Jump to content
The Education Forum
W. Niederhut

Are Most JFKA Truthers Also 9/11 Truthers?

Recommended Posts

Jim, I had no response to what you said about the UK’s sponsorship of terrorist groups, because I first read about that detail in Webster Tarpley’s book on 9/11, 14 years ago. And then further in Nafeez Ahmed’s book, published around the same time. And then most recently in David Teacher’s book on Le Cercle, which documents all the disparate elite US and UK and European deep political figures who would run off and hold exclusive meetings at various places before returning home to push various fascist and right-wing causes in their home countries.

But you won’t get much more commentary on that particular angle out of me.

Share this post


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

Jim, I had no response to what you said about the UK’s sponsorship of terrorist groups, because I first read about that detail in Webster Tarpley’s book on 9/11, 14 years ago. And then further in Nafeez Ahmed’s book, published around the same time. And then most recently in David Teacher’s book on Le Cercle, which documents all the disparate elite US and UK and European deep political figures who would run off and hold exclusive meetings at various places before returning home to push various fascist and right-wing causes in their home countries.

But you won’t get much more commentary on that particular angle out of me.

Your answer really doesn't make any sense. Let me leave you Anthony with a letter from Lord Russell to Lord Boyd Orr on July 2, 1964. You mentioned Joan Mellon and as I said Joan's ex husband spent years as Lord Russell's personal secretary, especially during the period of anti nukes, the JFK murder and then later Lord Russell's desire to bring America up on criminal charges for atrocities committed in Vietnam. 

Lord Russell is trying to convince Lord Boyd Orr to join him in this British intelligence operation titled "The British Who Killed Kennedy Committee" and Loyd Orr is reluctant to join. His interest as well as Russell's is disarmament or detente. Lord Russell once proposed a nuclear strike on the Soviet Union before the Soviets had their own nuclear arsenal but anyway in his response Lord Russell agrees with Lord Orr that disarmament is the key policy directive but writes (keep in mind the Warren Report is not due out until September 1964 and this letter is written in July) and writes:

..."I wholly agree with you that disarmament is the main question, but I think that the exposure of something scandalous in the assassination of Kennedy would be extremely useful (in the Empire's geopolitical war against it's top adversary America)....

Again keep in mind the Warren Report is not out in July of 1964 and this old Brit is licking his chops waiting to use the murder as a means of advancing British geopolitical designs, which will include entrapping America in Vietnam for 10 years. 

But here is a British aristocrat that essentially created the career of Mark Lane and he's putting this committee of British intelligence figures together in order to obfuscate the British hand in the Kennedy assassination and to blame the very same US Government Russell and his cohorts wished destroyed.  Now all we see if the conspiracy folklore of JFK are Brits, Canucks and Aussies. Quite interesting old chap. 

https://books.google.com/books?id=dbSEJr8twhYC&pg=PA578&lpg=PA578&dq=bertrand+russell,+mark+lane,+lord+boyd+orr&source=bl&ots=bSvSlHG-fc&sig=ACfU3U05_tSicUoWx4ZsGFnixLOgUlLqUA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjFgaeQodXkAhXoc98KHeIWAM0Q6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=bertrand russell%2C mark lane%2C lord boyd orr&f=false

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Average Joe on the street two cents worth:

Not a student of the 9-11 event but like millions of others I have seen video of the building 7 collapse.

Sorry, but a rational person with even a little adult life experience common sense is going to ask whether any building could fall almost straight down like that ( completely and almost uniformly into itself in just a few seconds ) when only "certain areas" of this 52 story, 680 feet high and 1.68 million square foot building were and/or had been burning and weakened to the point of collapse? 

Could the non-weakened structural support parts of this building ( a more squarely spread out and less weight bearing foundation one versus the twin towers ) actually be "pulled down" by other interconnected falling sections and so completely and uniformly within the same few seconds time frame as the final WTC commission report concluded?

I just read the part of this official report that explained how this occurred with scientific analysis.

I just can't buy this explanation though, again using and trusting my own common sense.

And to me, the incredibly uniform collapse of building 7 reminds me of the Jack Ruby killing Oswald event.

Millions of average persons in this country watched Ruby shooting Oswald to death on live coverage TV, or viewed national media replays of it soon after, and surely and logically had one common uneasy feeling and question over all others about that shocking event.

How could it have happened right inside of the Dallas Police Department building which was packed with over 70 armed police personnel and with Lee Harvey Oswald being the most threatened individual on the planet right then as widely reported in the national press?

Most people trust their own eyes and common sense and gut feelings more than what they are "told" to believe.

The complete collapse of WTC building 7 into itself in 6 seconds was as improbable as Jack Ruby's access into the Dallas PD basement to do what he did on 11,24,1963 ... in my Average Joe opinion.

 

 

 

Edited by Joe Bauer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joe Bauer said:

Average Joe on the street two cents worth:

Not a student of the 9-11 event but like millions of others I have seen video of the building 7 collapse.

Sorry, but a rational person with even a little adult life experience common sense is going to ask whether any building could fall almost straight down like that ( completely and almost uniformly into itself in just a few seconds ) when only "certain areas" of this 52 story, 680 feet high and 1.68 million square foot building were and/or had been burning and weakened to the point of collapse? 

Could the non-weakened structural support parts of this building ( a more squarely spread out and less weight bearing foundation one versus the twin towers ) actually be "pulled down" by other interconnected falling sections and so completely and uniformly within the same few seconds time frame as the final WTC commission report concluded?

I just read the part of this official report that explained how this occurred with scientific analysis.

I just can't buy this explanation though, again using and trusting my own common sense.

And to me, the incredibly uniform collapse of building 7 reminds me of the Jack Ruby killing Oswald event.

Millions of average persons in this country watched Ruby shooting Oswald to death on live coverage TV, or viewed national media replays of it soon after, and surely and logically had one common uneasy feeling and question over all others about that shocking event.

How could it have happened right inside of the Dallas Police Department building which was packed with over 70 armed police personnel and with Lee Harvey Oswald being the most threatened individual on the planet right then as widely reported in the national press?

Most people trust their own eyes and common sense and gut feelings more than what they are "told" to believe.

The complete collapse of WTC building 7 into itself in 6 seconds was as improbable as Jack Ruby's access into the Dallas PD basement to do what he did on 11,24,1963 ... in my Average Joe opinion.

 

 

 

Joe,

      Your intuitive, "common sense" perspective about the free fall demolition of WTC7 has been confirmed by the recent scientific analysis of the Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth.

 

9/11 mystery solved: World Trade Center building didn't collapse due to fire – study finds


 

     But, unfortunately, very few people in the U.S. even know about the free fall collapse of WTC7 on 9/11.  The subject has been blacklisted by the mainstream U.S. media for 18 years.  (As far as I know, the recent A&E911Truth study has also been blacked out of the mainstream U.S. media.)

     Even fewer people know that the owner (and builder) of WTC7, Larry Silverstein, (a very close, personal friend of Bibi Netanyahu) said that he "told them to pull it" (WTC7) on 9/11, before watching the demolition of the building.  Who is "them?"  Certainly not the NYFD, because the NYFD is not in the business of demolishing 47 floor steel skyscrapers.  An international demolitions expert from Holland, Danny Jowenko, said that the WTC7 collapse was a perfectly executed, explosive demolition.  Then Jowenko died in an automobile accident.

     Meanwhile, we now know that Silverstein had architectural plans for a new WTC7 building drafted BEFORE 9/11.  Yet none of this critically-important 9/11 evidence has ever been discussed in the mainstream U.S. media.  Nor was Silverstein interviewed by Phillip Zelikow's 9/11 Commission.

Edited by W. Niederhut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though I always believed the CIA, or elements thereof,  murdered our president, it was the absurdity of 9-11 claims that eventually led me to more serious investigation of JFK. The first case of a skyscraper ever collapsing from fire occurs three times on the same day, everything obliterated except the perpetrators' pristine passports wafting to the ground, the lack of airplane debris at the Pentagon and on the ground in Shanksville to cell phone calls from airplanes in 2001. It was difficult to swallow from almost the get-go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Anthony, Peter Dale Scott may have also meant what I'm about to offer as corollary (or not):

Institutional knowledge of the Venice flight school as a protected drug-smuggling inlet may have given the "hijackers" cover and immunity from deep investigation prior to 9/11 also.  This would be a case of one op piggybacked onto a pre-existing op, as we have seen in the anti-Castro doings decades before, and in the Contra war.

Thanks for the Elias Davidsson book.

Edited by David Andrews

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

             Another obvious parallel between 9/11 and the JFK Assassination cover up is the way that the perpetrators have aggressively censored news about the evidence debunking the official government 9/11 narrative, and aggressively attacked and disparaged scientists and scholars investigating the facts as kooky "conspiracy theorists."

            The pervasive pattern of media disinformation (including social media) about 9/11 is strikingly similar to the JFKA case.

           

           

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Rich Pope
15 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

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.)

And the story we were fed that Osama had been shot once and then given a burial at sea according to Muslim law is false.  All accounts from the Navy Seals who killed Bin Laden said he was full of holes like Swiss Cheese.  They shot him into oblivion leaving OBAMA to make-up a reason to dump his body in the ocean.  But Obama lied when asked to see pictures of Osama when he said, "We don't spike the ball".  What a complete crock of horse xxxx.

Edited by Rich Pope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rich Pope said:

And the story we were fed that Osama had been shot once and then given a burial at sea according to Muslim law is false.  All accounts from the Navy Seals who killed Bin Laden said he was full of holes like Swiss Cheese.  They shot him into oblivion leaving OBAMA to make-up a reason to dump his body in the ocean.  But Obama lied when asked to see pictures of Osama when he said, "We don't spike the ball".  What a complete crock of horse xxxx.

It was a surreal ending to an elaborate false U.S. government narrative about the apparent 9/11 patsy.

Equally surreal was Dubya Bush's claim in about (?) 2005 that "finding Bin Laden (was) no longer a priority" in the U.S. "War on Terror."

And, in an operational sense, that was an accurate statement.  By 2005, the patsy and his public legend had served their purpose for the U.S. military-industrial complex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, David Andrews said:

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.

Anthony, Peter Dale Scott may have also meant what I'm about to offer as corollary (or not):

Institutional knowledge of the Venice flight school as a protected drug-smuggling inlet may have given the "hijackers" cover and immunity from deep investigation prior to 9/11 also.  This would be a case of one op piggybacked onto a pre-existing op, as we have seen in the anti-Castro doings decades before, and in the Contra war.

Thanks for the Elias Davidsson book.

I don’t usually get much traction when I suggest the following: the JFK assassination may have been a case of one op piggybacked onto another op. JFK did not have to die in order to accomplish the mission, if indeed the mission was to implicate Castro and provide a pretext for an invasion of Cuba. An unsuccessful attempt laid at Castro’s feet would have been enough. It is my belief that a second op with a broader agenda hijacked the original. The hijackers needed jfk out of the way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter Dale Scott - and I'm referring to him continually in this instance, as he was one of the first guys to publish thoughts along these lines - suggested that 9/11 might have been the same. The hijacking might have been one op, known by some. Having the planes crash into the buildings might have been a second stage, known only by a smaller group. And having those buildings all collapse to the ground right afterwards may have been a third stage known only by a few. So for some people, they may have got on board the conspiracy with the notion that only hijackings were occurring. Others might have understood that planes were crashing, but they weren't aware that the buildings would be taken down. And the third, obviously very determined group understood the full breadth of what was going to occur. So one op might have been piggybacked on top of another

I believe Scott is on the right track with that argument. I don't have time this morning (Oz time here) to provide all the links and context, but there were unusual arrests in NYC the afternoon of the attacks that suggest further events were planned, but didn't occur. In particular, a van load of guys were arrested near the George Washington bridge. The van was found to contain explosives. And when cops radioed through the details, someone advised that the suspects 'looked Palestinian', which suggests that an attempt was temporarily pushed, and then discarded, to blame or frame a Palestinian element for attacks that day.

Journalist Robbie Martin - the brother of prominent alt media host Abby Martin - dug up interview audio from a day or so after the attacks, where father-and-son neocons Robert and Fred Kagan suggested on air that Palestine was a possible sponsor of the 9/11 attacks, and that the US military should send a Delta Force team into Palestine to kill terrorist forces there immediately. Robert's other son, Donald Kagan, was the editor of the 2000 volume PRESENT DANGERS, which offered a forum for neocons like Wolfowitz to offer in essay form all the agendas they would imminently be pushing after the 9/11 attacks, and in Kagan's opening essay he references the possibility of a Pearl Harbor event on the first or second page. So clearly, there was a lot going on with these guys. I suspect that among the plotters, there was a private agenda among a few to push things even further than what actually happened. 

References to the aborted George Washington Bridge plot

https://www.wikispooks.com/wiki/9-11/George_Washington_Bridge_plot

https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/91101-israeli-men-attempted-to-explode-george-washington-bridge/#

Dan Rather announcing the arrest of the guys from the van.

Article on the 9/12/2001 statement by the Kagans.

https://mondoweiss.net/2015/08/kagan-father-palestine/?utm_te

And audio of the relevant section from their interview.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

I don’t usually get much traction when I suggest the following: the JFK assassination may have been a case of one op piggybacked onto another op. JFK did not have to die in order to accomplish the mission, if indeed the mission was to implicate Castro and provide a pretext for an invasion of Cuba. An unsuccessful attempt laid at Castro’s feet would have been enough. It is my belief that a second op with a broader agenda hijacked the original. The hijackers needed jfk out of the way. 

People hate it when I bring this up, but that's close to the plot of Don DeLillo's novel about Oswald, Libra, which is wrongly regarded as a lone-nut novel.  The murder plot is piggybacked onto an assassination attempt to be blamed on Castro, except it's done by a small band of conspirators within a not much larger band of CIA rogues.  The assassination essentially goes through and is covered up because the culture wants it to happen, is crying out for it to happen.  Which is dramatic license but not by much. 

But, to be more concrete here, when Libra came out in the 1980s, I have a vivid memory of reading the review in the New York Times before I bought the book and thinking to myself, Oh, he's heard of the assassination attempt legend, too.  Which means that I had picked that theory up somewhere earlier, in the days before the internet, just as DeLillo had.  So that's been around a good long time.  And, you're right - it's ridiculous for anyone to think that a near-miss or a wounding on JFK, plus a dead patsy, would have gotten Kennedy to start a war, even if they had all the pictures and conspirator names in the world to back that up, which they didn't.  If the legend is true, he really had to go if there were any hope for a war scenario.

Edited by David Andrews

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[...] there were unusual arrests in NYC the afternoon of the attacks that suggest further events were planned, but didn't occur. In particular, a van load of guys were arrested near the George Washington bridge. The van was found to contain explosives. And when cops radioed through the details, someone advised that the suspects 'looked Palestinian', which suggests that an attempt was temporarily pushed, and then discarded, to blame or frame a Palestinian element for attacks that day.

 

See you that, and raise you some dancing Israelis:

https://www.mintpressnews.com/newly-released-fbi-docs-shed-light-on-apparent-mossad-foreknowledge-of-9-11-attacks/258581/

 

Edited by David Andrews

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David. Yep, that's part of the same story. Dominik Suter, Urban Moving Systems, and all those guys. In its totality it's definitely one of the lesser reported stories from the day.

Wayne Madsen's essay on the subject, which you've probably already read.

https://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/2007/06/israeli-art-students-and-movers-story.html

The one part of the common alternative reading of all that stuff that I don't currently go along with is the frequently-reprinted story that those guys later confessed on Israeli TV about being sent to 'document the event'. I've seen the clip going around from the show in question, and it is the same guys (as confirmed by an exculpatory BBC or Channel 4 documentary where they portrayed themselves as innocent tourists caught up in an awful news story for no reason). But I don't speak Hebrew, and the only source translating the original clip is a brief Youtube video, originating from parts unknown, where over the clip of the guys speaking, we get an anonymous narrator telling us what they said. Who translated it? Is it an accurate translation? Did they just go on a show and say, wow, we're so glad to be back home again etc? No idea. So I usually leave the 'we were sent to document the event' note out whenever I discuss this angle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Side note. In the Scott/Marshall/Hunter volume THE IRAN-CONTRA CONNECTION, published in the late 80's, there's a chapter on the Israeli aspect of the Contragate story. Jane Hunter (who I think wrote that particular chapter, though I could be wrong) ends the chapter with the comment that Israel's 'immunity to U.S. law' and trusted status as an occasionally covert partner will likely make it "the vehicle of choice for the next tragic and avoidable essay in covert foreign policy". So I don't buy the argument pushed by some writers - some of them good, some bad - that Israel was the architect of the event, and the stuff I've posted in the Gladio thread should give a clearer picture of some of the US figures that were pushing things forward, but having a partner working on some of the most covert events of the day was clearly a useful thing for the planners. It's a  bit like the anti-Casto Cubans floating around the JFK assassination, a group that wasn't running the show, but did some important work in collaboration with those that were on 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...