FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[David G. Healy]

I am not some newcomer to investigating 9/11 and have no desire or feel compelled to read anything from organizations that are not independent and unbiased.

You are stating the government version of 9/11....a clearly biased point of view, that has been heavily debunked.... I do not intend to go tit for tat with you, as you clearly have more time to waste on this topic than I care to. What is fact is the 9/11 commission was ridiculously biased, they did not take any account of eyewitnesses that didn't spew the official account. This is well documented, and anything you say to the otherwise is just absurd. A new investigation, a transparent and honest one is what is needed, and that will not happen until the current administration is out of office...if ever.

We are still waiting for the evidence that 'proves' it was carried out by OBL.

Since this event is the firestorm that is responsible for the Patriot Act, MC Act, the AFG and Iraq war...and is a direct assault on the civil liberties of AMERICAN Citizens, we have not only the right, but the responsibilty to question every aspect and conclusion. I will ask you a very direct question that has a very precise answer.... was the Patriot Act drafted before or after 9/11? And how many that voted on it actually read it?

Take your time.

we know you've discussed experience on internet forums, yet I see no quotes, rather silly -- to whom are you talking to, Mr. Vernon?

[Mark Vernon]

I am not some newcomer to investigating 9/11 and have no desire or feel compelled to read anything from organizations that are not independent and unbiased.

You are stating the government version of 9/11....a clearly biased point of view, that has been heavily debunked.... I do not intend to go tit for tat with you, as you clearly have more time to waste on this topic than I care to. What is fact is the 9/11 commission was ridiculously biased, they did not take any account of eyewitnesses that didn't spew the official account. This is well documented, and anything you say to the otherwise is just absurd. A new investigation, a transparent and honest one is what is needed, and that will not happen until the current administration is out of office...if ever.

We are still waiting for the evidence that 'proves' it was carried out by OBL.

Since this event is the firestorm that is responsible for the Patriot Act, MC Act, the AFG and Iraq war...and is a direct assault on the civil liberties of AMERICAN Citizens, we have not only the right, but the responsibilty to question every aspect and conclusion. I will ask you a very direct question that has a very precise answer.... was the Patriot Act drafted before or after 9/11? And how many that voted on it actually read it?

Take your time.

we know you've discussed experience on internet forums, yet I see no quotes, rather silly -- to whom are you talking to, Mr. Vernon?

I am talking to the person who posted before me. Are you seriously contending you did not know this?, or is this your way to say that you are my arch enemy, and that I will have to deal with you at every post I make?

[Jack White]

I am not some newcomer to investigating 9/11 and have no desire or feel compelled to read anything from organizations that are not independent and unbiased.

You are stating the government version of 9/11....a clearly biased point of view, that has been heavily debunked.... I do not intend to go tit for tat with you, as you clearly have more time to waste on this topic than I care to. What is fact is the 9/11 commission was ridiculously biased, they did not take any account of eyewitnesses that didn't spew the official account. This is well documented, and anything you say to the otherwise is just absurd. A new investigation, a transparent and honest one is what is needed, and that will not happen until the current administration is out of office...if ever.

We are still waiting for the evidence that 'proves' it was carried out by OBL.

Since this event is the firestorm that is responsible for the Patriot Act, MC Act, the AFG and Iraq war...and is a direct assault on the civil liberties of AMERICAN Citizens, we have not only the right, but the responsibilty to question every aspect and conclusion. I will ask you a very direct question that has a very precise answer.... was the Patriot Act drafted before or after 9/11? And how many that voted on it actually read it?

Take your time.

Mark...it is refreshing to see somebody here who does not buy the OFFICIAL STORY. However,

be prepared to see "agents" quickly attack you. Thanks for looking at the facts.

Jack

[Kevin M. West]

Are those not explosions? Why don't you tell me what you see in that picture, instead of being a parrot to someone elses opinion?

No actually, they aren't explosions. If you watch the video, the velocity of the clouds of smoke & dust being ejected is a couple orders of magnitude too slow to be an explosion. I can see how you think it looks like an explosion from the still frame though.

As yourself this... If those are explosions, why do they start after the building starts to collapse, not before? Cause has to come before effect.

How is it that you can say there were no explosions for a fact? Are you stating opinion, or do you have some other kind of supporting documentation?

Why do you require documentation for what can be seen with your own eyes? Do you require documentation that the sky is blue?

You can watch and see for yourself, nothing in any of the videos can be seen moving anywhere near explosive velocities, and there is not a single bit of audio of any sounds of explosives detonating.

That is pretty conclusive in itself, but also you can consider the fact that no steel was found with explosive damage, no explosive residues were found, no bits of detcord or blasting caps were found, etc. There is literally no evidence of explosives.

[Mark Vernon]

Why do you require documentation for what can be seen with your own eyes? Do you require documentation that the sky is blue?

You can watch and see for yourself, nothing in any of the videos can be seen moving anywhere near explosive velocities, and there is not a single bit of audio of any sounds of explosives detonating.

That is pretty conclusive in itself, but also you can consider the fact that no steel was found with explosive damage, no explosive residues were found, no bits of detcord or blasting caps were found, etc. There is literally no evidence of explosives.

MIT Engineer Jeff King Says WTC Demolished

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNbwLfczjt8

I guess embedding vids here isnt allowed.

Explosion at WTC...or maybe its just a falling desk.

"My story was never mentioned in the final report and I felt like I was being put on trial in a court room. They were trying to twist my words and make the story fit only what they wanted to hear" [PDF download]

-Firefighter Louie Cacchioli

"When I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, ... I saw low-level flashes ... I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down ... You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw."

- NYFD Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory

"It was as if as if they had detonated ... as if they had planned to take down a building, boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom "

- NYFD Captain Dennis Tardio

"I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building."

- NYFD Firefighter Louie Cacchioli

“There was just an explosion in the south tower. It seemed like on television when they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.”

- NYFD Firefighter Richard Banaciski

"It almost sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight"

- NYFD Firefighter Thomas Turilli

"Heard explosions coming from . . . the south tower . . . There were about ten explosions. . . . We then realized the building started to come down"

- NYFD Firefighter Craig Carlson

"It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. . . . We originally had thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down"

- NYFD Firefighter Edward Cachia

"Somewhere around the middle . . . there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode ... With each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building"

- NYFD Captain Karin Deshore

"A debate began to rage because . . . many people had felt that possibly explosives had taken out 2 World Trade"

- NYFD Firefighter Christopher Feny

There were many reports about an explosion in the basement of the north tower. For example, janitor William Rodriguez reported that he and others felt an explosion below the first sub-level office at 9 AM, after which co-worker Felipe David, who had been in front of a nearby freight elevator, came into the office with severe burns on his face and arms yelling "explosion! explosion! explosion!"

Rodriguez’s account has been corroborated by José Sanchez, who was in the workshop on the fourth sub-level. Sanchez said that he and a co-worker heard a big blast that “sounded like a bomb,” after which “a huge ball of fire went through the freight elevator.”

Engineer Mike Pecoraro, who was working in the sixth sub-basement of the north tower, said that after an explosion he and a co-worker went up to the C level, where there was a small machine shop. “There was nothing there but rubble,” said Pecoraro. “We're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press--gone!” They then went to the parking garage, but found that it was also gone. Then on the B level, they found that a steel-and-concrete fire door, which weighed about 300 pounds, was wrinkled up "like a piece of aluminum foil." Having seen similar things after the terrorist attack in 1993, Pecoraro was convinced that a bomb had gone off.

Given these testimonies to explosions in the basement levels of the towers, it is interesting that Mark Loizeaux, head of Controlled Demolition, Inc., has been quoted as saying: “If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure.”

These people are all hallucinating? Or maybe they just dont know what an explosion sounds like? In any case Kevin M. West, you have been proven to be in the least, 100% wrong, and at worst you are <removed>. Either way, I'm done with you.

Edited August 28, 2008 by Evan Burton
Prohibited words removed

[Mark Vernon]

I am not some newcomer to investigating 9/11 and have no desire or feel compelled to read anything from organizations that are not independent and unbiased.

You are stating the government version of 9/11....a clearly biased point of view, that has been heavily debunked.... I do not intend to go tit for tat with you, as you clearly have more time to waste on this topic than I care to. What is fact is the 9/11 commission was ridiculously biased, they did not take any account of eyewitnesses that didn't spew the official account. This is well documented, and anything you say to the otherwise is just absurd. A new investigation, a transparent and honest one is what is needed, and that will not happen until the current administration is out of office...if ever.

We are still waiting for the evidence that 'proves' it was carried out by OBL.

Since this event is the firestorm that is responsible for the Patriot Act, MC Act, the AFG and Iraq war...and is a direct assault on the civil liberties of AMERICAN Citizens, we have not only the right, but the responsibilty to question every aspect and conclusion. I will ask you a very direct question that has a very precise answer.... was the Patriot Act drafted before or after 9/11? And how many that voted on it actually read it?

Take your time.

Mark...it is refreshing to see somebody here who does not buy the OFFICIAL STORY. However,

be prepared to see "agents" quickly attack you. Thanks for looking at the facts.

Jack

Thanks Jack... let them attack all they want, the truth is more powerful than their lies, I just hope for justice to be served in my lifetime.

Edited August 28, 2008 by Evan Burton

[Guest Stephen Turner]

In any case Kevin M. West, you have been proven to be in the least, 100% wrong, and at worst you are a xxxx and disinfo agent. Either way, I'm done with you.

Mark, that particular term is not allowed on this Forum. Debate with as much passion as you wish, but please refrain from calling other members liars.

[Len Colby]

I am not some newcomer to investigating 9/11 and have no desire or feel compelled to read anything from organizations that are not independent and unbiased.

Seemingly you only define “organizations” that back your interpretation as “independent and unbiased”. I suggested you read a report by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAofNY). I also suggested your read a paper by 2 structural engineering professors from Northwestern University, one of the top engineering schools in the US published in the ASCE’s peer reviewed JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS. Are Northwestern, the ASCE, the SEAofNY and the JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS biased and not independent? I don’t suppose it occurred to you that the sites you get your information from might not be “independent and unbiased”?

You are stating the government version of 9/11...

You make it sound like only the Government backs the impact and fire induced collapse theory nothing could be further from the case it is overwhelmingly backed by the engineering community.

....a clearly biased point of view, that has been heavily debunked....

Your almost getting circular “my view is right because its right” true many people have claimed to have falsified the collapse theory, the problem is these claims don’t withstand critical examination. Can you cite specific examples? Before doing so try doing a forum search to see if they have previously been discussed.

What is fact is the 9/11 commission was ridiculously biased, they did not take any account of eyewitnesses that didn't spew the official account. This is well documented, and anything you say to the otherwise is just absurd.

Of course you can’t be bothered to document your claims. In the course of almost any investigation some witnesses will contradict others. Investigators have to go with the preponderance of evidence. The 9/11 C. Report isn’t really relevant to this discussion because said almost nothing about the building collapses they left that up to NIST and the ASCE.

We are still waiting for the evidence that 'proves' it was carried out by OBL.

I think OBL and KSM taking credit for it and the martyrdom videos leaves little up to doubt.

Since this event is the firestorm that is responsible for the Patriot Act, MC Act, the AFG and Iraq war...and is a direct assault on the civil liberties of AMERICAN Citizens, we have not only the right, but the responsibilty to question every aspect and conclusion. I will ask you a very direct question that has a very precise answer.... was the Patriot Act drafted before or after 9/11? And how many that voted on it actually read it?

Take your time.

None of this is really relevant to the twin tower collapses I’ll reply on a more appropriate thread

[Len Colby]

In any case Kevin M. West, you have been proven to be in the least, 100% wrong, and at worst you are a xxxx and disinfo agent. Either way, I'm done with you.

Mark, that particular term is not allowed on this Forum. Debate with as much passion as you wish, but please refrain from calling other members liars.

Steve I'm glad to see you are moderating again. Did you make Mark's post invisible? Perhaps it would have been better to edit it, I'm curious to see how he thought he had proven Kevin "to be in the least, 100% wrong".

[Guest Stephen Turner]

In any case Kevin M. West, you have been proven to be in the least, 100% wrong, and at worst you are a xxxx and disinfo agent. Either way, I'm done with you.

Mark, that particular term is not allowed on this Forum. Debate with as much passion as you wish, but please refrain from calling other members liars.

Steve I'm glad to see you are moderating again. Did you make Mark's post invisible? Perhaps it would have been better to edit it, I'm curious to see how he thought he had proven Kevin "to be in the least, 100% wrong".

Hi Len, Nope, twas not me. I think Evan applied the coup de gras. i was just trying to save Mark from unnecessary grief.

Edited August 27, 2008 by Stephen Turner

[Mark Vernon]

In any case Kevin M. West, you have been proven to be in the least, 100% wrong, and at worst you are a xxxx and disinfo agent. Either way, I'm done with you.

Mark, that particular term is not allowed on this Forum. Debate with as much passion as you wish, but please refrain from calling other members liars.

Steve I'm glad to see you are moderating again. Did you make Mark's post invisible? Perhaps it would have been better to edit it, I'm curious to see how he thought he had proven Kevin "to be in the least, 100% wrong".

Hi Len, Nope, twas not me. I think Evan applied the coup de gras. i was just trying to save Mark from unnecessary grief.

Where is my post now?? Did it have too much debunking info for this particular mod? Now I am feeling the uneven hand of this overly zealous moderator, and dont like it one bit.

[Mark Vernon]

In any case Kevin M. West, you have been proven to be in the least, 100% wrong, and at worst you are a xxxx and disinfo agent. Either way, I'm done with you.

Mark, that particular term is not allowed on this Forum. Debate with as much passion as you wish, but please refrain from calling other members liars.

Steve I'm glad to see you are moderating again. Did you make Mark's post invisible? Perhaps it would have been better to edit it, I'm curious to see how he thought he had proven Kevin "to be in the least, 100% wrong".

Yes, it would have.

But what is left is the 'offending' part and whats missing is the susbstance.

Great moderating there chief.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

In any case Kevin M. West, you have been proven to be in the least, 100% wrong, and at worst you are a xxxx and disinfo agent. Either way, I'm done with you.

Mark, that particular term is not allowed on this Forum. Debate with as much passion as you wish, but please refrain from calling other members liars.

Steve I'm glad to see you are moderating again. Did you make Mark's post invisible? Perhaps it would have been better to edit it, I'm curious to see how he thought he had proven Kevin "to be in the least, 100% wrong".

Yes, it would have.

But what is left is the 'offending' part and whats missing is the susbstance.

Great moderating there chief.

As I explained to Len It wasn't me who set your post to invisible. PM Evan and ask him to restore the body of your post.

[Terry Mauro]

On the "bad moderator" thread which John deleted the subject of academic freedom came up. I pointed out that in the US numerous professors hold leftist and other controversial views and that as far as I knew only three "truther" professors had lost their jobs. None of them were tenured they were Steve Jones, Barrett and Judy Wood. I suggested that Wood was fired for backing crackpot theories such as the structures of the WTC Twin Towers were akin to trees, they were hit by holograms rather than 767's and "the towers were destroyed by “star wars” weaponry." At first Terry indicated she thaught Wood was a crackpot but then she replied with the following

"...the towers were destroyed by “star wars” weaponry..."

That phrase alone, had the words actually been uttered by Wood, would have automatically set her up for ridicule, by the press, media, Mockingbird, just as it set up Reagan to look like a blithering idiot when he set about attempting to implement the SWI. And, shortly after which, ended up getting him shot at, whilst the man who introduced the concept of the "Star Wars Initiative," to Reagan, Lyndon LaRouche, personna non grata himself, ended up going to jail on trumped up charges driven home by the John Train Salon of NBC Television, merely for getting close enough to Reagan to get the idea across to him.

Therefore, most definitely would she have been denied tenure, let alone risk life and limb, by getting shot at, or run off the road late one night, for attempting to think in the abstract, or "outside of the box," which seems to be the favorite metaphor being used as of late.

That's why you'll never read in the history books in school about the real reason for the Vietnam debacle. Everything must be glossed over and made to appear justifiably in favor of the U.S.A., even if our government was 99.9% at fault for proceeding to defy Geneva Accords and interfere in a foreign government's affairs. Regardless of whether they asked for our help or not. You should already know that by now, as well as why our presence in Iraq is a veiled excuse for eminent domaining their oil reserves, among other things.

But, you know something? I must take leave of this place for awhile, as I've just gotten a phone call from a dear friend of the last 30 years, who just found out he has cancer, and will be going into the hospital for therapy on Thursday. I will be spending the coming weekend at his bedside, helping him to get back on his feet. So, I'll turn this over to my good friend, Myra, whom I'm sure will be able to sufficiently hold down what's left of the fort in my absence. Ciao.

“That phrase alone, had the words actually been uttered by Wood, would have automatically set her up for ridicule, by the press, media, Mockingbird…”

But she did say them and says them repeatedly, watch her videos on Google and YouTube see the various “papers” she has written and look at her site.

Have you seen the Russell Crowe film “A Beautiful Mind”? Wood’s site which is like a modern day version of Dr. John Nash’s garage/MIT office/scrapbooks has a total of 10 pages with the phrase “Star Wars Beam Weapon” in the title. The phrase (“star wars”) also appears several times on the homepage. The term SDI appears on a few other pages on her site where she promotes her risible theory that the WTC was destroyed by “Star wars” type weapons in space.

Here one of the ten "star wars" pages

http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam3.html

AFAIK thus far no one has tried to kill her or Morgan Reynolds or Jim Fetzer or any of the other handful of people who back her kooky theory. As for her being denied tenure the people who decided that would have been remiss if they had granted it to her, this is a mental health rather than a academic freedom issue.

She discussed her tree theory with a forum member who likes to tout his critical thinking skills.

Judy Wood: Part of my research work has been to look at engineering in nature. How does nature design structures? And perhaps we can copy those designs and use them in engineering designs. And one thing that struck me about the World Trade Centers is that they are very much like trees. Core, outer core, inner core. A tube within a tube design, and that's what allows a tree to wave in the breeze.

James Fetzer: Marvelous!

Judy Wood: But also I started thinking about how do trees come down? They don’t start turning into sawdust, ya know, from the top down.

(laughter)

Judy Wood: With sawdust flying out.

James Fetzer: That’s a perfect parallel, because what we actually have with the twin towers is they're blowing up from the top. Each floor is blowing up. So the sawdust, turning a tree into sawdust from the top, is perfect! Judy, absolutely a perfect analogy!

Judy Wood: And recently I gave a talk at an engineering conference where I showed some diagrams of the towers being built and I showed, “If this were a tree and the Keebler elves cut out this big chunk out of the side here, to put their, for their little house, where their dwelling is. Would that affect the towers?” And everyone in the room could see, that no, the way the structure is designed, it can’t bring it down.

James Fetzer: And the little house would be analogous to the plane impact?

Judy Wood: Right, you could have several planes, the planes hitting the towers were like a bullet being shot into a tree.

James Fetzer: Excellent! Excellent!

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread214842/pg1

Here is a slide from her the WTC was just like a tree PowerPoint presentation.

I will refrain from comment on your theory that backing Star Wars was the reason for Reagan being shot and LaRouche “going to jail on trumped up charges” other that to say it seems highly improbable, perhaps you should start a thread about it when you can spend more time here.

*****************************************************

FYI and FWIW Part II

This documentation appears in the March 12, 2004 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

DOCUMENTATION

SDI and the Jailing

Of Lyndon LaRouche

by Paul Gallagher

This speech was given on March 21, 1993, to a conference of the Schiller Institute in Northern Virginia, and was published in an April 1993 EIR White Paper on "The Crucial Role of Lyndon LaRouche in the Current Strategic Situation." Gallagher was the former executive director of the Fusion Energy Foundation (FEF), which had been shut down by an illegal government-forced bankruptcy in 1987.

President Reagan's Strategic Initiative Speech ten years ago—or as it was called worldwide at the time, his "Star Wars" policy speech—caused one of the greatest worldwide furors of any statement by any President in history; it changed history; although it was merely the final five minutes of his half-hour nationally televised speech of that evening. The President proposed to abandon the threat of massive nuclear retaliatory destruction (known as Mutually Assured Destruction or MAD), and to embark on a crash scientific mobilization to develop energy-beam anti-nuclear defenses, offered to nations worldwide to remove the threat of nuclear attack against them. This new strategic doctrine had been developed and fought for for years, by Lyndon LaRouche.

More than that, LaRouche had been discussing this possibility with representatives of the Soviet regime for more than one year, known to both sides to be acting informally for the Reagan government. In diplomatic language, such an intermediary activity by a private individual is called a "back-channel" between two governments.

Let me quote what Gen. Paul-Albert Scherer told an audience at the National Press Club two weeks ago. General Scherer is the former head of military intelligence for Germany.

"In the Spring of 1982 here in the Soviet Embassy there were very important secret talks that were held.... The question was: Did the United States and the Soviet Union wish jointly to develop an anti-ballistic missile defense that would have made nuclear war impossible? Then, in August, you had this very sharp Soviet rejection of the entire idea.... I have discussed this thoroughly with the developer, the originator of this idea, who is the scientific-technological strategic expert, Lyndon LaRouche. The [soviet] rejection came in August, and at that point the American President Reagan decided to push this entire thing out into the public eye, so he made his speech of March 1983."

In that speech of March 1983 President Reagan adopted, for a time, as U.S. government policy, the strategic doctrine which LaRouche had designed and presented to the governments of both superpowers, the U.S. and the Soviet Union. LaRouche called this strategy "relativistic beam weapon anti-missile defense. President Reagan called it the "Strategic Defense Initiative."

One month ago, at a Princeton University conference, two former Soviet government ministers, including the former Foreign Minister, Bessmertnykh, acknowledged that it was the Strategic Defense Initiative that caused the collapse of the Soviet empire. Specifically, it was the Soviet attempt to reject the SDI, and to defeat it by a massive nuclear and conventional military buildup, which led to that collapse. LaRouche had warned them, very publicly in 1982 and many times afterward, that this would happen by 1988 if they took the road of rejecting his SDI. They destroyed themselves; sowed the seeds of current global warfare; and caused LaRouche's imprisonment, which must now end before it is too late.

It was the actions of LaRouche himself and through his collaborators in that period, changing the strategic policy of the United States and for some time threatening to change the economic and strategic policy of the world's major nations, which led directly to his legal persecution; to the attempt to kill him during massive police raids on Leesburg in October 1986; and to his continuing imprisonment. Following Reagan's adoption of the SDI, Soviet attention was rivetted on Lyndon LaRouche, its author, and the destruction of his influence was demanded from the highest levels of the regime of Yuri Andropov, and later that of Mikhail Gorbachov.

Here is the crucial sequence by which LaRouche's successful intervention into the events of national and global policy in 1982-83, brought the Soviet reaction which led to his imprisonment.

July 1977. LaRouche commissioned the first-ever mass-circulation report to the American people on this subject. The title of the pamphlet was "Sputnik of the 70s," emphasizing the fact that the technologies on the horizon for anti-missile defense, like Sputnik, were not weapons as such, but "new physical principles" which would revolutionize both technology and weaponry.

August 1979. LaRouche, through his representatives, held the first discussions with Ronald Reagan campaign personnel on "energy beam defense."

January-February 1981. (The Reagan "transition period"), LaRouche and his representatives had meetings on the strategic doctrine and related scientific and energy policies, with Energy Secretary Donald Hodel, Interior Secretary James Watt, Science Adviser Dr. George Keyworth, and State Department official Richard Morris. Later that year Lyndon and Helga Zepp-LaRouche met with CIA Deputy Director Robert Inman. In July of 1981 LaRouche's PAC released a mass circulation pamphlet on the SDI.

April 1981. Soviet representatives at the UN approached representatives of LaRouche several times, seeking discussion of his assessment of the incoming Reagan Administration, and of strategic questions.

Fall 1981. LaRouche and representatives regularly met with United States CIA and other intelligence representatives to discuss LaRouche's "beam weapons" military strategy. Reagan National Security Council official Richard Morris testified that this was one of six areas dealt with in meetings with LaRouche and his representatives. Morris testified to this in December 1988 during LaRouche's second trial; and again in May 1990 during the prosecution of LaRouche associates,

December 1981. The Reagan Administration, through intelligence agencies, requested LaRouche attempt "back-channel" discussions with Soviet representatives, about the new scientific/military strategy represented by LaRouche, and how the Soviets would react if this policy were adopted by the United States.

February 1982. EIR held a Washington, D.C. conference on anti-missile defense policy attended by more than 300, including U.S. government, Soviet and East bloc representatives; LaRouche gave the keynote on "relativistic beam weapons."

February 1982. In private meetings around this public conference, LaRouche opened the desired "back-channel" discussions involving himself and Soviet Washington embassy official Yevgeni Shershnev, with constant consultation and reporting to the U.S. government. The subject: possible adoption by the Reagan Administration of LaRouche's proposed new "beam weapons" military doctrine.

October-November 1982. While this "back-channel" continued, Henry Kissinger (an architect of the MAD doctrine LaRouche was challenging) and others on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, contacted FBI Director William Webster asking for targetting of LaRouche. The Advisory Board and other intelligence agencies at that time adopted a secret intelligence assessment—"Soviet Capabilities for Strategic Nuclear Conflict, 1982-1992"—used by Reagan in the first 25 minutes of his March 23, 1983 speech; declassified in February 1993. This report acknowledged Soviet buildup for nuclear war "first strike" capabilities, which had been featured in LaRouche publications since 1980. But it did not acknowledge any possibility that the U.S. might abandon the MAD doctrine—precisely what was required by this shortening "hair-trigger" for nuclear war.

Dec. 22, 1982. EIR published LaRouche's "Reply to Soviet Critics," a detailed warning to the Soviet leadership not to reject the new doctrine and not to refuse cooperative development of new energy and particle beam military technologies. He explained why the underlying problems of their economy and workforce would bring them down if they did.

Jan. 1, 1983. LaRouche told a national political conference in New York City, that the Reagan Administration must scrap MAD doctrine "within 90 days" or the world was on a course toward war.

February 1983. Shershnev, in the back-channel talks, detailed to LaRouche why the Soviet leadership rejected his doctrine: It would work militarily, but its development would be to the advantage of the West's superior scientific-productivity capabilities; therefore, the Soviets would reject such a new doctrine by Reagan.

February 1983. LaRouche returned from Europe, where he had held seminars for European military officials and officers on the science and technology of the new "beam weapons" military strategy. Dealing with the Soviet "rebuttal," LaRouche shuttled between U.S. officials and Soviet representative in an intensive phase of back-channel negotiations. He warned the Soviets that a military buildup will destroy their economy and break their empire within five years (i.e., by 1988), unless they accepted the new "science driver" represented by relativistic beam technologies.

February 1983. The Soviet representative told LaRouche the Soviet leadership had been assured and was confident, that any intention by Reagan, to adopt a new military doctrine abandoning MAD and developing beam-weapons defenses, would be blocked by Democratic Party leadership and its administration influence.

Late February 1983. LaRouche's National Democratic Policy Committee published another of many such mass circulation pamphlets on relativistic beam weapon defenses. This included a white paper written by a Fusion Energy Foundation scientist on how beam weapons work, also being used by LaRouche in his contacts with U.S. government officials. The political mobilization call on the front page of the pamphlet was prophetic: "Let us make the month of March...."

March 1983. LaRouche scientific representative Uwe Parpart met with NSC scientists and consultants on possible forthcoming Reagan announcement of new military doctrine.

March 16, 1983. LaRouche representatives Jeff Steinberg and myself met with representatives of the Air Force and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency; we were told the Pentagon was unaware of any prospect of a new strategic policy.

March 23, 1983. Ronald Reagan finished a nationally televised address on the Soviet military buildup, by announcing the new doctrine known as the Strategic Defense Initiative. The form of anti-missile defense doctrine Reagan announced, was uniquely that of LaRouche, calling for fundamentally new beam technologies rather than the old interceptor missiles. He offered to share these technologies with the Soviets, in a cooperative effort to end MAD and make the new defensive technologies available to all countries: distinctly LaRouche's policy of anti-missile defense.

Yuri Andropov's Soviet leadership was shocked and attributed vastly greater influence to LaRouche; said Foreign Minister Bessmertnykh at the Princeton conference recently, "the SDI put us into a very dangerous situation." Secretary of State George Shultz, speaking at the same Princeton conference, said that the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff were "floored" by Reagan's announcement.

March 24, 1983. I appeared, representing FEF, on CBS-TV evening news as the first non-government spokesman to defend and explain the SDI. CBS-TV said that they had contacted the Heritage Foundation, considered the premier think-tank for Reagan Administration policies, but Heritage's staff director told CBS they knew nothing about SDI, which was "the Fusion Energy Foundation's thing." FEF Research Director Uwe Parpart was featured the following morning, March 25, on "Good Morning America," for the same reason.

April 8, 1983. LaRouche keynoted a Fusion Energy Foundation conference in Washington, D.C. on the Strategic Defense Initiative, attended by 800 representatives of administration, Congress, business, and the diplomatic community, including 16 East bloc representatives. Representatives from the Soviet embassy and press attended, but then walked out.

April 1983. Soviet designate Shershnev informed LaRouche that he had been ordered from the highest level in Moscow to terminate the discussions with him. Shershnev had reacted to the Reagan announcement by seeking to have senior Soviet KGB "America expert" Georgi Arbatov meet with LaRouche; this was rejected, and Shershnev was ordered back to Russia.

May 24-28, 1983. A high-powered KGB delegation of 25, including some Russian Orthodox Church prelates since acknowledged to be KGB agents, came to Minneapolis, Minnesota to hold a "peace conference" with leading Democratic associates of Walter Mondale. The purpose of this "U.S.-U.S.S.R. Bilateral Exchange Conference" was to declare war on the SDI. The Soviet delegation was sponsored by Georgi Arbatov, head of the U.S.A. and Canada Institute of the U.S.S.R. (this was the official who had refused to meet with LaRouche as Shershnev proposed); it was headed by KGB publisher and journalist Fyodor Burlatsky, a confidant of future President Mikhail Gorbachov.

Aug. 10, 1983. Burlatsky, in the weekly Literaturnaya Gazeta, attacked the SDI, and by implication LaRouche, as a cause for war.

August 1983. Democratic Party National Chairman Charles Manatt publicly declared war on Reagan's SDI policy, and said "all" Democratic candidates for President in 1984 would totally oppose SDI, despite its broad popular support.

September 1983. LaRouche announced his candidacy for the Democratic nomination for President, to back the SDI and rally Democratic voter support for it. During 1984, LaRouche's campaign put the candidate on half-hour network policy broadcasts no fewer than 15 times; one-third of these were directly on U.S.-Soviet strategic relations and the SDI.

Oct. 26, 1983. Burlatsky, in Literaturnaya Gazeta, reiterated his casus belli statement on the SDI and attacked "the American LaRouche" for it.

Nov. 14, 1983. The Soviet government newspaper Izvestia published an attack on LaRouche.

March 1984. NBC-TV's prime-time half-hour program "First Camera" attacked "the LaRouche factor in the Reagan Administration." The New Republic magazine (Slide 15) then repeated the attack. Its cover read: "The LaRouche Connection—Since 1981 the leaders of a lunatic movement have conferred repeatedly with top Administration officials. Their aims: to win respect, and to influence Reagan's Star Wars plan. They succeeded."

March 8, 1984. Democratic Party Chairman Manatt held a Chicago press conference to demand that Reagan immediately break all administration contact with LaRouche or his associates.

March 12, 1984. Izvestia demanded that Reagan break all administration contact with LaRouche, which Izvestia called "a scandal" which "the White House does not even try to deny."

April 2, 1984. Soviet Communist Party newspaper Pravda published an attack on LaRouche.

September 1984. LaRouche, in a national TV broadcast, denounced Walter Mondale as "an agent of KGB influence" for his campaign against the SDI.

October 1984. The Department of Justice began its first attempt to prosecute LaRouche and his associates, just before the Presidential election. In addition, circulation of anti-LaRouche slanders became a "Project Democracy" policy of elements of the U.S. government and private intelligence networks under Executive Order 12333.

Jan. 13-15, 1985: The Washington Post published a three-day, 10,000-word "exposé" of all the contacts between LaRouche and his associates, and anyone connected with the Reagan Administration, name by name, in order to try to force those contacts to be broken.

April-June 1985. The Fusion Energy Foundation held conferences in Rome, Paris, and Bonn on the Strategic Defense Initiative, to inform European military leaders and scientists of the work involved and the implications for economic progress worldwide.

July 1985. EIR published Global Showdown, a Special Report on the Soviet military buildup, by which Moscow was trying to defeat the SDI policy. LaRouche's 1983 warning to the Soviet leadership was repeated in much greater detail: East bloc economies will break down under this military buildup by 1988, unless the Soviets accept the new scientific and technological "driver" offered by development of SDI against MAD—or unless they go to war.

February 1986. The Department of Justice launched a new campaign to suppress LaRouche's movement, holding a nationwide meeting of law enforcement officials in Boston to solicit prosecutions.)

February-March 1986. After a relative interlude during the "caretaker" regime of Soviet figurehead Konstantin Chernenko, Gorbachov took over, and attacks resumed on LaRouche. The KGB conducted an international "dirty trick," attempting to blame LaRouche for the Feb. 28, 1986 assassination of Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme. The campaign featured two Soviet TV broadcasts in 1986, and an international KGB disinformation campaign about LaRouche and the murder of Palme.

April 1986. FEF held a conference in Tokyo attended by nearly 300 Japanese science, business and military representatives, addressed by scientists from Europe, the United States and Japan, on the urgency of Japan cooperating with the SDI. Soviet embassy representatives protested and walked out during the speech of LaRouche representative Uwe Parpart. Two months later Japan's Foreign Minister Abe announced Japanese scientific labs would join the SDI.

July 1986. Ronald Reagan repeated in writing to Mikhail Gorbachov the original SDI offer that the new technologies essential to anti-missile defenses could be shared with the Soviets and offered to other countries; Reagan reiterated this in a speech at the United Nations.

July-October 1986. Soviet press repeatedly called for investigation and prosecution of LaRouche.

Fall 1986. Gorbachov and the Soviet military leadership planned to use the Reykjavik, Iceland summit, in early October 1986, to force Reagan to abandon the SDI. This was admitted and described in detail by former Soviet officials and Red Army generals at the recent Princeton conference. But at that time—Fall 1986—the international media covered this up out of ignorance—all sources assured and insisted that the SDI would not be an issue at this summit at all!

Sept. 24, 1986. Georgi Arbatov gave a pre-summit press briefing in Reykjavik. According to the Danish press, "Arbatov maintained his friendly façade only until Mr. Rasmussen of EIR asked a question." Arbatov then denounced EIR as "LaRouche fascists," and closed down his "friendly face" press conference.

Sept. 30, 1986. Sovetskaya Kultura magazine denounced LaRouche's policy inputs to the Reagan Administration, accused him of tax fraud, and demanded, "Why isn't the Internal Revenue Service interested" in prosecuting LaRouche?

Oct. 3, 1986. Gorbachov, speaking in East Berlin, denounced "hidden Nazis without swastikas," the phrase used by Soviet publications to describe LaRouche. Gorbachov attacked "the hidden viruses of militarist, aggressive fascism."

Oct. 6, 1986. One day before the Reykjavik summit was to begin, 450 armed agents of the FBI, IRS, Virginia State Police, and other agencies conducted a massive raid on LaRouche publications' headquarters in Leesburg, Virginia. LaRouche's residence was completely surrounded by armed agents, armored cars and personnel carriers, helicopters; a shootout and killing of LaRouche was threatened throughout the day. Leaders of LaRouche's movement were indicted and the U.S. Attorney in Boston, William Weld, was attempting to get indictments of LaRouche himself.

Oct. 7, 1986. In Reykjavik, Georgi Arbatov again shouted "fascists, LaRouche fascists" at EIR correspondents in front of hundreds of international journalists. Soviet press spokesman Aleksandr Bovin called EIR "a dirty, dirty magazine."

Oct. 7, 1986. While 1,000 journalists waited outside the summit meetings in Reykjavik, Cable News Network entertained them by replaying films of the massive anti-LaRouche raids in Virginia the previous day. The coverage reported LaRouche's charge that the Soviets were demanding his political elimination as a summit condition at Reykjavik.

Oct. 12, 1986. Secretary of State Shultz emerged from all-day summit sessions in Reykjavik, Iceland, to say that broad arms control agreements could be had. But, said Shultz, the agreements are being blocked by Soviet insistence that the United States give up the SDI.

The 1,000 journalists were thrown into total confusion. Until that moment, all international press except EIR had insisted that SDI was not an issue at this summit.

April 20, 1987. The U.S. Department of Justice, in an action without precedent in U.S. history, acted alone to bankrupt, seize, and liquidate the major publications associated with Lyndon LaRouche, seizing their subscription lists as well. At the seizure, Fusion magazine, the consistent vehicle to circulate, worldwide, the scientific basis of LaRouche's beam weapons initiative, had, in the United States, 140,000 subscribers. 28,000 subscriptions went to college and high school teachers and students; 7,000 went into the country's national laboratories. The government's bankruptcy seizure, more than two years later was declared illegal. But Fusion, New Solidarity newspaper, other publications were liquidated.

July 1987. LaRouche was personally indicted for conspiracy for the first time by the Federal government. This was now increasingly a government of then-Vice President Bush, which was pushing the SDI aside.

Oct. 12, 1988. LaRouche, in a televised Berlin press conference, forecast the breakup of Soviet control of Eastern Europe and the reunification of Germany. For the third time. he detailed that the Soviet bloc could not go beyond 1988 in its military buildup. He proposed specific initiatives by the West to start rebuilding the East economically.

Oct. 14, 1988. LaRouche was indicted on the same conspiracy charges for the second time by the Federal government, again just before a Presidential election in which he was a candidate; his trial moved to Alexandria, Virginia—the nation's so-called "rocket docket"—to assure a conviction the second time.

Jan. 27, 1989. LaRouche was imprisoned with a 15-year sentence.

[Kevin M. West]

In any case Kevin M. West, you have been proven to be in the least, 100% wrong, and at worst you are a xxxx and disinfo agent. Either way, I'm done with you.

Mark, that particular term is not allowed on this Forum. Debate with as much passion as you wish, but please refrain from calling other members liars.

Steve I'm glad to see you are moderating again. Did you make Mark's post invisible? Perhaps it would have been better to edit it, I'm curious to see how he thought he had proven Kevin "to be in the least, 100% wrong".

I'm curious myself, so far all I've seen is him calling me a xxxx. If it matters to whoever hid the post, you have my blessing to show it again unedited. I don't care what insults are in it.