Are Most JFKA Truthers Also 9/11 Truthers?

[W. Niederhut]

Serious question for the forum.  Are most JFKA "truthers" here also 9/11 "truthers?"

In my own experience, learning the truth about the JFK assassination was an initial step in a more general process of learning about what Oliver Stone has called, The Untold History of the United States.

A big part of solving the puzzle of Deep State U.S. history, for me, was learning about Operation Mockingbird, and the ability of actors in the Deep State to manipulate public perceptions and opinions through the mainstream media-- as in the case of C.D. Jackson, Henry Luce, Life magazine, and the Zapruder photo stills in 1963-- which I studied as a boy.

As I told a skeptical friend of mine a few years ago, Operation Mockingbird is a kind of Rosetta Stone for deciphering what I thought I knew about modern American history.

I was never a 9/11 "truther" until I happened to buy Laurent Guyenot's JFK to 9/11-- 50 Years of Deep State a few years ago.

Subsequently I have learned more every day about the JFK assassination and other Deep State historical events, including 9/11 and its sequelae in Central Asia and the Middle East.

My hunch is that most people who have studied the JFK assassination in any detail have experienced a similar shocking learning curve.

Edited September 16, 2019 by W. Niederhut
typo

[David Andrews]

One vote.  I lived four years in Manhattan.

There's also a shorter edit of this multi-speaker presentation on YouTube.  The NIST studies on building collapse re-engineered to produce acceptable results on steel melt, etc., are telling.

Not all the presentations are technical.  Michael Chossudovsky addresses the problems with bin Laden and Al Qaeda:

Daniele Ganser supports critics of the NIST report in this lecture:

Three steel-frame skyscrapers collapsed in the same day, at freefall velocity, for the first time in history that burning skyscrapers collapsed.  Ganser: "NIST lied to the public."

What was my 9/11 learning curve?  I had thought it was an inside job from very early on: four jetliners hijacked and three not intercepted during wargames; suspicion of a plane shootdown and a dubious crash site; freefalling skyscrapers; suspect officials involved; immediate rush into Afghan and Iraq wars.  Where I really learned to think and analyze, and to separate (as best I could) info from disinfo, was in studying the quality of the research on the JFKA and the intelligence and military communities aired on this Forum.  I've tried hard to think about 9/11 and its political and economic background with that rigor and depth of analysis.

 

Edited September 16, 2019 by David Andrews

[Paul Brancato]

I’ve become much more open to 9/11 truthers over the years, but was always suspicious that it was an inside job. The focus of the truthers has always been the impossibility of the collapse of the buildings without detonations. At first I thought this was misdirection. The reason - I don’t think the guy in custody in Guantanamo is the mastermind. It’s been a while since I studied this in depth so I can no longer dredge up the names. But I think it was the man that lured Daniel Pearl to his death who ran the show, and he is a British born Pakistani who was so important to someone that Pakistan hijacked an Air India jet and forced it to land in Kandahar whereupon they negotiated with the Indian government for the release of three prisoners in return for the jet and passengers. One of them was this very same man. Last I heard he was still under ‘house arrest’ in Pakistan. 

Edited September 15, 2019 by Paul Brancato

[Michael Clark]

As an academic exercise, I peresume that I am being lied to and then look to see if the alternatives, and the consequent outcomes of an event like 9-11 can support the hypothesis that I was being lied-to. Between the wars that followed and the Patriot Act, and especially the Iraq invasion, I continued to believe that 9-11 was a lie. There was, for some time however, too much noise and too many distractions and unbelievable theories for me to really get my head around the whole operation. When, almost simultaneously, a boss and a bartender, two very smart and level headed people, mentioned WT7, and I looked into it, did I really have to face that these building were intentionally brought down.

Also, some inside information was shared with me, stored with me really; it was that in the weeks leading up to 9-11, all of the NYS Dept of Tax and Finance information that had been sequestered for a myriad of cases against major financial firms and individuals, by the NYS Attorney General’s Office for prosecution in NYC, were transferred to and subsequently lost in the WTC. I remember all of those cases; it was in the news every day and it was huge and hot. All those cases just evaporated after 9-11. That story is, those cases, are for anyone to look into in NY newspapers. I don’t mean that the document transfer and loss story is there, that has never been told, at least to my knowledge. I mean the news about those cases are all there as a matter of historical record, and the evaporation of those cases is evident.

That untold story explains why such a reckless, massive attack, involving the deaths of so many, in midtown Manhattan, had to occur. There were many ways to foment war. Destroying the WTC served several purposes and it was big, bold, and brash enough that it was very very difficult for the vast majority of people to second guess the official line. A Gulf of Tonkin would not cut it and it would not end the State of NY prosecutions against many rich and powerful people and organizations.

[Jim Harwood]

2 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

As an academic exercise, I peresume that I am being lied to and then look to see if the alternatives, and the consequent outcomes of an event like 9-11 can support the hypothesis that I was being lied-to. Between the wars that followed and the Patriot Act, and especially the Iraq invasion, I continued to believe that 9-11 was a lie. There was, for some time however, too much noise and too many distractions and unbelievable theories for me to really get my head around the whole operation. When, almost simultaneously, a boss and a bartender, two very smart and level headed people, mentioned WT7, and I looked into it, did I really have to face that these building were intentionally brought down.

Also, some inside information was shared with me, stored with me really; it was that in the weeks leading up to 9-11, all of the NYS Dept of Tax and Finance information that had been sequestered for a myriad of cases against major financial firms and individuals, by the NYS Attorney General’s Office for prosecution in NYC, were transferred to and subsequently lost in the WTC. I remember all of those cases; it was in the news every day and it was huge and hot. All those cases just evaporated after 9-11. That story is, those cases, are for anyone to look into in NY newspapers. I don’t mean that the document transfer and loss story is there, that has never been told, at least to my knowledge. I mean the news about those cases are all there as a matter of historical record, and the evaporation of those cases is evident.

That untold story explains why such a reckless, massive attack, involving the deaths of so many, in midtown Manhattan, had to occur. There were many ways to foment war. Destroying the WTC served several purposes and it was big, bold, and brash enough that it was very very difficult for the vast majority of people to second guess the official line. A Gulf of Tonkin would not cut it and it would not end the State of NY prosecutions against many rich and powerful people and organizations.

Michael-- did you know former President Obama vetoed the JASTA bill from Congress that would allow the families of 911 to bring suit against the Saudi Monarchy? 

See if you can get your head around that or go see your local bartender for guidance.

 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-sept11-saudi/congress-rejects-obama-veto-saudi-september-11-bill-becomes-law-idUSKCN11Y2D1

 

 

 

 

[W. Niederhut]

     As Guyenot has illustrated, there are numerous parallels between the JFK assassination black op and the 9/11 op -- the Crime of the 20th Century, and the Crime of the 21st Century, respectively.

1)  Both crimes led directly to the escalation of major, genocidal U.S. wars-- in Southeast Asia, (including Indonesia) and in Central Asia and the Middle East.

2)   In both crimes, the U.S. government exercised total control over the forensic evidence and pseudo-investigations-- the Warren Commission and Phillip Zelikow's 9/11 Commission.

3)   In both crimes, the mainstream U.S. media was persistently complicit in promoting the official government narrative, and aggressively censoring stories that contradicted the official narrative.  (For example, for the past 18 years the NYT has blacklisted the true story of the "Dancing Israeli" Mossad agents arrested at the Holland Tunnel on 9/11.)

4)   Both crimes were blamed on CIA-affiliated patsies, despite obvious problems posed by a careful analysis of the available evidence.  (FBI Director Robert Mueller and Dick Cheney ultimately admitted that there was no hard evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11.)

5)  Both patsies (Oswald and Bin Laden) openly denied committing the crimes. (Bin Laden spoke to Al Jazeera and a Pakistani journalist in September of 2001.)

 

[Robert Harper]

16 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

My hunch is that most people who have studied the JFK assassination in any detail have experienced a similar shocking learning curve.

Right on the button I think. I was surprised at myself for not "getting" 9/11 sooner after all the JFK reading I had done. Some got it right away - Peter Dale Scott for example. And Christopher Bollyn is the Vincent Salandria of the case matching the early and prescient observations of Feldman and Castro. My own first exposure was reading a long book by Dr Judy Wood called "Where Did the Towers Go" which brought into view the notion of thermite and explosives used. David Ray Griffin seemed to "get it" right away and his book brought the sense of a recurring process into my vantage point. Philip Marshall's "The Big Bamboozle" - a pilot himself - described how unlikely the flight scenarios were and I believe he and his family were murdered because of his frankness. The lack of a trial also mirrored the JFK case, as did the control of he crime scene and the cover-up. It was so awful to see, that it was difficult to imagine such a thing being planned, but planned it was. Reading that the "investigation" spent less money than the Monica romp or the Mueller probe added to this sense as well. Even with the JFK case, we had books by Lane and Meagher and Sauvage and Buchanan as well as Garrison's probe within a 6 year period. Here we are almost 20 years later and hardly any discussions on a mainstream level. It has affected every aspect of American life - the pre-written "Patriot" Act, the omnipresent X-ray machines not only in airports but in government buildings in every  podunk village. A recent hobby has been watching scores - even hundreds - of "first amendment audits" where people bring a camera into a public building and these public servants act like they are being faced with "terrorists" even though they are filmed from every angle, at every place they go. One sees the grasping after authority to get rid of these people as if taking a picture in public was a frightening thing to encounter. The free fall of Building 7 is the SBT of the case--it even was announced on BBC as having fallen "due to fires" while shown still standing in the background. Also on BBC, 2 hours after the initial crash, Ehud Barak was announcing that "Bin Laden" was responsible for such atrocity while I was thinking it might be two guys flying planes into the building for kicks. The combination of inter-related intelligence agencies with the military has produced a vile, evil combination at odds with every notion of what America has meant. That the longest war in American history is one result of 9/11 echoes the horror of Vietnam that followed JFK's killing. Once the public is perceived as being either gullible or stupid or apathetic,  it is easier to pull things like this off. "Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?"

[Ray Mitcham]

I often wonder how the fires in the top of the twin towers caused these cars to be burnt out at ground level.

 

[Ron Ecker]

When people want evidence of government foreknowledge (at the least, letting it happen) on 9/11, they really need look no further than the concerted inaction of the men at the top of the U.S. defense command, meaning Bush, Rumsfeld (along with his deputy Wolfowitz and the officer in charge at the Pentagon’s National Military Command Center), and the Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. The VP was the only one who actually did something during the attacks, and what he was doing was virtually participating in the attacks (tracking Flight 77 on its way to the Pentagon) according to the eyewitness account of the Secretary of Transportation, whose testimony the 9/11 Commission had no choice but to ignore.

I actually give Bush the benefit of the doubt, because I don't think that conspirators would let a person that stupid in on the plot. Bush was a puppet and a useful idiot in the cover-up, dragging his feet on appointing a commission for as long as he could, and then (no one could make this up) trying to appoint Henry Kissinger to head it. I’m sure it was also not Bush’s decision to sit around the Sarasota schoolhouse for half an hour after it was known that America was under attack and his whereabouts as a potential prime target were known. That’s on the Secret Service, presumably under orders from someone who somehow knew that Bush and the school kids and teachers were not in the slightest bit of danger. Just keep Bush there doing nothing for as long as you can.

But what about our other defense “leaders”? There’s the rub. The Secretary of Defense, the Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the chief operating officer at the NMCC in the Pentagon all went into hiding during the attacks. Rumsfeld holed up in his office listening to his daily CIA briefing like nothing was happening while his subordinates tried to get a handle on things, then he went outside the building after the Pentagon itself was hit so that he couldn’t be found by those same subordinates. (Those concerned subordinates didn't include Rumsfeld deputy Wolfowitz,  who continued with a routine Pentagon meeting after both towers were hit because he didn't think there was anything to be done at the moment.) The Acting Chairman General Myers holed up with Senator Max Cleland on Capitol Hill to chat about his confirmation, not to be disturbed by anything as distracting as an attack on America. The NMCC chief operating officer just happened to have that morning off, leaving the NMCC in the hands of a greenhorn, then showed up to "take charge" when the attacks were over. In sum, when the attacks were all over, the leaders of the U.S. defense command came out of their holes to suddenly assume their duties.

It is telling that the 9/11 Commission didn't have the guts to ask Rumsfeld or General Myers to explain their behavior, even though the Family Steering Committee specifically requested that the commission ask Rumsfeld to explain himself. Myers openly committed perjury right in the middle of his confirmation hearing testimony a few days after the attacks, and was rewarded for his lying with unanimous confirmation. It is also worth noting that his fellow military brass told so many lies during the 9/11 hearings that the commission considered having them indicted for perjury. But of course the commission didn't have the guts to do that either.

 

Edited September 15, 2019 by Ron Ecker

[Guest Rich Pope]

Good question.  In fact, I just finished reading a book that shows 9/11 was a conspiracy.  It's very well written and it's difficult to argue with the facts presented in the book.  Since WWII, the United States has been in either some sort of military conflict or open war.  War is money as they say.  With the war on terror, it provides something other wars could not produce.

1.  It's a never ending war.  Terrorism has been around for a very, long time and it's not going to stop.  So the war on terror is a never ending war.

2.  The enemy changes.  The war on terrorism is interesting in that the enemy keeps changing and there's no clear cut enemy wearing a particularly colored uniform we can focus on.  The enemy is everywhere, outside and inside the US.

3.  9/11 isn't the only false flag the US has conducted or dreamed up.  Operation Northwoods is an excellent example of a false flag operation designed to get us into war with another country.

Edited September 16, 2019 by Rich Pope

[John Kozlowski]

24 minutes ago, Rich Pope said:

Good question.  In fact, I just finished reading a book that shows 9/11 was a conspiracy.  It's very well written and it's difficult to argue with the facts presented in the book.  Since WWII, the United States has been in either some sort of military conflict or open war.  War is money as they say.  With the war on terror, it provides something other wars could not produce.

1.  It's a never ending war.  Terrorism has been around for a very, long time and it's not going to stop.  So the war on terror is a never ending war.

2.  The enemy changes.  The war on terrorism is interesting in that the enemy keeps changing and there's no clear cut enemy wearing a particularly colored uniform we can focus on.  The enemy is everywhere, outside and inside the US.

3.  9/11 isn't the only false flag the US has conducted or dreamed up.  Operation Northwoods is an excellent example of a false flag operation designed to get us into war with another country.

What was the book?

[Guest Rich Pope]

2 minutes ago, John Kozlowski said:

What was the book?

The book is called 9/11 The Simple Facts:  Why the Official Story Can't Possibly Be True.  It's part of The Real Story Series of a now defunct Soft Skull Press.  

[Rob Couteau]

Thank you, Mr Niederhut. Great theme for a thread.

In case anyone hasn't seen it, this was posted at ae911truth this past Sept 11th. Tune in at 5:25 minute mark of video (which bypasses the pledge of allegiance bs). Second speaker is the father of a fireman who was killed by explosives at the Trade Center and sent to a morgue even before the planes hit. He was one of many who were wounded or killed by detonations set off within the buildings that day. First speaker is a fire commissioner who calls bullxxxx on official 9/11 report: "The 911 Architects and Engineers for Truth raise valid questions," adding that even the chairman and vice-chairman of the 911 Commissioner, who authored the official report, admit they were "'set up to fail.'" Good to see an official of that sort of standing with all that brass on his chest just fuming at the Establishment  whitewashing.

"In Renewed Bid for Justice, First Responders Urge Congress to Reopen 9/11" Investigation":https://www.ae911truth.org/news/563-news-conference-first-responders-urge-congress-to-reopen-9-11-investigation 

Edited September 16, 2019 by Rob Couteau

[Anthony Thorne]

Useful discussion by Peter Dale Scott covering both the JFK assassination and 9/11. He's done a few of these, and this is one of the longer and more intensive ones.

Fred Ikle, who I just posted about in the Gladio thread, was involved in the 80's with the COG planners noted by Scott in his talk. And this ties back to my comment there that Ikle, as far back as the late 70's, had argued that significant planning should be done to prepare administrative and legal structures for emergency use, and have them in place and ready if a future crisis occurred. Part of this would eventually see the light as the continuity of government structures that were developed through the 80's, and which - as confirmed by the 9/11 Commission Report - were enacted by Cheney and Rumsfeld on the morning of 9/11. And part of this took the place of other, related government planning, for a military response, for a Patriot Act, for a new Homeland Security department, the works, and the names involved with all of these link back to the neconservatives and Ikle and the Committee on the Present Danger, and reappear and reoccur again and again.

 

Edited September 16, 2019 by Anthony Thorne

[Anthony Thorne]

Another note. Kevin Ryan's book ANOTHER 19 draws heavily on Scott's research, and adds a lot more to it, and Scott is an admirer of Ryan's writing, and Ryan is an admirer of Scott's. Peter Dale Scott did a quote for Ryan's book, and Ryan did an online review for Scott's AMERICAN WAR MACHINE volume.

Ryan's book can be found here.

https://www.amazon.com/Another-Nineteen-Investigating-Legitimate-Suspects/dp/1489507833/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=another+19&qid=1568604145&s=books&sr=1-1

and Scott's later book AMERICAN DEEP STATE is here, published a couple of years after Ryan's volume, and covering some of the same areas.

https://www.amazon.com/American-Deep-State-Struggle-Democracy/dp/1442214252/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=Peter+dale+scott&qid=1568604291&s=books&sr=1-2

And if you read the three Peter Dale Scott books on the topic - which are THE ROAD TO 9/11, AMERICAN WAR MACHINE, and AMERICAN DEEP STATE, and I view them as an unofficial trilogy on the same subject - plus Ryan's book, you'll have a deeper understanding of the topic than many. I think AMERICAN DEEP STATE is the best and most readable of those btw.

There's also a very good, overlooked volume by Elias Daviddson HIJACKING AMERICA'S MIND ON 9/11: COUNTERFEITING EVIDENCE. It's a long volume, carefully researched and heavily footnoted, that sticks to one central topic, namely the flights, the hijackers, and the calls that were used as evidence to construct the official story. Daviddson makes his points methodically, and puts the pieces in place for a closing chapter that is very hard to argue with. The book is online in its entirety in PDF form. Here's two different links to it, in case anyone wants to check it out.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/o5lcdt9kno0h33t/Elias Davidsson - Hijacking America's Mind (2013).pdf?dl=0

https://www.scribd.com/document/387104686/elias-davidsson-hijacking-americas-mind-2013-pdf

Rob, James Woolsey, who I mentioned in a recent PM to you, was also one of the main participants in the Continuity of Government planning discussed by Peter Dale Scott above.