested in solving this problem. One recent one from the indefatigable story forwarder Sally Chrisinis in Texas contained a link to a 2004 story by Gerard Holmgren that I consider the single best overall roundup of what really happened on 9/11 that I have ever read, titled "Manufactured Terrorism: The Truth About Sept. 11." Read it here: http://911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=51
Holmgren, an award-winning, Australian blues guitarist, has distinguished himself as the 9/11 researcher with probably more amazing discoveries than anyone else (especially that two of the supposedly fatal flights on 9/11 never showed up in FAA records, and that the passenger lists are riddled with inconsistencies).
He is also at the center of, and chief spokesman for, the single issue that most divides the 9/11 skeptics movement — the assertion that there were no planes, or at least no passenger jetliners — used in the attacks.
Just for a moment, savor this enigma. The best researcher says there were no planes. Or, more precisely, not the planes we thought we saw.
Try to view this as a perfect parallel to the overall 9/11 dilemma. A majority of Americans, trapped as they are in media manufactured images for the entirety of their lives, simply cannot bring themselves to believe that their elected officials could ever even contemplate such a dastardly deed, never mind actually commit it.
So imagine how hard it would be to convince the public, which did not want to believe their leaders killed 3,000 of their own people, that on top of that, the whole charade was pulled off without the planes we thought we saw. This was always my chief objection to the no-plane theory. It would be met by guffaws (and has been). No one would believe it. Hell, it was hard enough to try and get people to believe their own government would actually do this (even though I never found it hard to believe, because there are simply too many similar historical precedents of self-inflicted wounds to justify aggression).
But then, from various nooks and crannies of the Internet, reality began to intrude.
First, there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon, except a couple of apparently seeded parts that may or may not have matched up to the specifications of the plane that was supposed to have hit it. Add on top of this the government's assertion that the DNA of each passenger was later identified after a fire that was so blazingly hot that it vaporized an entire jetliner into complete invisibility. And on top of that, remember that this was the plane that supposedly flew for an hour and 40 minutes in the most secure airspace in the world without being intercepted by our crack Air Force. And finally there was the impossible aerobatic maneuver the pilot of Flight 77 was supposed to have executed — a 270-degree diving turn at 600 mph — that not even Neil Armstrong could have pulled off, and this was done by a guy, a wacked-out Arab terrorist named Hani Hanjour, who from all reports had trouble driving a car.
So you begin to suspect there's something wrong with the Pentagon story (to say the least).
OK, then you consider the crash in Pennsylvania, on which the passengers supposedly staged a valiant attempt to wrest control of the plane from hijackers, and in the ensuing fight, the plane crashed to the ground. It isn't so much the fact that no one actually saw this plane crash, or that there was something curiously anomalous about the wreckage, or that many witnesses recall seeing an unmarked white jet cruising around the area.
My pal Brad sent me an interesting timeline about Flight 93 that included the evocative phone calls Deena Burnett supposedly received from her husband Tom as he struggled with the dire situation fighting the hijackers aboard the doomed jetliner.
Just after 6 a.m. California time, Deena Burnett called 911 (the number, not the day) and said she’d just received a cell phone call from her husband who was on a plane. Deena told the cops: “They just knifed a passenger and there are guns on the plane.”
Seven minutes later, or so the story goes, Tom Burnett called Deena again. She says he said: “The guy they knifed is dead.”
Greg Gordon’s riveting account in the Sacramento Bee of the Burnetts’ tragic morning http://tinyurl.com/dzh7h >, with Tom furnishing inside details meticulously enunciated to verify the government’s story, will bring tears to your eyes. It did to mine.
And then you remember that this was a cellphone call, and the plane at that time was flying at 35,000 feet (and climbing to 41,000). And you remember the words of Professor A.K. Dewdney (among others), who has proved conclusively that cellphones don't work at that altitude. See, for example, http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/phonecalls.html
So you begin to suspect that there's something wrong with this Pennsylvania story, and think, hmm, deja vu all over again?
OK, then you begin to think back about the events in New York City, and you remember the famous Naudet video, which showed the first crash of the day, Flight 11 slamming into the north tower of the World Trade Center. It's a crappy video, all fuzzy and jerky, supposedly because the Naudet brothers caught it by serendipitous accident while filming a documentary that day about firefighters.
If you've done any research into these matters, you've watched the blown-up, slowed-down version of that footage over and over, and you can't escape the nagging feeling that that plane's wings are perpendicular to the fuselage — not swept back at an angle like those on a passenger jetliner. And you can't help but begin to wonder — what kind of plane was that? And you remember the initial reports of a small plane hitting the tower.
So you begin to think to there's something wrong with this North Tower story. And by now it's a familiar refrain.
When I put these three thoughts together, I am ready to believe Holmgren's story. If three of the crashes have been grotesquely misrepresented, there no way the fourth one could have happened as reported. If you think it could have, then you have never placed a bet in your entire life, and should never.
But what really nailed it for me was George Nelson, the retired Air Force colonel who recently wrote a story about airplane crashes in general. Nelson said there has never been an example of an airplane crash in which the plane could not be identified because of an innocuous item called replaceable time-change parts, small components in the vastly complex array of machinery necessary to get these big machines off the ground.
Each airplane has numerous time-change parts that are all recorded in their meticulously kept maintenance logs, and each of these parts has serial numbers that are logged in as well, hence providing a certifiable record of part with plane. Many of these parts are too small to be destroyed in a crash. I mean, even in the worst crashes, if a plane is reduced to rubble the size of say, silver dollars, some of these parts are even smaller than that, so they don't get further reduced in size. They turn up in a search of the wreckage, a serial number is found, and the plane is identified by the connection recorded in its maintenance log.
Every crash that has ever happened, Nelson asserts, has been identified in this manner. See http://www.physics911.net/georgenelson.htm
Except on 9/11. No replaceable part that could link the planes said to have crashed to a piece of rubble that was examined on that day has ever been found.
Nelson’s conclusion? “The Bush administration has provided no public evidence to support its claim that the terror attacks were the work of Muslim extremists or even that the aircraft that struck their respective targets on September 11 were as advertised .... it would be a simple matter to confirm that they were - if they were. Until such proof is forthcoming, the opposite claim must be kept in mind as a precaution against rushing to judgment: the 911 hijackings were part of a black operation carried out with the cooperation of elements in our government.” (And this guy’s a retired colonel.)
At that point, planes or not, I was ready to believe Holmgren's tale (after years of arbitrarily denying it was true, because I just could not believe it).
But one formidable hurdle remained. The major image seared forever into the minds of every person on earth is the crash of what the government says was Flight 175 into the South Tower. We’ve seen it over and over. It is etched into our dreams.
Holmgren, along with his allies in film analysis, The Webfairy, Scott Loughery, Nico Haupt, Marcus Icke and the whole “no-plane” movement, continue to insist it was done electronically — that there were no planes — because of anomalies they have observed in the videos of the event.
I had occasion to converse with the Webfairy (Rosalee Grable) recently, and I told her I was ready to believe Holmgren’s version of events, except for one thing — how do you explain so many
How the hell can you really tell valid criticism from clever deception?
By John Kaminski - skylax@comcast.net
Honesty is a tricky business. What happens when an honest assessment of the situation actually works against your ultimate objective? What do you do then, when one of life's little riddles sneaks up and bites you on the butt?
Well, first you examine your long term objectives. What is your ultimate purpose? What is it you are trying to do? And finally, what the heck are we here for, anyway?
Then you review the short term goal. What is it I was trying to accomplish? And does that immediate achievement justify sitting on facts you suspect to be true, but don't dare say? And ultimately, will aspiring toward the short term goal actually work against your long term objective?
I could at this point veer into the murky territory that both links and repels men and women, but in the dull interests of decorous propriety, I will not, except to say the classic male example of this conundrum typically is a confession of undying love in pursuit of minimally sincere sexual activity, producing a result where one’s long term objectives are inevitably polluted by the short term goal. (Ooh, I can just hear those speculative wheels spinning crazily in the minds of voyeuristic cybergossipers, but let me stress this I am only using this as a hypothetical for-instance.)
More to the point — and in fact exactly on it — is my perspective on the events of September 11, 2001, the day the world changed. Or, as I have said in the title of my booklet, "The Day America Died."
I remember that day all too well. I was standing in front of my TV. I had just awakened and flipped it on, intending to zap the clicker to ESPN to catch the latest sports news, a typical daily habit that occurs just before I stumble into the kitchen to make my coffee. By chance, the tube was set to NBC, where the plastic Today show commentators were talking about a plane that had crashed into the World Trade Center. So I never changed the channel. I just stood there, eyelids glued apart, and watched as plane number two glided into the south tower, and into history.
I just stood there, I don't know for how long. Eventually I turned around, made the coffee, and listened to the aghast commentary of the NBC crew. I don't remember now what it was triggered my next verbal outburst, whether it was Katie Couric reporting the government saying it was Osama bin Laden who was behind the attacks, or some vaguer speculation about Arab terrorists.
I only know I turned around, stalked into the living room, and then with the most certain self-assured vehemence I have ever shown in my life, started bellowing: "No way! No freaking way!"
I knew then, right then and there, that 9/11 was an inside job. That this was not the work of Arab terrorists, unless they played some minor diversionary role in a complex and deliberately confusing cast of characters. That this was done at the behest of the people who control our lives, who wanted to create a stultifying example that would be branded into the minds of the muddled masses in order to create a war mentality to justify their criminal intent to make war on the whole world, and make a handsome profit from it.
Nothing I have seen, heard, or read since has caused me to feel even the merest shadow of a doubt about what I felt at that moment. All those millions of words, mostly written by people who have no stake in anything media-related or politically purposeful, have only reinforced my conviction.
The highest, most important leaders in our land, and other countries as well, were behind the scheme to kill thousands of American citizens in order to justify an intensified assault on the oil-producing countries of the Middle East and elsewhere. Time and the telling of hundreds of more lies have only deepened my conviction, and proved it far beyond a reasonable doubt. The plans for these wars were drawn up BEFORE 9/11, and the lies utilized to execute them have become well-established in the public eye, at least for those interested enough to take a look.
So I began to write about it, firing thought cannons into cyberspace that were read by thousands of readers but which had little or no effect on the world at large. Gathering every fact I could from each mind who cared to comment on these matters, I soon amassed an array of speculative evidence from a variety of researchers that convincingly confirmed my initial emotional impressions.
I always thought the government's lies were the best piece of evidence, what with Cheney, Rice, and Myers all saying "we had no idea something like this could happen" and then the FBI announcing the names of ALL the hijackers later in the day. When Bush announced the invasion of Afghanistan as a response to 9/11, it soon became evident that this demonic target-shoot has been planned years before the towers had been hit.
But more tangible evidence quickly followed: Why did the FBI quickly confiscate that videotape from that gas station across the street from the Pentagon that would have clearly shown exactly what hit the Pentagon? Because it would not have verified their story — that is the only reason it could be.
And that is legitimate probable cause for a thousand prosecutions, if we had a law enforcement apparatus that actually tried to enforce the law.
Why is there no evidence of the so-called hijackers actually being on the supposedly hijacked airliners? Or even if they were, of having no snowball's chance in hell of executing the impossible aerobatic maneuvers necessary to do what the government said they did? There were no hijackers. And no reason to invade foreign countries.
The time the towers took fall is what I consider the smoking gun. There is no way structures of that mass and complexity could have free-fallen the way they did without the 47 core columns of each twin tower being expertly severed by explosives. The minimal fires supposedly caused by the plane crashes were neither hot nor widespread enough to cause the buildings to fall at all, never mind the way they did, conveniently and neatly into their own footprints.
No way! No freaking way!
However, it wasn't long before I dared verbally venture into these matters when I ran afoul of people with different opinions as to what actually happened.
And as it stands today, the 9/11 skeptics movement is in total shambles, with the dominant personalities far more interested in pushing their own personal view of things and advancing their own interests than they are in convincing the public they need to focus on the American criminal politicians who were behind the whole caper in the first place.
And this is a truly tragic twist, because now that the American public, weary from the continued flimsiness of government lies about current events, is ready to confront the biggest lie of them all — 9/11 — the 9/11 skeptics movement has deteriorated into trivial bickering that serves no purpose at all other than reveal the shallow, selfish motives of many of its participants.
I receive about 2,000 e-mails per week, most from people who are intensely interested in solving this problem. One recent one from the indefatigable story forwarder Sally Chrisinis in Texas contained a link to a 2004 story by Gerard Holmgren that I consider the single best overall roundup of what really happened on 9/11 that I have ever read, titled "Manufactured Terrorism: The Truth About Sept. 11." Read it here: http://911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=51
Holmgren, an award-winning, Australian blues guitarist, has distinguished himself as the 9/11 researcher with probably more amazing discoveries than anyone else (especially that two of the supposedly fatal flights on 9/11 never showed up in FAA records, and that the passenger lists are riddled with inconsistencies).
He is also at the center of, and chief spokesman for, the single issue that most divides the 9/11 skeptics movement — the assertion that there were no planes, or at least no passenger jetliners — used in the attacks.
Just for a moment, savor this enigma. The best researcher says there were no planes. Or, more precisely, not the planes we thought we saw.
Try to view this as a perfect parallel to the overall 9/11 dilemma. A majority of Americans, trapped as they are in media manufactured images for the entirety of their lives, simply cannot bring themselves to believe that their elected officials could ever even contemplate such a dastardly deed, never mind actually commit it.
So imagine how hard it would be to convince the public, which did not want to believe their leaders killed 3,000 of their own people, that on top of that, the whole charade was pulled off without the planes we thought we saw. This was always my chief objection to the no-plane theory. It would be met by guffaws (and has been). No one would believe it. Hell, it was hard enough to try and get people to believe their own government would actually do this (even though I never found it hard to believe, because there are simply too many similar historical precedents of self-inflicted wounds to justify aggression).
But then, from various nooks and crannies of the Internet, reality began to intrude.
First, there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon, except a couple of apparently seeded parts that may or may not have matched up to the specifications of the plane that was supposed to have hit it. Add on top of this the government's assertion that the DNA of each passenger was later identified after a fire that was so blazingly hot that it vaporized an entire jetliner into complete invisibility. And on top of that, remember that this was the plane that supposedly flew for an hour and 40 minutes in the most secure airspace in the world without being intercepted by our crack Air Force. And finally there was the impossible aerobatic maneuver the pilot of Flight 77 was supposed to have executed — a 270-degree diving turn at 600 mph — that not even Neil Armstrong could have pulled off, and this was done by a guy, a wacked-out Arab terrorist named Hani Hanjour, who from all reports had trouble driving a car.
So you begin to suspect there's something wrong with the Pentagon story (to say the least).
OK, then you consider the crash in Pennsylvania, on which the passengers supposedly staged a valiant attempt to wrest control of the plane from hijackers, and in the ensuing fight, the plane crashed to the ground. It isn't so much the fact that no one actually saw this plane crash, or that there was something curiously anomalous about the wreckage, or that many witnesses recall seeing an unmarked white jet cruising around the area.
My pal Brad sent me an interesting timeline about Flight 93 that included the evocative phone calls Deena Burnett supposedly received from her husband Tom as he struggled with the dire situation fighting the hijackers aboard the doomed jetliner.
Just after 6 a.m. California time, Deena Burnett called 911 (the number, not the day) and said she’d just received a cell phone call from her husband who was on a plane. Deena told the cops: “They just knifed a passenger and there are guns on the plane.”
Seven minutes later, or so the story goes, Tom Burnett called Deena again. She says he said: “The guy they knifed is dead.”
Greg Gordon’s riveting account in the Sacramento Bee of the Burnetts’ tragic morning http://tinyurl.com/dzh7h >, with Tom furnishing inside details meticulously enunciated to verify the government’s story, will bring tears to your eyes. It did to mine.
And then you remember that this was a cellphone call, and the plane at that time was flying at 35,000 feet (and climbing to 41,000). And you remember the words of Professor A.K. Dewdney (among others), who has proved conclusively that cellphones don't work at that altitude. See, for example, http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/phonecalls.html
So you begin to suspect that there's something wrong with this Pennsylvania story, and think, hmm, deja vu all over again?
OK, then you begin to think back about the events in New York City, and you remember the famous Naudet video, which showed the first crash of the day, Flight 11 slamming into the north tower of the World Trade Center. It's a crappy video, all fuzzy and jerky, supposedly because the Naudet brothers caught it by serendipitous accident while filming a documentary that day about firefighters.
If you've done any research into these matters, you've watched the blown-up, slowed-down version of that footage over and over, and you can't escape the nagging feeling that that plane's wings are perpendicular to the fuselage — not swept back at an angle like those on a passenger jetliner. And you can't help but begin to wonder — what kind of plane was that? And you remember the initial reports of a small plane hitting the tower.
So you begin to think to there's something wrong with this North Tower story. And by now it's a familiar refrain.
When I put these three thoughts together, I am ready to believe Holmgren's story. If three of the crashes have been grotesquely misrepresented, there no way the fourth one could have happened as reported. If you think it could have, then you have never placed a bet in your entire life, and should never.
But what really nailed it for me was George Nelson, the retired Air Force colonel who recently wrote a story about airplane crashes in general. Nelson said there has never been an example of an airplane crash in which the plane could not be identified because of an innocuous item called replaceable time-change parts, small components in the vastly complex array of machinery necessary to get these big machines off the ground.
Each airplane has numerous time-change parts that are all recorded in their meticulously kept maintenance logs, and each of these parts has serial numbers that are logged in as well, hence providing a certifiable record of part with plane. Many of these parts are too small to be destroyed in a crash. I mean, even in the worst crashes, if a plane is reduced to rubble the size of say, silver dollars, some of these parts are even smaller than that, so they don't get further reduced in size. They turn up in a search of the wreckage, a serial number is found, and the plane is identified by the connection recorded in its maintenance log.
Every crash that has ever happened, Nelson asserts, has been identified in this manner. See http://www.physics911.net/georgenelson.htm
Except on 9/11. No replaceable part that could link the planes said to have crashed to a piece of rubble that was examined on that day has ever been found.
Nelson’s conclusion? “The Bush administration has provided no public evidence to support its claim that the terror attacks were the work of Muslim extremists or even that the aircraft that struck their respective targets on September 11 were as advertised .... it would be a simple matter to confirm that they were - if they were. Until such proof is forthcoming, the opposite claim must be kept in mind as a precaution against rushing to judgment: the 911 hijackings were part of a black operation carried out with the cooperation of elements in our government.” (And this guy’s a retired colonel.)
At that point, planes or not, I was ready to believe Holmgren's tale (after years of arbitrarily denying it was true, because I just could not believe it).
But one formidable hurdle remained. The major image seared forever into the minds of every person on earth is the crash of what the government says was Flight 175 into the South Tower. We’ve seen it over and over. It is etched into our dreams.
Holmgren, along with his allies in film analysis, The Webfairy, Scott Loughery, Nico Haupt, Marcus Icke and the whole “no-plane” movement, continue to insist it was done electronically — that there were no planes — because of anomalies they have observed in the videos of the event.
I had occasion to converse with the Webfairy (Rosalee Grable) recently, and I told her I was ready to believe Holmgren’s version of events, except for one thing — how do you explain so many
- (Cont'd) Agents provocateur? —John Kaminski, Tue Jun 7 19:40
- (Cont'd) Agents provocateur? —John Kaminski, Tue Jun 7 19:45
Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]
