Len Colby

From an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education Much as I detest Bush, Fetzer's call for a military take over in the US is truly sickening and should be condemned by all members of this forum. The man seems to be loosing it. Worse is that the idea was a popular one among the "Truth" movement. Steve Jones to his credit seemed uncomfortable with Fetzer's rabble rousing (see the article). It is also interesting how closed minded he admits to being. From the same article: So he knows the site is wrong without even looking at it!! So much for his self proclaimed "critical thinking skills" and willingness to look at the "totality of the evidence". His position is 'the site contradicts what I know to be true, therefore it is nothing but disinformation and not worth looking at', very circular logic and not at all rational. Len

Oh, now this is intersting.On page 37 of his notes, Jack tells about going out to the airport with the band to meet country music star Hank Snow. He says he confided to Snow that it was Jimmie Dickens who had called him (Ruby) to look after Hank Williams. See here for a picture of Jimmie Dickens: http://nashville.about.com/library/blank/f...bldickens02.htm Jimmie Dickens is calling Jack Ruby? "We all retired at the Hotel, and Hank Williams was still asleep when I came back to the room..." Jack Ruby is sharing a hotel room with Hank Williams? He starts out, "The following morning..." and it looks like there is a paragraph whited out. Steve Thomas It was always my impression that Jack started to lose his marbles (or at least pretend so) soon after he went to jail. There was that weird letter he sent his brother about Israel facing imminent destruction. On a similar note I met and staid with the late great one-man band and slightly crazed Rockabilly legend Hasil Adkins. He told me about the time Jerry Lee Lewis told him how great he was. I told the owner of his record label, Billy Miller*, about this who told me "the Haze" probably imagined the whole thing and never met "the Killer". Len *No relation I assume to this forum's Bill Miller

Steve, I have a sketch of Ruby in his cell done by a cartoonist for the long defunct Sydney Daily Mirror. The sketch is captioned: "A Killer Writes His Memoires." Have tried to put it up as a file attachment but it's way too big, and I can't figure out how to reduce it in size. If you want it, send an email and I'll attach it in reply. You can download an excellent easy to use free program that allows you to reduce the size of Jpeg’s and most image files to whatever size you want. http://www.fookes.com/ezthumbs/ I’d like to see the cartoon so please post it here. Also I believe you can post images of any size as long as they are hosted externally there are several free image hosting sites. One of the better ones is villagephotos.com.

Please tell me how to link to a particular paragraph in a long article or transcript of testimony online. I would like to know how to do that. My pont exactly Ron, I don't think there is any way to do this which is why Mike's complaint that "even if the reader were able to find that link he or she would have to read through some fifty paragraphs of an article to find the paragraph that refers to your claim" was totally absurd. I don't what he expects a researcher to do in such cases. I was merely pointing out that the same could be said about some of the sources you cited If you're referring to my article, please quote where I say that Cramer took the call. (Or link to the specific paragraph in the long article. I would like to see you do that.) My applogies Ron. My post as written made it sound like I was refering to your article rather than the Mirror's. That was inadvertant, I fixed the error. Once again my only beef with your article was the lack of links to your sources and you fixed that. I don't want my response to Mike to be misinterpreted as a swipe at your article. I don't agree with you conclusions but it is well written, researched and documented.

-duplicate post deleted-

Mike this debate, or whatever you want to label it, between us is entirely tangential to the points raised by Ron's article. I asked him to provide working links to support his claims and he has since done so. I therefore consider the "case closed". The time I spent replying to you I could have much better spent doing other things, including responding to Ron's post itself. This is my last reply to you on this issue, unless you say something too outrageous to go unresponded to. There is a saying in these parts "deixe ele late só" which roughly translates as, "let him bark alone" which is my intention; you can continue barking I'm done with this matter. Your analogy comparing providing a link that has since gone dead to not providing any is false. Comparing a rhetorical suggestion to use Google immediately followed by the result of such a search with a link to a superficially similar suggestion to use the search engine in lieu of providing links is even further off the mark. (The rest of Mike's comments are quoted in Arial Black font and in quotation marks)- The link I provided, to the 911myths site, was and is working. - The link on that page to an article which quotes John Shaw and Gordon Felt as saying Mark Felt made no mention of smoke or and explosion is now working and was working about a year ago when I first looked at the page. I am NOT knocking Ron here, when I said his post was impressive I meant it sincerely, I was merely urging him to make links available. To certain degree I did Ron a favor i) by putting his article on his site he has made it available to a wider audience ii) by documenting his claims with working links he has strengthened it. Some of the links Ron has now provided are now dead (one at least is). I am not knocking him for that but to be consistent YOU should. A London Daily Mirror article he cited is now offline. BTW the article says incorrectly that Cramer took the 911 call. [Ron the Internet Archive link to the most recent version is: http://web.archive.org/web/20041023075651/...ll&siteid=50143 ] See above This is an absurd objection. -I assume that most members of this forum know how to use their browser's "Find (on this page)" or "Search" functions. -It took me about 9 seconds to find the paragraph that way with IE. The relevant passage was quoted on the "Myths" page. Your complaints that I cited the "Myths" page instead of the original and that the one has to read too far into the original to find the quote are contradictory. -What should I or the webmaster of "Myths" have done differently? It's a long article and there is no way to link directly to the relevant paragraph or section. By your 'logic' anyone who cites an excerpt from the middle or end of a long webpage is in error. Comparing to Ron's article again, he wrote, "The FBI confiscated the tape, and Cramer was reportedly told not to discuss the call," he provided three footnotes to support these claims. The reader has to do a good bit or reading to find the relevant passages in the first two. Cramer being "told not to discuss the call" is only mentioned in the third. That is the above mentioned London Mirror article which is now offline, Ron's claim is only documented some 30 plus paragraphs into the article. Even if the link was working if Ron's readers read the articles in the order he listed them from beginning to end he or she would have to go through about 75 paragraphs before reaching the relevant passage. Ron also cites the 9/11 Commission report and testimony, in several cases the relevant passages are many paragraphs down from the top of the page. So to be consistent YOU should criticize Ron now, not doing so would be hypocritical. Why does "the documentation leave(s) a lot to be desired"? The author of the Pittsburg Pulp article is reporting what Shaw and Felt told him. See above Neither I nor the author of the page claimed that the article had "a complete transcript of the conversation between Felt and Shaw" or that it supports the claim that "the operator who took the call and David Felt's brother who heard the tape denied that he (Felt) said anything about smoke or an explosion." The "Myths" webmaster and I only cited it as evidence that Shaw said nothing about Felt saying anything about smoke or an explosion. Your use of a strawman shows desperation your part. The author of the "Myths" page wrote: "John Shaw? Yes, it turns out he's the one who actuallly took the call. Glen Cramer was just his supervisor at the time. Use Google to search for "John Shaw" "Flight 93" and you get the real story, which isn't suspicious at all" http://www.911myths.com/html/explosion_and_smoke.html Nothing in there about Shaw or Gordon felt denying that David Felt said what Cramer claimed he did. He had already dealt with that. My exact words were: (emphasis added)Obviously saying nothing about something precludes denying it. There is no desperation on my part. The author's suggestion to use "Google to check his claims" was not, "exactly as Ron Ecker did". The author suggested using Google but his suggestion was immediately followed by the result of such a search that documented his claim, thus the suggestion was largely rhetorical. As far as I can tell Mike Williams, the owner of the site, documents all his claims with references and when possible with links to webpages. Ron on the other hand suggested using Google INSTEAD of providing links. Your previous post deceptively omitted that crucial difference between the two 'suggestions' to use Google. -As already mentioned the link I provided was and is working, the link in page I cited was working when I first read the page and is now working. -Which of my links wasn't germane to or doesn't support my claims? -If you had "your facts straight" but cited them in a deceptive manner that's worse than not having them straight. I was NOT being hypocritical for reasons cited above. I have shown there are similar 'problems' in Ron's article, I am NOT criticizing Ron for them, I consider it normal that links go dead and that researchers will back their claims by citing articles which only document their claims after many paragraphs. To not be hypocritical YOU should knock Ron. I agree letting, "readers decide for themselves" is our best option. Well finally you make a semi-legitimate complaint irrelevant as it maybe. I stand accused and I'm guilty I did indicate incorrectly in half a sentence that you had address me directly in second person, send me to the gallows! As to whether 'ridicule' or 'lecture' would have been the most appropriate verb to use I will NOT waste my time with hairsplitting semantics. Len

Thanks John! But I don't really think I've ever really given you a hard time (at least not as much as Fetzer and Jack) and we seem to agree on most political matters (except perhaps over Israel). ".If he views are correct, I am sure he will be able to defend them. If he cannot, then I suspect he needs to take a closer look at his theories." I'm not sure if you meant that to be ironic or not (Brits tend to be a lot more subtle than Americans esp. New Yorkers like me) but you comments were especially appropriate for Jack. He has a tendency, whether the subject is chemtrails, the assassination, the Moon landings, 9/11 or whether or not Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. personally sabotaged JFK Jr's plane, to make outrageous claims and then refuse to answer questions raised by critics and other skeptics. A few months ago I complied a very incomplete list of SOME of the threads he'd left questions unanswered on http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5987 that list has only grown in the meantime, his charge that Marina was an intelligence agent on assignment being one of the most recent examples. I think this is what most irritates most of his critics; he makes various claims refuses to answer any questions and then makes similar claims or even repeats old ones as if nothing has happened. Very true it makes one wonder about people who rarely venture from "walled garden" type forums and when they do post on open forums do so in 'hit and run' fashion posting avoiding replying to questions and points raised by critics. To a certainly degree I agree with Fetzer. IF it could be shown that the film had been faked that would certainly narrow the list of suspects and prove involvement of elements of the US gov't. He and his co-authors however make a very weak case for alteration. This is perhaps your first taste of, "The Wrath of Fetzer", unleashed on any and all that have the audacity to hold contrary views; hell hath no fury like it. The man seems to suffer from delusions of grandeur: I am no expert on the assassination let alone its historiography but from the little I've seen Bill is very effective in debunking the nonsense promoted by Monsieurs White, Fetzer, Healy et. al. I will leave evaluation of the value of Jack's contribution to those who are more knowledgeable than I but as far as I know Healy's only contribution was to argue rather unconvincingly that the alleged alterations were possible in '63 – '64 (being flatly contradicted by his main source, the inventor of Kodakcrome II and the HSCA's staff photo photo consultant {Groden}) As for me, Fetzer is quite unhappy that Craig Lamson, Josiah Thompson, Evan Burton, some guy who goes by the nom de web "Golf Hobo" and I thoroughly debunked his theories regarding the Wellstone crash. Len

I put a great deal of work into linking all the references, and when I copied and pasted to the forum it didn't work, because the quotation mark font changed, causing the complete URLs to appear instead of hyperlinks, stretching the post out horizontally so as to be completely unreadable. So I had to go back and delete all the URLs, the only expeditious thing I could do. I do not have the time at present to go through over 100 footnotes and change all the quotation marks in the URLs. You can consider this shoddy research work if you wish. If you go to Google and type in the title of any online article that I've referenced, the link will pop right up. Sorry to put you to all that trouble. True enough Ron but your article has 107 footnotes from what I guesstimate to be from about 40 different souces, googling and finding them all would be rather time consuming. I sugested that you upload your Word file (either just the footnotes or the whole thing) to the forum. This would make it available for download to anyone interested. That should only take you a minute or two. If you are out of space or can't figure out how to do this send me a PM. Neither I nor anyone else wanting to verify your sources should have to spend extra time tracking them down just because you can't get the the links to post properly when their is an easy solution to the problem. I am curious Ron, what's all this about qutation marks in URLs? I don't remember ever seeing an URL with apostrophes or quote marks. Len

The claim IS documented, I advised the site owner and the page now contains a link to an archived copy of the article. It's not uncommon for sites to delete pages or change their URL's. According to the Internet Archive the page was last altered March 16, 2005 and would only have been pulled some time after that [ http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.pittsburghpulp.com/content/2002/11_28/news_cover_story.shtml ] presumably when the 911myth page was posted the link was working it certainly was when the site was created 2 months earlier [ http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=911myths.com ]. I don't imagine this is the first time Mr. Hogan has found a website that links to a page that has since gone offline, that's not the same thing as not providing any links at all. What Mike leaves out is that immediately after the paragraph he quoted above, the author of the page provides one of the results of such a Google search quoting an article from the Pittsburg Post-Gazette, working link and all, in which Shaw describes the call and says nothing about Felt mentioning smoke or an explosion. This raises a question, was Mike being intentionally deceptive or is he so imperceptive that he failed to notice the quoted passage from the Post-Gazette in a highlighted yellow box less than an centimeter* (fraction of an inch) below the passage he quoted? Once again Mike's criticism of me reflects far more poorly on him than on me. He is hardly one to criticize or "lecture" anyone else about their posts. Since Ron didn't provide any links and the author of the page did there is no comparison between the postings. Mike, a word to the wise, make sure you have your facts straight before you knock me or anybody else, failing to do so tends to explode in your face. Len *Unless he is using a very big monitor, but in that case the passage from the Pittsburgh newspaper would be even harder to miss.

Ron, Very impressive post, it might take me almost as long to reply to it as you did to write it (over 2 weeks) it seems like you suddenly found some free time. Please try to post the links again, perhaps you could upload the footnotes to the forum that should eliminate any font problems. I believe you have a website another option would be to post your article footnotes links and all there. A third option would be to try posting the footnotes again perhaps as a seperate message, in my experience shorter messages are less prone to glitches. While it's true that "most of the sources in the notes are easily searchable on the Web" this would be a very time consuming process for anyone wanting to check your sources, it would undoubtably take a few hours. It is the resposibility of a researcher to document the claims he (or she) makes aand in the age of the Internet it is his (or her) responsibility to provide links to all cited sources that are available online. Len

Wrong again Day-vo. I represent no one but myself on this or any other forum. Just because I don’t believe the lunatic theories you and your buddies promote doesn’t mean am a fan of Bush or the CIA or any of the other alleged perpetrators. The truth is the truth regardless of who it implicates or absolves. In any case I obviously was referring to John (with all due respect) as “the big fish” since he is the moderator of the JFK forum and co-moderator of the entire forum with Andy. I was commenting on the lack of courage you demonstrated by criticizing Pamela but not John for making similar points. Your fears are unwarranted, John is not a DellaRosa* and is quite tolerant of those who disagree with him. Since you have Rollie’s e-mail I suggest you ask him yourself. Why do you always bring up Zavada’s thesis whenever you reply to me even when as now it has nothing to do with the subject at hand? This is really a loosing proposition for you as every time you drag this up I point out that 1) 6 weeks BEFORE Rollie PRIVATELY said he would produce a new reply to your foolery and that it would “take sometime” you promised to make you “formal claim soon”. 2) He is in poor health. 6 weeks after you post your “formal claim” ask me again about Zavada. Len *To be fair I must admit that since I was never a member of DellaRosa’s forum I can’t attest that he does this but enough credible people have said this that I believe it to be true.

LOL the great conspiracy that wasn't. Did you write that Steve? Perhaps you should start a new career as an author of spy/politcal thrillers, Tom Clancy beware!!!

Funny David, Pamela's comments basically echoed John's but you attacked her and said nothing about his post. Not enough courage to challenge the big fish eh? Len Maybe I should take Dawn's advise and let it drop but it's a lot easier to say "turn the other cheek" when it isn't yours getting slapped. Mr. Fetzer's comments would carry more weight if he and his buddies did have a tendency to lash out at people for having the sheer audacity to question their theories. I questioned Fetzer's theories on another forum and he labeled me a lying cognitively impaired lunatic who was probably a professional "'disinfo' agent". One only needs to look at the Wellstone thread to see two well respected members of this forum getting similar treatment. Fetzer is by his own admission a persona non grata at most JFK research events he claims it's because a clique of researchers has it in for him but his behavior (such as seen at a recent event) is the more likely cause. Jack and David have a similar tendency of hurling ad hominems at their critics rather than respond to the issues they raise. As I understand John's position he doesn't take action against Jack's critics not because he was booted from DellaRosa's 'walled garden' but rather due to (a) the reasons I spelled out above i.e. Jack dishes out as good as he gets and ( tempers due tend to flair on this and other forums and he and Andy only expel members or intervenes in 'dogfights' in extreme circumstances. I imagine managing this forum is already enough of a demand on their time and energy that we don't have to ask them to be judge, jury, executioner and babysitter as well. Len

So Jack do you actually have any evidence to back these odd accusations? Do you think she was working for Soviet or American intelligence? Did you ever raise your suspicions about her being an intelligence operative directly with her? Len

Funny David, Pamela's comments basically echoed John's but you attacked her and said nothing about his post. Not enough courage to challenge the big fish eh? Len

Mike, I was indeed referring to you; I assumed from your posts that you supported the "inside job" (MIHOP) theory. People who back that theory normally claim that the planes were remote controlled. If I misunderstood your position I apologize and I will edit the offending post appropriately. But to be frank me thinks thou 'doth protest too much' by making such a big deal about a piddling error. Once again you criticize my research and methodology. Considering the gross errors of research and methodology that were displayed the last time you made such criticism I am surprised you'd want to move into that territory again. I have no interest in getting into a tit for tat with you, unless you say something too outrageous to go unresponded to I'll let you have the last word. Jeeeez, Len

Ron, Jack and other "inside jobbers", I'm still waiting for evidence that the technology to remotely control Boeing 757's and 767's in a way that would override the pilots and cut off communications was either preinstalled or could have been added surreptitiously. Barring that your theories are nowhere. Len

Thanks for that Steve. Very telling The link for the NY Times article is: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/internat...1115600&partner Len

Or The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or that Elvis Presley killed Marilyn Monroe, or the moon landings were faked, or that the Illuminati rule the world. Where, why and how do you draw the line? The point is that all cases should be judged on their own merits. Why do you seek to lump them altogether? I do not believe in "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", UFOs, the idea that the moon landings were faked, that the Illuminati rule the world or any conspiracy involving Marilyn Monroe or Elvis Presley. I have argued that the JFK assassination was a conspiracy, that the full story of Watergate or the Iran-Contra scandal has never been told, that Tony Blair lied about the reasons why the UK carried out an illegal invasion of Iraq and that the current government has been involved in a series of corrupt activities concerning PFI, honours and arms deals. I just ask to be judged on what I post rather than being falsely labelled as a conspiracy theorist. Though I'm viewed on this forum as being "anti-conspiracist" I agree with John and Steve etc that each case should be judged separately. Nixon did conspire to cover-up his administration's involvement in the Watergate break-in and various dirty trick against his opponents, towards the end of the last dictatorship in Brazil conservative elements in the military conspired to 1) bomb a large concert hall (RioCentro) and blame it on Leftists 2) steal the election for the Rio governorship from a leftist candidate. Not to mention that they conspired with the help and foreknowledge of the US government to overthrow the democracy elected federal, state and local governments in 1964, just the US conspired to overthrown democratically elected governments in Iran, Guatemala, and Chile etc. The directors of Enron, WorldCom and various other corporations conspired to artificially inflate the stock value of their companies. The above examples are not in dispute. There are cases were the evidence for conspiracy is strong and there are others where the evidence isn't so strong but reasonable doubt exists. There are also cases where the conspiracy theories are totally unfounded and the claims of theorists easily debunked. These types of theories do trend to attract support from people for whom belief in them probably does fill some psychological need. How does one distinguish between reasonable conspiracies (the Kennedy assassination) and crackpot ones (the Moon landings were faked)? There is no clear answer to that question. For me one test is which have backing from experts in the appropriate fields; Holocaust denial, “chemtrails”, the Moon hoax, the WTC towers were felled with explosives, a missile hit the Pentagon and Wellstone’s plane was shot down with a ‘directed energy’ weapon are all theories that fail that test. In the case of the Kennedy assassination on the other hand there are forensic experts etc who say that official explanation doesn’t hold any water. Since several conspiracies have been uncovered it is unreasonable to so close minded as to say that all conspiracy theories which haven’t been proven to a 110% certainty are unreasonable as crackpot ones.

Very well put Evan. I agree with everything you said above but would like to add a point. "Belief in a CT can also help bolster ones own ego, because you are "too smart to be fooled" or "are in the know about the REAL events". Jack has kindly demonstrated this with his reply to your opening post:" "He implies that he is "smarter" than you because he is not "fooled"." This kind of thinking seems to motivate most of the more crackpot conspiracy theorists who frequently go on about how they are members of some select group who unlike the "sheeple" are too smart to be fooled / brainwashed by propaganda. For many it does seem to be an ego trip. That is not to say that I don't think that governments and other powerful groups often conspire to achieve their aims and manipulate the media to report their version of events. This of course happens and as John has pointed out is part recorded history but it doesn't happen nearly as often as some people seem to think. The problem with "crackpot" CT's is that they often distract from real misdeeds and diminish the credibility of people trying to uncover true conspiracies. The US and NYC governments did conspire it seems after 9/11 to cover up the high levels of toxic substances in and around "Ground Zero". A friend of mine who lived near the Trade Center was one of the leaders of groups of local residents who spoke out about this. He was upset with the "truth movement" because he felt that they made it more difficult to attract attention to the pollution issue and made it easier for it proponents to be dismissed as cranks. Unlike leaders of the "truth movement" he received death threats*, which indicates he stepped on the toes of unsavory people. Len * AFAIK the only member of the "truth movement" who claims to have gotten such threats is Jimmy Walter but after seeing him crow like a chicken in his jumpsuit and helmet on Penn and Teller it's hard to take him seriously. Why would he be the only one? Jim Hoffman says he gets more grief from fellow members of the "truth movement" than anybody else.

Ron I have no idea about your black box question I wonder if they would be missed by the maintainence people. I will ask about it on some aviation forums I belong to and let you know. Your theory of course would complicate the conspiracy theory by adding 4 groups off additional conspirators who would have to be American and United employees. Even that wouldn't guarantee that the black boxless planes would get hijacked as it's not uncommon for planes to be switched in the last minute. If that happened they would have to get someone to reinstall the same black boxes (they have serial numbers) before anyone noticed. That wouldn't be necessary because in case of criminal activity the FBI not the NTSB is the lead agency in aviation disasters. All they would have to do is say the were too badly damaged like they did with the FDR from flight 93 and the CVR from flight 77 or fake them like you guys think they did with the CVR from 93 and FDR from 77 The ‘official’ explaination is that many military planes weren’t equipped with them I have no idea if that’s true or not. There is a retired USAF crash investigator is part of the “9-11 ‘truth’ ” movement you can ask him about it. Has anyone with aviation experience questioned the creash? What would the motive have been?

That's his tactic whether he's debating the Zapruder film and other assassination related images, 9-11, Apollo or Chemtrails when people find the errors in his analysis or logic he just cuts and runs. Len

Greed and the drive for world domination. What else? In a nut shell, the western NATO powers were able to carve out a lot of strategically valuable territory and knock out an inconvenient, independent, and still somewhat Socialist nation (and a stern warning to others). Some useful articles: http://www.tenc.net/articles/carr/carr.html http://www.tenc.net/articles/gervasi/why.htm http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/Johnstone/hawks.html http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/Johnstone/balk.htm http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/Johnstone/crime.htm http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/on.htm So let me get this straight as part of a nefarious plot with the aim of World domination the US and Germany carried out an elaborate hoax in order to install Muslim fundamentalist regime in Europe? I skimmed your links (there are only so many hours in a day) and I didn't find them very convincing. Out of curiosity I copied the six articles into Word and they totaled about over 110 pages and 42,000 words. Perhaps you could help your case and those interested in seeing if it has any validity by quoting specific passages that support your thesis. 1st link – no sources – by "T.W. Carr, Associate Publisher Defense & Foreign Affairs Publications, London" I googled the name of the publisher, the London focus only on the Balkans and pushes the same point of view, the parent company in the US also focuses a lot of attention on that region and seems to push the perspective it's founder, an American, is part of the "Civil Defense faculty at the University of Belgrade 4th link - no sources - by Diana Johnstone we are not told what qualifications if any Ms. Johnstone has. The other articles do offer some documentation but normally it doesn't support the authors' most controversial contentions i.e. that the West contrived the Balkans crises for various motives. Mr. Gervasi said it had to do with stabilizing the region which doesn't make sense, Ms. Johnstone said it was as a counterweight to the US's blanket support of Israel which contradicts your beliefs. Again I skimmed but I didn't find any convincing motive for such a strong interest in a seemingly unstrategic region or that the crises were contrived and manipulated. 2nd link by "Prof. Sean Gervasi" again we are not told what his qualifications are. 3rd and 5th link more from Ms. Johnstone 6th link by Dr. Ivan Angelov "Associate Professor, Social Aspects of International Relations Sofia, Bulgaria" To make a long story short: 1) Quote specific passages of these and other articles that support your thesis. Just telling us to read a hundred plus pages is not enough few of us have the time or disposition. 2) Make sure the authors of the articles you quote/cite document their claims, preferably your sources' sources won't be suspect sources like Balkan intelligence agencies or people associated with Milosevic etc. I have addressed most of the sources in the Mike Tribe reply, but this one needs a little extra attention. The accusations against Mr. Jasovic have about zero credibility, see here and here. The most relevant extract: Mr. Nice asserted that Jasovic was a criminal who beat-up and tortured Albanian civilians and forced them to sign false witness statements against the KLA. Mr. Nice claimed that Jasovic generated the "false" witness statements in order to legitimize the Racak "massacre." The only problem with Mr. Nice's theory is that nobody even knew these statements existed before Jasovic exhibited them at the Milosevic trial. Furthermore, it wasn't originally Milosevic's idea to call Jasovic -- it was Mr. Nice's idea. If the idea was to cook-up some sort of false political legitimacy for a massacre, then these statements would have been available a long time ago. They certainly would not have been sitting in a police archive for more than six years gathering dust. For his part, Jasovic stuck to his testimony that the witness statements were taken for the internal use of the police, and not for any other purposes. The only possibly relevant point is that Jasovic was originally a prosecution witness for another trial, but without knowing the details it's hard to judge the significance of this. Saying that the allegations of torture have little merit because the victims didn't complain to his superiors is silly because the "official story" is that they to were part of the 'apparatus of oppression'. The point that no one knew about the declarations until Milosevic's defense team produced them at trial also proves little. I was really linking to that page for the information about Al Qaeda and the KLA, but since we are on the subject, I will go over the bin Laden Bosnian passport issue. It's not really unconfirmed. Both Eva-Ann Prentice (who reported on the conflicts for The Guardian and the London Times) (here) and Renate Flotau (of Der Spiegel) (here) witnessed Osama bin Laden enter Alija Izetbegovic's office. This would entail having a Bosnian passport, I would think. I plan to go over the Islamic extremist nature of "President" Izetbegovic and his government, and its links with Islamic terrorism, in the aforementioned planned thread. I don't think bin-Laden visiting Izetbegovic office indicates he had Bosnian passport since it's normal for political leaders from one country to receive people from other nations. In 1994 the Bosnian War had been on going for two years so this wouldn't serve as justification for Serbian resistance to Bosnian independence. If I were in Izetbegovic's shoes I would probably have sought and accepted help from where ever it came. I'm not sure in 1994 how widely known OBL's activities were. Len

Very true, there are several cases of 9-11"inside job" proponents very selectively quoting sources as if the single sentence that seems to support their theories is relevant but the context in which was said which contradicts it is irrelevant. They cite "experts" like Dr. Steve Jones who has a PhD in particle physics, Dr. Judy Wood a mechanical engineering prof. whose areas of expertise are bio-materials and dental fillings, Morgan Reynolds and economist, David Griffin a theologian and Jim Hoffman and Eric Hufxxxx computer programmers, to explain the collapse of the WTC while dismissing the opinions innumerous highly qualified fire engineers including several from the NYFD and structural engineers (many of whom have PhD's) including the lead structural engineer (Leslie Robertson) and construction manager (Hyman Brown) of the WTC*. Len *The architect of and at least 2 of the other engineers involved in the design and construction of the WTC died on or before 9-11, I'm not sure if any of the others were still alive after 9/11, if they were they haven't made comments either way about the collapses that I have heard about...

Blah, blah, blah A typical Fetzerian tract, a great deal of verbiage to wow the sheeple that ultimately says nothing. Seems like history isn't one of Jack's strong points either. Yes, the Lincoln assassination was the result of a conspiracy as has been the official story from "day one". It was obviously a conspiracy because one of Booth's co-conspirators stabbed Secretary of State William Steward almost simultaneously. Steward was not seriously injured and indeed continued as Secretary of State for the next four years. A third conspirator was supposed to assassinate Vice-president Andrew Johnson but "chickened out". Within a few days all the plotters had been arrested except Booth who committed suicide or was killed by soldiers (depending on which version you believe). The explanation of Lincoln's death has changed little in the last 141 years. The details are not known "now" due to the work of intrepid "later historians", they've always been known The vast majority of if not all American History textbooks tells students this and normally contain a photo of the conspirators on the gallows. I remember knowing that Lincoln's assassination was part of a conspiracy from a young age and there were in fact several TV movies about the assassination. Andy is right all sorts of theories involving deeper or alternate conspiracies started popping up probably even before "Honest Abe" was laid to rest but as far as I know, no serious historian takes them seriously. Unlike the Lincoln assassination the vast majority of assassinations and attempted assassinations of Presidents, Presidents-elect and presidential candidates were due to "lone nuts". Len