Jump to content
The Education Forum
W. Niederhut

Are Most JFKA Truthers Also 9/11 Truthers?

Recommended Posts

The same ploy that had been used in 1963-a purported meeting with an intelligence officer from a hostile country(LHO and Kostikov in Mexico City)-was used again in the aftermath of 9/11 when it was falsely reported that Mohammed Atta had met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in the months preceding the attack. 

Other parallels with 1963 are found in Kevin Fenton's Disconnecting the Dots-CIA hiding what the agency knew about hijackers being in the U.S. because they were possibly using them as part of an operation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Robin Finn said:

The same ploy that had been used in 1963-a purported meeting with an intelligence officer from a hostile country(LHO and Kostikov in Mexico City)-was used again in the aftermath of 9/11 when it was falsely reported that Mohammed Atta had met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in the months preceding the attack. 

Other parallels with 1963 are found in Kevin Fenton's Disconnecting the Dots-CIA hiding what the agency knew about hijackers being in the U.S. because they were possibly using them as part of an operation.

Good point.  If I recall correctly, Sibel Edmonds claimed in her account of her post-9/11 work as an FBI translator, Classified Woman, that 1) high-level FBI officials had repeatedly shelved FBI field reports about the alleged "Al Qaeda" hijackers before 9/11, and 2) Osama Bin Laden was, apparently, working with U.S. intelligence officials in some capacity before AND AFTER 9/11.

And, like Oswald, Bin Laden was killed before he could testify publicly.  (And his killers died under mysterious circumstances, as did Jack Ruby.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One broader context is that, after the JFK assassination, Lee Harvey Oswald's activities and identity before the assassination - as best as we can tell - were institutionally covered up by figures who didn't want LHO's status as a person used by or linked to intelligence to be revealed. So, everything 'spooky' about LHO's life was dismissed by omission or with a shrug, and he was treated as just a nutty loner.

With 9/11, two books - Daniel Hopsicker's WELCOME TO TERRORLAND and Sander Hicks' SLINGSHOT TO THE JUGGERNAUT - make a strong case that Atta and some of his fellow hijackers were involved with or linked to illegal drug trafficking in Florida. So Huffman Aviation, on this Wikispooks page, links to both drug trafficking and 9/11, as Atta and others had used it, and various arrests and drug busts revealed the airport to be a drug trafficking hub.

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Huffman_Aviation

https://www.heraldtribune.com/article/LK/20121213/News/605228256/SH/

https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/12/head-of-911-hijackers-flight-school-faces-drug-running-charges/

Peter Dale Scott made the point that, like the JFK assassination and LHO's ties to intelligence, the drug-trafficking angle here was yet another good excuse for some authorities to accept the official story, because it would raise too many difficult questions to look into who the guys were and what they were actually doing. Hopsicker is also the source for the unverified story that, after 9/11, Governor of Florida Jeb Bush flew down to Huffman to oversee the removal of the records of the hijackers - or 'hijackers' - who had been using the airport. And it is unverified - but if it's true, I find it telling that Jeb would go there after 9/11 to have the documents removed asap, and not have just had the documents removed a week, month or year earlier. It suggests that the identity of the hijackers on the day might have come as a surprise to some, and the plan to use those figures as yet another institutional fig leaf to protect the official story worked well. Which could suggest that the planners of 9/11 liked what they knew had worked in the past, and wanted to use some of the same tactics and methods again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Anthony Thorne said:

One broader context is that, after the JFK assassination, Lee Harvey Oswald's activities and identity before the assassination - as best as we can tell - were institutionally covered up by figures who didn't want LHO's status as a person used by or linked to intelligence to be revealed. So, everything 'spooky' about LHO's life was dismissed by omission or with a shrug, and he was treated as just a nutty loner.

With 9/11, two books - Daniel Hopsicker's WELCOME TO TERRORLAND and Sander Hicks' SLINGSHOT TO THE JUGGERNAUT - make a strong case that Atta and some of his fellow hijackers were involved with or linked to illegal drug trafficking in Florida. So Huffman Aviation, on this Wikispooks page, links to both drug trafficking and 9/11, as Atta and others had used it, and various arrests and drug busts revealed the airport to be a drug trafficking hub.

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Huffman_Aviation

https://www.heraldtribune.com/article/LK/20121213/News/605228256/SH/

https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/12/head-of-911-hijackers-flight-school-faces-drug-running-charges/

Peter Dale Scott made the point that, like the JFK assassination and LHO's ties to intelligence, the drug-trafficking angle here was yet another good excuse for some authorities to accept the official story, because it would raise too many difficult questions to look into who the guys were and what they were actually doing. Hopsicker is also the source for the unverified story that, after 9/11, Governor of Florida Jeb Bush flew down to Huffman to oversee the removal of the records of the hijackers - or 'hijackers' - who had been using the airport. And it is unverified - but if it's true, I find it telling that Jeb would go there after 9/11 to have the documents removed asap, and not have just had the documents removed a week, month or year earlier. It suggests that the identity of the hijackers on the day might have come as a surprise to some, and the plan to use those figures as yet another institutional fig leaf to protect the official story worked well. Which could suggest that the planners of 9/11 liked what they knew had worked in the past, and wanted to use some of the same tactics and methods again.

How do interested 911 researchers miss the recent fight led by Bob Graham of Florida and the late Walter Jones Republican congressman from North Carolina  along with a few other key individuals including family members of people killed in terrorism of 911 to get the JASTA bill passed?  It's acronym for "Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism" and this bill was vetoed by President Obama and his veto was nullified by Congress. This allows the families of 911 victims to sue the Monarchy of Saudi Arabia which is something I never hear mentioned by 911 truthers. 

It was not an easy fight to get the JASTA bill passed especially with the Queen's personal servant  President "Obomber" in the White House.

Bob Graham interview 2018

https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2018/10/25/bob-graham-saudi-arabia-khashoggi

JASTA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_Against_Sponsors_of_Terrorism_Act

 

 

 

Edited by Jim Harwood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Jim Harwood said:

How do interested 911 researchers miss the recent fight led by Bob Graham of Florida and the late Walter Jones Republican congressman from North Carolina  along with a few other key individuals including family members of people killed in terrorism of 911 to get the JASTA bill passed?  It's acronym for "Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism" and this bill was vetoed by President Obama and his veto was nullified by Congress. This allows the families of 911 victims to sue the Monarchy of Saudi Arabia. Something you never hear mentioned by 911 truthers.  It was not an easy fight to get the JASTA bill passed especially with the Queen's personal servant  President "Obomber" in the White House. 

Bob Graham interview 2018

https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2018/10/25/bob-graham-saudi-arabia-khashoggi

 

 

 

Another “Whaddabout-da-Queen!” ism.

More of your same-ole-same-ole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Another “Whaddabout-da-Queen!” ism.

More of your same-ole-same-ole.

I thought it was about the JASTA bill---any comments , thoughts, or surprise that you had no idea this political fight was going on right under your nose? How is that about the Queen? 

And if you doubt Obama is  the personal property of the Queen I'd be happy to debate it with you. Let me guess your'e another "subject" come to tell us Yanks how evil an empire we run, is that correct?  

Edited by Jim Harwood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim, why do you think I’ve missed anything? I’ve been following that news just as much as you have.

Peter Dale Scott was taking about the Saudi role, and naming figures he felt were involved, 12 years ago. Daniel Hopsicker names plenty of Saudi folk in his research. I could name several other writers about 9/11 who do the same. Jonathan Elinoff told me personally that he thought there was a substantial Saudi role, and described to me what he felt it was. His analysis went further than the JASTA bill, btw, and Peter Dale Scott was asked to delete references to a Saudi billionaire in his book THE ROAD TO 9/11 by lawyers for the University of California Press.

None of this takes away from a narrative where numerous disparate groups were working in conjunction with each other. So if the Saudis are about to be sued, fine. Hopefully it’ll be the first of many lawsuits.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Anthony Thorne said:

Jim, why do you think I’ve missed anything? I’ve been following that news just as much as you have.

Peter Dale Scott was taking about the Saudi role, and naming figures he felt were involved, 12 years ago. Daniel Hopsicker names plenty of Saudi folk in his research. I could name several other writers about 9/11 who do the same. Jonathan Elinoff told me personally that he thought there was a substantial Saudi role, and described to me what he felt it was. His analysis went further than the JASTA bill, btw, and Peter Dale Scott was asked to delete references to a Saudi billionaire in his book THE ROAD TO 9/11 by lawyers for the University of California Press.

None of this takes away from a narrative where numerous disparate groups were working in conjunction with each other. So if the Saudis are about to be sued, fine. Hopefully it’ll be the first of many lawsuits.

 

 

I'm just saying I've not read so much as a single sentence on this website about the JASTA fight.  And what you mean by stating Scott's analysis goes farther than the JASTA bill eludes me. The bill simply allows the families of 911 victims to sue the House of Saud, so I am not sure what you mean by analysis? 

And I agree with you I hope the Saudi's do get sued.

And I just noticed you seem to be an Aussie . It would be interesting to find out how many Brits, Aussies, Canucks we have playing the "who killed JFK"?   The British have played the key role in establishing the narrative around the Kennedy murder ever since Lord Russell got an advanced copy of the Warren Commission report (how does a foreigner get an advanced copy?) and penned his famous 16 questions which pinned the blame on the nasty US government. It seems Lord Russell's job was to organize the Kennedy murder around right wing and Jacobin lines and away from the only true author of the murder the British Empire. How do you all feel about being "subjects" to the Crown while all us dumb yanks are citizens or the sovereign? But back to the topic how many of the Queens men are actively involved in solving the crime of the century? 

Even this website was established by former Hollinger Corporation employee John Simkin. Its all very interesting.

Edited by Jim Harwood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The JASTA bill implies guilt on the part of the Saudis. PDS’s analysis implies a degree of guilt on the part of the Saudis too, but names additional names and connections, which I might have thought was important to anyone investigating the event, either to sue or to simply find out the truth, but there you go. That’s all I meant.

Re being subjects of the crown, Australia had a referendum to become a Republic back in 1997. The vote failed. If they held it again today it would probably pass. Beyond that it’s not something I have a lot of time to ponder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Anthony Thorne said:

The JASTA bill implies guilt on the part of the Saudis. PDS’s analysis implies a degree of guilt on the part of the Saudis too, but names additional names and connections, which I might have thought was important to anyone investigating the event, either to sue or to simply find out the truth, but there you go. That’s all I meant.

Re being subjects of the crown, Australia had a referendum to become a Republic back in 1997. The vote failed. If they held it again today it would probably pass. Beyond that it’s not something I have a lot of time to ponder.

I don't mean to split hairs but JASTA was an amendment to the "Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act" which stripped Saudi Arabia of any immunity under the act. I guess that is an implication or projection of guilt by US congress.

And seeing that you're a subject of the Monarchy yourself, what do you think of this attached story which covers a memorandum delivered to then Secretary of State Madeline Albright demanding that Great Britain be placed on the list of states sponsoring terrorism. It is interesting to me to see all the terrorist organizations have their headquarters in London. And as a sidebar according to the 1967 Daily Mall Clay Shaw had planned to move to London before he was arrested by Jim Garrison. And going back even further one of the alleged conspirators in the murder of Abraham Lincoln (Judah Benjamin) made haste north through the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland etc. up to Montreal Canada where he set sail for London England and spent the rest of his life as barrister to the Queen. 

But if the families of 911 victims are successful with their suit against the Saudi Monarchy then perhaps next they will target the British Monarchy? 

By the way I believe the late President of Egypt "Mubarak" also came out in the international press in 1997 and pointed the finger at the British as the source of international terrorism. Go figure.

https://larouchepub.com/lar/2000/terror_memo_2703.html

Edited by Jim Harwood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Jim, respectfully, very few Aussies, myself included, really care that much about the British monarchy.

I’ll post more links and thoughts over the next day or two. FWIW, Joan Mellen and James W. Douglass are also 9/11 truth supporters - Mellen expresses her thoughts on the matter in some articles, while Douglass has endorsed (from memory) some recent David Ray Griffin books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Anthony Thorne said:

 Jim, respectfully, very few Aussies, myself included, really care that much about the British monarchy.

I’ll post more links and thoughts over the next day or two. FWIW, Joan Mellen and James W. Douglass are also 9/11 truth supporters - Mellen expresses her thoughts on the matter in some articles, while Douglass has endorsed (from memory) some recent David Ray Griffin books.

Thanks Anthony but I'm surprised you had no response to the fact that most of the major terrorist groups are housed in London England. Shouldn't the USA  or the United Nations at least categorize Britain as a sponsor of terrorism?  

By the way Joan Mellen's ex husband was Lord Bertrand Russell's personal secretary. As an Aussie you really should pay more attention to who is running this planet even if they're running it into the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...