Mark Stapleton

First class post, David. Let's hope Len gives some thought to the points you made.

Peter, I agree with you about the difficulties involved in conducting debates with marine life. A microcosm of the polarity in society today. But I just love being given orders to produce more proofs!....aren't we all free to offer what we want?....Pardon me for being passionate about saving the planet from the impending fascism..... By the way Mark did you catch this great post by David G.?! A real on target classic. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=116467 Peter, I just read it--missed it last night. I agree it's a classic, David absolutely nailed the issue.

Fascinating stuff, David. It all sounds about right to me. How did you manage to secure a copy of the minutes of the Bilderberg Group?

Peter, I agree with you about the difficulties involved in conducting debates with marine life.

I agree they're pretty bad numbers, Duane. The wealth inequality which exists in the US is the world's worst kept secret. So how can a country with such dire inequality issues justify unprecedented military spending and precipitous debt? I don't know. The priorities are all wrong. The US media, over a period of several decades, has conditioned the American public into believing that they are beset with threats and enemies and all rational thought should be set aside for the greater good of God and country. It's like a permanent seige mentality. The greater good of who is never explained, of course. But it's not you.

Like they say, if someone owes you a little money, it's their problem. If someone owes you a lot of money, it becomes your problem. Your post could explain the reckless behavior of the Bush Government. The US owes trillions but hey, it ain't our problem! Cash flow might sustain the system but eventually the debt issue has to be addressed--or forgiven. Do you think the foreign banks will get tired of bailing out the US--or is that outweighed by the potential damage to the global economy should the US go under? On the issue of illicit drugs and the fact that it props up the cash flow side of America's ongoing viability, I must adopt my sanctimonious voice and say 'think of the children'. Seriously. Think of them. If illicit drugs were decriminalised, the economic 'correction' would be severe indeed. I have read that a 10-20% increase in unemployment is not out of the ballpark. The stockmarket would bleed a deep red. Prohibition, ferociously overseen on a global scale by the US, has become an important substructure underpinning many economies throughout the world. How did the world allow itself to be bullied into signing these ridiculous conventions? How can the world still allow America to impose its will on sovereign nations for the financial gain of few at the expense of the vast majority? I guess our children will have to sort out these thorny issues.

Anyone who doubts the dire predicament of the US economy should read this short but frightening piece from Robert Freeman. http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/29/3490/ I was unaware that, 1. The US borrows $2.5 billion per day 'just to keep the lights on'. 2. The US has sixty five trillion dollars in 'unfunded liabilities'---debts it has committed to pay but for which there is no identified source of funding. According to a report written for the Federal Reserve, this makes the US 'actuarially bankrupt'. Of course, the Bush Administration has done nothing to address the issue. Instead, it spends billions on foreign adventurism and now talks about war with Iran. The legacy for America's next generation is the furthest thing from their minds--assuming they have minds at all.

There's plenty of evidence already, thanks to some excellent posts from Duane and David Guyatt. Like so many other controversial issues, there seems to be significant suspicion concerning this one too. I guess it follows automatically that if 9/11 was a false flag operation, then those who had foreknowledge might want to profit financially from that foreknowledge. Thanks to Duane and David for their informative postings on this issue. Your points are well made and merit consideration, despite all the noisy, vitriolic interference coming from Heckle and Jeckle.

Your disputes which focus on hair splitting semantics are too much, Len. You're just arguing for the sake of arguing. What the hell does it matter? Are posters expected to qualify and clarify every sentence to your satisfaction? You really need a holiday.

Touchdown, slam dunk and home run. Somebody get Len some smelling salts.

This article by Dilip Hori illustrates concisely how the era of American global dominance is in rapid decline. It has a direct bearing on the Bush Administration's plans launch a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, because America would find itself isolated and condemned by a powerful network of countries with strong economic and political ties. http://www.alternet.org/audits/60489/?page=1 The emergence of this network, of which Iran is an integral part, is the result of diplomatic initiatives by countries such as China, Russia and Venezuela, who have earned the goodwill and trust of a wide range of countries on the basis of mutual benefit and respect for national sovereignty and culture, rather than the American approach of exploitation and imposition of its values, culture and political system on all other countries. While America has launched wars--both military and economic--and made enemies, these emerging resource superpowers have been quietly forging the economic and political alliances which will render America's tactic of economic and military intimidation far less threatening to countries in Africa, Asia and South America. In the case of the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation, whose memebers comprise China, Russia and most of the countries bordering those states, America has been specifically excluded from even observer status, a status which has been granted to India, Pakistan, Mongolia and Iran. When America finally pulls its head out of the sand of the Middle East, it will discover that it has been left behind.

I agree with every single word.

I would be more inclined to classify you as a rational observer. (sorry if I've outed you, Ron).

I agree with this post John, but I would just make a few brief observations: 1. The second sentence of rule 4 states "nor should reference be made to their abilities as researchers". Well Messrs Gratz and Colby, especially Gratz, disregard this part of that rule all the time. I'm tired of Tim regularly denigrating those with whom he disagrees. If you haven't read Trento, Bugliosi et al, Tim issues a rude dismissal, often claiming you are impeding REAL researchers from making progress in the case. Tim's pursuit of Myra Bronstein after Myra started a thread on JFK's alienation of big business in 1962, resulting in the former's bitter public fued with US steel manufacturers, is a case in point. Tim's blatant misrepresentation of the motivation for starting this thread should have been noted by moderators, imo. It was never claimed that this was the sole reason for JFK's assassination, rather that it could have been one of the factors contributing towards JFK's isolation from the power elite. A reasonable assertion, imo. 2. Len Colby claims he believes there was a conspiracy to murder JFK, yet never posts anything in support of this. Moreover, Len then claims that he is not really interested in the JFK assassination, his only interest being to argue bitterly with those who claim the film and photographic record have been altered. There's an incrongruity here, which appears to puzzle those researchers dedicated to solving the JFK case, including me. Further, Len spends most of his time on the political conspiracy threads defending the official stories fed to us by the mainstream media and, at times, rudely questioning the sanity of those who disagree. I'm often amazed at the speed with which Len becomes expert on a diverse range of controversial topics--always coming down on the side of officialdom. Of course, Len would probably reply that those who struggle to match his incredible feats are inadequate or worse. I'm afraid I must question the motives of a person who openly admits he believes JFK was a victim of conspiracy, yet displays no zeal in pursuit of this issue, which I believe is the most significant unsolved crime in modern history. For me, Len's stated position on JFK, the Bush regime's corruption and the global neocon agenda is incompatible with his apparent role on this Forum i.e. fearless defender of the status quo and official line. I'm only human and something smells very bad here. I believe Peter Lemkin's questions to Len were perfectly justified--a manifestation of the confusion felt among those concerned about a range of vital issues as to what Len Colby's real purpose here is. 3. Despite all this, I agree (once more) with Charles Drago that Gratz and Colby should not be banned. This only makes them martyrs, and I don't like the idea of banning dissenters anyway. However, I think they owe the Forum an explanation as to what exactly they are trying to achieve by their ubiquitous presence here. They might also want to modify their hectoring, inquisatorial style if they desire to engage in rational debate. I'm bloody sick of it.

Man do you EVER have it backwards... Until the TERRORIST learns to value his OWN life as well as the lives of his victims, the terror will continue. Man do you EVER have it backwards ... The REAL terrorists value their own lives very highly ... It's the lives of their victims that they obviously don't give a crap about . Well said, Duane. Some don't know who the real terrorists are.

Perhaps you could explain what aspects you don’t think were satisfactorily explained? There were days in April 2001 where more United put options were sold than in September. American had it’s highest day that year but that came days after a report from Reuters that “"a further deterioration" in airline financials was probable” and a warning from American that “its third- and fourth-quarter losses would be larger even than already forecast” Len, Call me a skeptic, but I'm still not convinced. Just because the SE and 9/11 Commission looked at it (insider trading re 9/11), doesn't necessarily mean the case is closed. The WC and HSCA looked into the JFK assassination but I think I'm safe in saying that that case is far from closed. I've lost faith in official inquiries--too many 'officials' have a vested interest in preventing the full story from seeing the light of day. In any case, I don't have the time to look into this issue right now, if at all. I'm concentrating on a few other things. There's a few books (not related to this issue) which I want to read for starters. Sorry to disappoint. I have read about the suspicions concerning 9/11 insider trading in places other than this thread, so I think doubts still exist.

Mark .... Unfortunately that investigation will probably never happen ... At least not as long as those responsible for the attacks are still running the show .. Even if by some miracle the next election is not rigged and a Democrat once again takes office , I don't believe there will ever be any formal government investigation into 9/11 .... If the truth is ever known , it would most likely mean the demise of America as we know it , as the result would bring a revolution against a government which is no longer for the people or by the people , but is rather intentionally killing it's people . Some secrets need to be protected at all costs ... and so they are . Why do I get the feeling neither Mark nor Duane even bothered to read the links I provided "I don't believe there will ever be any formal government investigation into 9/11" Whether or nor you are satisfied with the results several have been completed already Ah Len, slippery as ever. I was referring to a 9/11 INSIDER TRADING investigation--focusing exclusively on this aspect--not merely a 9/11 investigation. I think Duane was referring to the same thing, in so many words. I read the links (both from the same site) you posted Len. The site appears balanced enough, although I point out that I am not across the wide range of 9/11 issues with any great depth. From my reading, the info on the site falls way short of demolishing suspicions regarding those transactions.

It's not just the substance but the style, Gary. If you read the threads Tim inhabits, you find that Tim often belittles opponents, declaring they are not entitled to participate as their knowledge is inadequate or they haven't read a certain book. It's an irritating style, with flowery praise and flattery for those who agree, and haughty dismissal of those who don't. Because of this, Tim has a way of provoking candid responses. I'm surprised you can't see that.

Never heard of Irving Davidson before reading this thread but having read it I would make the following observations; 1. Since 1958, representative of Israeli Military Industries controlled by the Government of Israel (FBI file--post #27). 2. Running arms between Nicaragua and Israel (post #27). 3. Fed stories to Jack Anderson and had direct access to JEH (post #23). 4. Travelled between Switzerland, France , Italy, Israel, 1958, presumably for banking purposes (post #28). Irving Davidson is Mossad. Wheaton's super grade, high level CIA officer friend (Davidson's associate) is also Mossad (if they're not one and the same person). It's understandable that Wheaton feared public disclosure would result in him being destroyed by the media. FWIW.

Pardon my interjection on your argument, but I beg to disagree..........the FACT is/was, the worldwide "intelligence community" had agreed that there were WMDs, even France and Germany, despite the fact that they didn't want U.N. involvement because their under the table "food for oil" (read: illegal furnishing of weapons, ammo, etc.) might be discovered. How do you explain 17 resolutions (which of course were never intended to be enforced) passed the U.N.? You may even remember that Colin Powell agreed they were there and made his very forceful (albeit unfortunately erroneous) presentation to the U.N. Further, many Senate Dems agreed, and voted for invasion, who had access to the same intelligence that Bush et. al. had. Of course it was easy for them to change their minds after the fact, not so easy for the CIC. Its also easy for armchair pontificators to make unsubstantiated comments as you have made, with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight. From a recent article by former CIA analyst Ray McGovern: Consider, for example, the daring recruitment in mid-2002 of Saddam Hussein’s foreign minister, Naji Sabri, who was successfully “turned” into working for the CIA and quickly established his credibility. Sabri told us there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. My former colleagues, perhaps a bit naively, were quite sure this would come as a welcome relief to President George W. Bush and his advisers. Instead, they were told that the White House had no further interest in reporting from Sabri; rather, that the issue was not really WMD, it was “regime change.” (Don’t feel embarrassed if you did not know this; although it is publicly available, our corporate- owned, war profiteering media has largely suppressed this key story.) http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/22/3330/

A typical knee-jerk reaction from someone who is still trapped in a cold war mindset. Kennedy's advocacy of the steel workers case in 1962 was not the start of a communist revolution. He had put a lot of effort into getting the steel workers to accept a responsible, 'non-inflationary' deal. Then the steel companies put their prices up just after it is announced. It was a doublecross, plain and simple. Kennedy said as much to Roger Blaugh, chairman of US Steel, on April 10, the day US Steel announced its price hike. After Blaugh had left the meeting, JFK remarked to the others present, including Bobby and O'Donnell, "My father told me businessmen were all pricks, but I didn't really believe he was right until now". (Dallek, p.484) Tim, I've noticed that in addition to your tireless advocacy of the 'Castro did it' fantasy, you become annoyed when members post evidence from JFK's record which shows that he was prepared to disregard special interest groups and act in the interests of the majority of US citizens. It's clearly a philosophy you don't share. Unfortunately for JFK, many important people in 1962 thought the same way as you do in 2007.

According to this article by former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, the plan to attack Iran is still very much alive, with the recently classified as terrorists Iranian Revolutionary Guard named as the prime target. It may also explain the departure of Messrs Rove and Rumsfeld. 'We are left with a President who cannot actually govern because he is incapable of reasoned thought in coping with events outside his control, like those in the Middle East'. http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/22/3330/

Very interesting, Duane. A full and open investigation of 9/11 insider trading, if it ever happens, would reveal that certain well connected insiders had the ability to see into the future, and they didn't let an impending tragedy stop them from making a killing.

Don't be modest---you're much more than that. Insofar as contributions are concerned, it's you rather than me that matters. I live in Australia but you live in Florida. Representatives Waxman (LA) and Clay (Missouri) are your key contacts. By all accounts, Waxman has an impressive record in health and environmental issues. Sounds like a decent fellow. You don't have a problem with liberal Democrats, do you?