Len Colby

Griffin’s error # 1 I don’t know was an intentional distortion or not but it is highly misleading. I wrote this for another forum. The towers were DESIGNED to withstand single 707 impacts but the Titanic was designed to be unsinkable and that terminal at DeGaulle International Airport was not designed to spontaneously collapse, this winter several buildings in Europe collapsed due to the weight of accumulated snow which they presumably had been designed to withstand. The impact the towers were designed to survive were very different from the ones they suffered and they failed to take the plane's fuel load and resulting fire into account. Leslie Robertson, lead engineer for the WTC said, "…we were looking at an aircraft not unlike the Mitchell bomber that ran into the Empire State Building. We were looking at an aircraft that was lost in the fog, trying to land. It was a low-flying, slow-flying 707, which was the largest aircraft of its time...What we didn't look at is what happens to all that fuel. And perhaps we could be faulted for that, for not doing so. But for whatever reason we didn't look at that question of what would happen to the fuel. " http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/filmmore/pt.html According to the introduction to the ASCE report which cites Port Authority documents they calculated a plane flying at 180 mph (291 kph). They based their calculations on a 707 weighing 263,000 lbs (119,292 kilos) That make sense, a database put out by a subsidiary of Unysis indicates the approach speeds for 707's is 132 - 145 KCAS ( 153 - 168 mph) depending on model. [ http://www.r2ainc.com/CAFT/pdfs/Customers%20Tbl2.PDF ] {KCAS = nautical miles per hour. 1 nautical mile = 1.16 statue miles}. A 737 pilot's manual advises them to use approach speeds of 135 – 145 KAIS (or 157 – 168 mph) and advises there is a 250 KAIS (290 mph) speed limit below 10,000 feet (the top of the towers was 1368 feet) http://www.cadets.net/pac/aircad/trg/CASC/ac_books.pdf pgs 41 - 42 The planes hit the towers at about 430* and 500 mph [ http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20III%20Aircraft%20speed.pdf ], 2.4X and 2.8X faster and weighed 274,000 lbs (124,282 kilos) [ http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3737/is_200209/ai_n9134665 ] and thus with about 6X and 8X more kinetic energy than what the towers were designed to withstand. (KE = mass x velocity squared). *According to other sources flight 11 hit at 470 not 430 mph see the findarticle link above.

Don't take it personally Ron it's just that you are one of the few people on this forum pushing "alternative 9/11 CTs" on this forum. Though the commission report wasn't perfect there is little evidence that it was a 'whitewash'.or that its major findings were wrong whose report, among other things, DOESN'T EVEN MENTION THE COLLAPSE OF WTC7 (Oh yeah, Zelikow and crew are saying, a third building collapsed that day, without even being hit by a plane, but SO WHAT?) Irrelevant the primary focus of the report was to determine how the attacks were carried out and to identify the failing of US intelligence etc. Not to determine what happened to the building destroyed of dammaged as a result of the attacks. 7 got less attention because it wasn't an iconic landmark and no one died in its collapse. NIST however has released its preliminary report on the 7 WTC collapse. Irrelevant for the reasons mentioned above the comission report wasn't a technical study of why the buildings collapsed the core columns are discussed in both the ASCE (Am. Soc. of Civil Engineers) and NIST reports as well as in the numerous scientific articles and papers published about the collapses. The description of the core as a hollow tube was a simplified explaination. he was right OBL is a multi-millionaire and Al-Qeada has lots of assetts. It's believed IIRC the cost of the operation was under $ 1 million not a lot of money by international banking standards. There is an informal Muslim money transfer system (Hawalas) which is almost impossible to trace. One shouldn't believe everything the government tells them, esp. when someone like Bush is president, but on the other hand one should believe every cockamamie CT out there. It's interesting that you metion the Kennedy assassination because I participate in two JFK forums (this and another) and on both it's the same there are very few takers for the "inside job" theory. I have researched 9/11 and it's obvious that the Bush administration was negligent and tried to cover that up and that it used the attacks as a pretext for its right wing agenda. The health risks near ground zero were also covered up. Other than that their is very little merit in the points raised by the "9-11 truth movement" Len

Very interesting John but I have two questions (ok 3) 1) Are you sure about the date I found a 1972 article by Policoff very similar to the one you described http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PA-NYT.html If that's not the same article do you know where we could find it? 2) Did Salisbury ever explain his "change of tune"? Len

One common trait of the contributors to TGZFH (or at least Healy, White, Fetzer and Costella) is their complete lack of critical thinking skills. ?????????? Who said that "no one noticed a plane hitting the pentagon?" Some of the CT nuts are saying that people imagined a plane when the building was hit by a missile. Now if you're so clever Dave tell us how large chunks of fuselage could have been planted in broad daylight on an open lawn without anyone noticing. 1) I guess since since you have nothing else you still try to classify the debate between "alterationist" and "non-alterationists" as one between LN's and conspiracists when you know that isn't the case, most JFK researchers on both sides of the debate reject your Zapruder film lunacy which is why Fetzer is persona non grata at most JFK events in the US 2) What witnesses are you talking about? 3) Ron was proposing mutually exclusive theories: i) An AA passenger jet flew very close to the Pentagon and was seen by many witnesses but did not hit the building and flew off without anybody noticing. Right behind the plane was the missile that actually hit the Pentagon. ii) The plotters hit the Pentagon with a missile instead of a passenger jet because the missile is much easier to control than a 757. Using the missile spared them the bother of having to remote control 757. Thinking logically is a daunting task for alterationists! Who said I'm a "lone nutter"? The "non-alterationists are LN's" strawman got old ages ago. And in case you haven't noticed Steve Turner and Bill Kelly don't seem to be buying this 'missile hit the Pentagon' crap either.

There are numerous problems with Griffin's paper which I will go over as time permits. Len

If 9/11 were an inside job, the conspirators would surely use available remote control technology Ron please provide a link to an authoritative source saying that such technology exists for commercial aircraft and could not be overridden by the onboard flight crew and explain how, when and where it might have installed on the hijacked planes. Please also explain how they got people “imitating” hijackers (Atta and Jarrah) on flights 11 and 93 on the radios and prevented the flight crews of those planes from using the radios The WTC towers were very obviously hit by Boeings how does that fit in to your theory? They were either remote controlled or flown by suicide pilots. If they could hit the towers why not the Pentagon which is 4 x – 5x wider than the towers were. My point exactly secretly outfitting passenger jets with such technology (and not have it discovered during routine maintenance) if it exists would be difficult but if they could do it with flights 11 and 175 why not flight 77? Making a passenger jet disappear is not so easy. How could they have gotten it to the ocean with out any air traffic controllers noticing? Also it would have been hard to do this and be sure no one would see it, a plane crashing from 5000 feet would be visible from a 100 mile radius and the crash / splash would be picked up by sonar. Secretly landing it at an airbase and then disposing of it doesn’t seem feasible either it would involve to many people how could they prevent local residents from noticing. ATC’s did temporarily loose track of the plane but there is no way the plotters could have known that. If flight 77 wasn’t remote controlled how did they get it to crash into the ocean or land at the airbase? It would be hard to convince a fanatical Muslim would be martyr that this would be the path to the after life. If you accept Jack’s suggestion that the 757 parts were planted, explain how that could have been done without anybody noticing. All in all it probably would have easier and less risky to use the 757. Also this explanation is not compatible with this rationalization of eyewitness testimony of a passenger jet hitting the Pentagon. A problem with this explaination is that IIRC several witnessess said they did see an AA passenger jet hit the Pentagon.

It also should be noted that very little was left of the 767s that hit Twin Towers which were much weaker in terms of resisting lateral loads than the outer walls of the Pentagon which were designed to be bomb resistant. Although some CTists say the towers were hit by holograms I presume (hope) that even Ron, Jack and Blair reject such poppycock. No plane hit the Pentagon proponents have explained neither what happened to flight 77 and the people on board if it didn't crash into the Pentagon nor why the plotters would make the switch. Wouldn't it have served their objectives just as well having a jetliner hit the Pentagon? This would have been a lot easier and less risky that switching the plane for a missile. No wonder many "9-11 truth" sites think this and some of the other more far fetched theories are "poisoning the well" i.e. theories promoted by CIA (?) "disinfo. agents" to discredit the "movement" As for the hole being too small IIRC (I'll look it up tomorrow) a 757's fuselage is a 14 ft diameter tube. The bolts connecting the wings and tail were weaker than the Pentagon's walls. They were designed to resist the force exerted on them flying through the air at 500 mph not flying against bomb blast resistant foot thick rock faced reinforced concrete walls at that speed. Len

According to an ad for the new edition of a book about the assassination, “One month after JFK died, LBJ canceled JFK’s plans to launch a missile strike on Red China’s nuclear facilities” http://www.americanfreepress.net/Final_Judgment.pdf pg. 3

C.K. Shaw, E. Clay Shaw Jr. and Clay Shaw While researching something else I came across the name "C.K. Shaw, principal of the Nanchang Academy" (possibly a Methodist missionary school). He corresponded with one of his processors, William Richard Johnson (1878 – 1967). Johnson also corresponded with rightwing groups like the Liberty Lobby, Young Americans for Freedom and the John Birch Society. http://webtext.library.yale.edu/xml2html/divinity.006.con.html Currently representing 22nd District of Florida* (1981 - ) is a certain Rep. Clay Shaw a.k.a. E. Clay Shaw Jr. a.k.a. Eugene Clay Shaw Jr. (1939 - ). He is chairman of the trade subcommittee. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Clay_Shaw%2C_Jr. I was wondering if either of them were related to Clay Shaw. Len *Ft. Lauterdale

Untrue. In 1984 Jesse Jackson infamously referred to Jews and New York City as “Hymies” and “Hymietown” but he continued as a player in the Democratic Party and enjoyed widespread support from liberals of all races and etnicities. His Minnesota campaign manager was Paul Wellstone was Jewish. He was a presidential advisor during the Clinton Administration. Imagine if a politician had used derogatory words like “spic” or “n” I’m sure he (or she) would have justifiably become an instant pariah. Are you talking about mainstream or academic publishers? There is no shortage of academics in the US who are stidently anti-Israel

Well, I can't explain all these various anomalies. Who, for instance, is John McAdams, what's his personal history and what really motivates him? Damned if I know. It would be interesting to find out. The mystery of Cockburn's position on JFK has been discussed elsewhere – see for instance http://www.rtis.com/reg/bcs/pol/touchstone...y97/worsham.htm I think you do point to a serious objection to the case I'm generally trying to make. It's hard to believe that so many people are involved in the cover-up. "I can't explain" is a great song* but a poor answer. The linked article discusses Chomsky, Stone and Cockburn. There is nothing in it that applies to Cockburn that doesn't apply to Chomsky as well. Despite their rivalry their positions on most issues including the JFK assassination, 9/11 and Israel are remarkably similar. So we are still left with you concluding that the only explanation for a Jew (Chomsky) to reject JFK assassination conspiracy theories is that he must be covering for Israel despite being strongly anti-Israel but accepting another explanation for an Irishman (Cockburn) with very similar politics who reached the same conclusion for supposedly the same reasons. For your theory to be logically consistent you must either argue that Cockburn is also a deep cover Mossad agent or come up with a rational explanation for his rejection of JFK conspiracy theories that can not be equally applied to Chomsky. As for McAdams my impression is that he truly believes (not necessarily that he's right) that LHO acted alone. So once again we have another non-Jewish intellectual and in this case one who is very familiar with the details of assassination (much more so than Chomsky) who doesn't believe their was a conspiracy. Another "hole" in your theory is Edward Said's close friendship and collaboration with Chomsky. Final Judgment came out in 1994 and was widely publicized in anti-Israeli circles, it's hard to believe he didn't hear about the book. He died 9 years later and I've seen no indication be put any stock in that (or any other JFK assassination conspiracy) theory. Said also rejected 9/11 CT's as does Ward Churchill, you argued that Chomsky's rejection of these theories was evidence of him being a Mossad asset – so aaah do you believe that Said and Churchill were Mossad assets too? That makes sense! I.F. Stone, Noam Chomsky, Edward Said, Alexander Cockburn and Ward Churchill – Mossad assets! Also even if Chomsky and Stone were gatekeepers covering for the assassination and other conspiracies it could just as logically concluded that they were CIA assets. People have leveled that accusation against Chomsky before and he did contract work for the Pentagon for which apparently still receives royalty checks. I I take this as a tact admission on your part that you have way overstated your case. If you want to restate your theory as "The possibility that Stone and Chomsky were Mossad assets covering for Israel should be explored", I'd still disagree but your logic wouldn't be so strained. But that is very different from saying that Chomsky's position only makes sense if the Mossad was involved and he was covering for them. I never suggested that something needs to be proven before it should be investigated, that's a very stupid idea but a nice strawman on your part. No, that's your parody of my logic. Of course that was my parody of your "logic" it wasn't as illogical as your theory though. In a way it is a logical extension of your "theory", throwing suspicion on others would serve the Mossad's objectives just as much as convincing people it was LHO acting alone. In case you haven't noticed it doesn't look like you've convinced anyone. Lots of people had motive for killing JFK. Your theory is that Chomsky and Stone served as a Mossad gatekeepers to convince people that there was no conspiracy for 30 years before Israel was named as a suspect and its supposed motive revealed? Wouldn't this have been big risk to take? They would have brought in 2 more conspirators who one day could have talked, on the off chance that Israel came under suspicion. Since Chomsky didn't have the prominence among leftists back then that he acquired a few years later (and this was unforeseeable) it doesn't seem like the risk was worth it. Also let's not forget that even today in the grand scheme of things Chomsky isn't that important. He is a giant to the Left but I doubt more than 5 – 10 % of Americans know he is and of those even fewer are swayed by his position on the assassination. Also how do you explain the fact that many of the key documents in Avram Cohen's book were released by the Israeli National Archive and many of the key interviewees were former and current Israeli officials. Doesn't sound like there was an active cover up. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/israel/documents/document.htm You might ask Piper himself for an account of his difficulties in finding a mainstream publisher and distribution channels for his book. I read this account Please provide a link to this account. Him not being able to find a "mainstream" publisher, if he even tried, is not a sign of censorship. Lots of writers can not get their works accepted my mainstream publishers, if I'm not mistaken the vast majority of manuscripts are rejected. Publishers wish to make a profit and only publish books they expect to sell enough copies to make it worth their while or if they are only marginally profitable have some merit. He was published by the publisher he has worked for his entire career, the same publisher who published his other books, the same publisher who also publishes 'Mein Kampf', admiring bios of Hitler and Holocaust denial books, the same publisher who has long made his hatred of Jews, African Americans and Latino immigrants clear. Even so the book went out of print leading me believe demand was that strong [http://www.americanfreepress.net/Final_Judgment.pdf ] As for getting mainstream distribution, the book is available through Amazon via 3rd parties. More blatantly anti-Jewish books by David Duke and Edgar J Steele are available directly from Amazon which leads me to suspect he and his publishers withhold the book from mainstream channels as a marketing ploy. He gets to play the role of a free speech martyr, the book is actively marketed as "America's #1 banned book". [ibid] You still haven't explained why if Piper's thesis has any logic why so few JFK researchers take it seriously. The publisher's 4 page spread for the book only managed to scrape together 4 positive reviews [ibid]. "Manages to weave together some of the key threads in a tapestry that many say is unique." LA Times 1996. I searched the paper's archive but couldn't find any reference to the book [http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/advancedsearch.html ] and Googled the snippet and got zero returns. "Impressive—Makes a pretty cogent case for Mossad involvement in the JFK conspiracy" Barry Chamish Israeli journalist. Chamish believes in UFOs and that John Lennon was an agent of the Illuminati. He is an ultra-rightwinger and liked the book because it fit with his theory that the Israeli left are members of a satanic cult. They left out the part where Chamish said the book was "far from conclusive". "Brilliant" David Icke. Icke believes that lizard people/shape shifters/the Illuminati secretly control the World. "The best book—and I've read many—on the JFK assassination conspiracy." Jack Stockwell K-Talk radio Salt Lake City. According to a fan of the station he is "He's a follower of the Lindon LaRouche movement" [http://www.militantlibertarian.blogspot.com/2004/03/k-talk-ktkk-am-630-radio.html ] and indeed he frequently interviews LaRouche and his followers [http://www.larouchepub.com/pr_lar/2001/010911stockwell.html ] Perhaps because the book is devoid of merit, I don't recall many books about UFO's, Nostradamous's revelations, perpetual energy machines or those supporting creationism or the Moon hoax theory getting the kind of attention you think Final Judgment deserves. Maybe if the JFK research community took the book more seriously the MSM would too. I am sure that there are lots of books about the assassination that don't get published by anyone let alone get reviewed in the Times or their authors get interviewed on national TV. Should a book get a rebiew in the Times just because it pushes a cotroversial thesis? As for not being in bookshops see above. Piper is Irish as he made clear on this forum but he enjoys the company of neo-Nazis: He has worked for one his entire career, he attends their events, he is a Holocaust denier and claimed that "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" was authentic, his articles appear in the same magazines as unrepentant SS generals. When I call him Herr Piper I am referencing Churchill who famously referred to the Fuehrer as "Herr Hitler". I have several German friends I'm sure they would find Piper as distasteful as I do and not object to my use of "the German honorific". So in the case of Piper, yes it is meant "a term of abuse". 1) I defended Piper's right to join this forum, it was a long thread so maybe you got confused. Three members objected to his joining: John Dolva, Tim Gratz and Andy Walker (co-moderator of the Education Forum) none of them are Jewish. 2) As for his bona fides, he doesn't really have any: he had no previous track record in JFK research, no training as a journalist or historian and has only ever been published by Willis Carto one of America's most infamous ultra-rightwing/neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic, racist, hate-mongering extremists – he's "the father" of Holocaust denial. 3) One could argue that if he was concerned about his name and reputation he wouldn't have gone to work for Carto and hung out with other Nazi/Klan types such as David Duke and Edgar J. Steele. He also did a pretty good job of damaging his claim to credibility here by citing various conspiracy theories with Jewish culprits and attacking Jewish intellectual like Deborah Lipstadt instead of making his case. His attack on Lipstadt was most hypocritical. He claimed that she advocated against intermarriage by Jews (without providing a citation) and condemned that this was racism but he had no qualms about working for and with and associating with people who made their dislike of Blacks and inter-marriage clear. He claimed without any substantiation that Andy Warker didn't like him because of anti-Irish bigotry. He provoked others as much as others provoked him. He also bragged about his intellectual dishonesty. In any case, as mentioned above, his theories sparked very little interest on this forum which has very few Jewish members and a good number of JFK researchers who are not very sympathetic to Israel. Only 2 or 3 members seemed to "buy" his thesis all of whom were very hostile to Israel. I read the 2 chapters he made available the first was little more than a naked attempt to connect half the Jews in New Orleans and Dallas to the assassination. They were based on a small number of secondary sources. All they amounted to was linking one person to another to another etc etc: Author 1 said that 'A' was friends with 'B' and 'B' once worked for the same company as 'C', Author 2 said 'C' had Mossad ties and had once worked with 'D', Garrison believed 'A' was involved. If you looked at all the books and articles ever written about the assassination and all the books and articles about the CIA, Mossad, organized crime, DeGaulle, the OAS, FBI etc you could tie just about anybody to the assassination. Often he seemed to be straining to make the evidence fit his thesis and often he didn't source the information like when he suggested that Fredrick Forsyth was hinting at Jewish participation in the OAS's attempts on DeGaulle when he named the assassin "the Jackal" because he claims "active in Europe during the period of the joint plots against JFK and Charles DeGaulle was a Jewish terrorist group known as the Jewish Anti-Communist League—or JACL. This JACL in fact, collaborated with the OAS." Like several of the claims in the supposedly well researched book he didn't provide any evidence. I did Internet searches with Google, Yahoo, MSN, Dogpile, Ask Jeeves, Find Articles and Altavista I only found 4 references to the group: 1) "In his tirade he included such people as Anna Rosenberg and Felix Frankfurter. He picked out one Jew for credit and that was Rabbi Schultz, the director of the Jewish Anti Communist League." Southwestern Jewish Press, March 21, 1952 www.jewishsightseeing.com/louis_rose_historical/ honorees/hutler_al_articles/1952-03-21-community_currents.htm 2) During the heyday of McCarthyism in the 1950's, [benjamin] Baruch secretly enlisted as a financial backer of the right-wing American Jewish Anti-Communist League.. "The Leading Jew in America", Commentary, December 1980. www.commentarymagazine.com/Summaries/V70I6P57-1.htm 3) "The following is a list of various organizations with which WRJ [William Richard Johnson] corresponded between 1950-1966:" The list includes about 50 mostly rightwing groups including the "Jewish Anti Communist League", JBS, YAF and Piper's employer the Liberty Lobby. Interestingly he also corresponded with a certain "C.K. Shaw, principal of the Nanchang Academy" does anyone know if he was related to Clay Shaw? http://webtext.library.yale.edu/xml2html/divinity.006.con.html 4) The fourth was from a Swedish CT site that seemed to be quoting Piper www.politiken.biz/registerA-L.htm There are no indications that the group was active in Europe, was a terrorist organization or was around at the time of "the plots" or had any ties to the OAS or was know by its acronym (which would be AJACL according to the 2nd source). I doubt that Forsyth had even heard of such an obscure group. Similarly his claims that Christian David who some tired to the assassination was "a chief suspect in the Ben-Barka murder" and that the Guerini bothers crime family were tied to Meyer Lansky are made without any attribution. [Lots of sites on the Net tie David to the Barka assassination but as far as I can tell only Salvador Astucia claims that Lansky was tied to the Corsican mobsters] Piper claims that "DeGaulle clearly discovered that elements of French intelligence and/or agents of his sworn enemies in the OAS had been brought into the JFK assassination conspiracy by the Mossad." But once again offers no evidence. [All references to Final Judgement refer to chapter 12 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...pe=post&id=4703] According to namebase.org "As it turns out, the Mossad links presented by Piper are circumstantial rather than conclusive" [http://www.namebase.org/sources/VG.html ] after reading those two chapters I'm inclined to agree.

Interesting comments Nathaniel A general, rather obvious remark about the structuralism v 'conspiratorialism'. They need not - and should not - be considered as mutually exclusive alternatives. Both approaches are needed to understand history. Structural factors influence how behaviour - but groups and individuals are also able to sieze intiiatives - to make history (even though it may not be quite as they please). It's like the difference between the operation of competing firms within a given market sector in economic theory – and what actually happens in the 'real world' of business. I can't be so generous in my interpretation of Chomsky's behaviour over the years. Serious anomalies have been picked up by a growing number of critics in two main areas. The first of these is Chomsky's 'blind spot' on topics such as the JFK assassination and 9-11. By extension, he's also served as a gatekeeper on a range of other cases where there's at least a prima facie case for a conspiracy and bogus 'official story'. These events have been going on throughout the entire period of Chomsky's infuence on the left – for over four decades. Examples include the assassinations of RFK, MLK and JFK junior, the first WTC attack; the OKC bombing; various suspicious deaths of prominent people in aircraft – such as Wellstone, Ron Brown and Hale Boggs. By keeping his fans fixated on getting the structural analysis right while routinely dismissing 'conspiracy theories', he's discouraged many, many people within the left-leaning intelligensia from looking seriously a string of crimes that have taken place in front of their noses. Chomsky has been influential within the left as a whole – but I think his role is particularly important for the non-Marxist left. That's where one might expect 'conspiratorialist' analysis to be stronger. In general, Marxists lean more naturally to structural analysis - and did so long before the 'anarchist' from MIT hit the scene. On the odd occasions he's been cornered about why he believes the official versions of the JFK assassination and 9-11, he seems (to me) to dissemble, waffle and evade. He has, however, made influential contributions to public debate about the real significance of the JFK Administration - tending to denigrate JFK and downplay his radicalism, especially re: foreign policy. Regarding 9-11, he backs up the offical legend and skips over all evidence that the 'Arab hijackers' were hit's considered risque outside the left). It's an 'expalanation' along the lines of: "they hate us because they have good reason to hate us!" So yes, if Chomsky has been an 'asset' for dark forces – and I do believe that's the case - he's been a very effective asset for a very long time. The second topic on which a number of left-wing critics have noticed anomalies in Chomsky's behaviour concersn the US – Israel relationship. Chomsky essentially argues that Israel is a quasi-colony of the USA and that the pro-Israeli bias in US foreign policy is borne of US and Smerican corporate self-interest. Over the years, a growing number of thoughtful observers of affairs in Washington have come to believe that's plain nonsense. One could much more plausibly make the reverse argument. I don't want to clog up this thread with excessive detail that's peripheral to the main argument, but on request can post Chomsky's recent appraisal of the Walt-Mearsheimer paper – and rebuttals from various other authors. I find the rebuttals devastating. To his credit, Chomsky has consistently and (as far as I know) without exception argued in support of free speech. I acknowledge that and respect it. Chomsky has been prolific. Much of his contribution to public discourse has, I have no doubt, been quite positive and has helped to expose the wrongdoings of the US Government and corporate capitalism.. But none of that, for me, outweighs the negative contribution he has made to public debate on the key issues of conspiracies and Israel – through what appears to be deliberate promulgation of faulty analysis and conclusions.. Sid, Provide if you can evidence if you can of Chomsky's "gatekeeper" role in the various conspiracies theories. In most cases 9/11, the first WTC attack; the OKC bombing; various suspicious deaths of prominent people in aircraft – such as Wellstone, Ron Brown JFK junior and Hale Boggs the evidence in support of conspiray theories in theses cases is extemly weak. Funny that you cited Edward Said in another thread he collaboirated with Chomsy for many years and reached the same conclusion about 9/11 and he regularly wrote for Cockburn whose position re: JFK and 9/11 was the same as Chomsky's you think maybe both of them (Said and Cockburn) were deep cover Mossad assets too!

As I pointed out in my reply to him it wasn't clear at all what his name was, he only mentioned it in the last two posts of the "January" page of his site, that page has almost 4000 words on it. The second inaccuracy in your post is that I NEVER suggested that HE was racist or anti-Semitic. I don't as you suggest level such charges routinely. I see nothing wrong in criticizing bigots for their bigotry, I do see a great deal wrong with racism. Are you honestly going to say you don't think Mark Wilson and Piper are racists? If some one suggested that you read books by David Duke or Meir Kahane would you take them up on it? How would you react if some one cited them as reliable sources? Wouldn't you point out that they obviously had "axes to grind". Wasn't it routinely suggested that Tim Gratz was unable to see things clearly due to his political bias? Walker and Wilson said that Jewish intellectuals and journalists mislead the public due to there support of Israel why is that legitimate in your eyes but suggesting that anti-Semites might be biased against Israel or Jews illegitimate? I never suggested that Wilson, Piper or Walker were anti-Semitic because they criticize Israel I did so because of what they said about Jews. Len

Maurice, - Your name didn't appear on the current page of your blog until after my post on this thread. The only exception is an ad for a book you wrote but there was no indication that the book was written by the author of the blog it is only one of several books advertised. - You signed all your posts on that page and the others I looked at as "youshouldknow" which is the name listed for you in the "about me section" your name does not appear in your "complete profile" either. - The above certainly created the impression you did not want your identity disclosed. - Your name only appeared twice in the blog on one page (January)*. Thus your statements that your name was "easy to find" and "quite evident" are inaccurate and your sarcasm unwarranted. If you don't want to be considered an anonymous blogger you should sign your posts with your name or at the very least make sure it appears on every page and not, as was the case, only on one page. It's NOT up to your readers to dig through your site to find out who you are. I do apologize for calling you semi-literate but I had no way of knowing at the time you were not a native speaker of English. You did however make some very basic mistakes like referring to a person as "it". As for me solving the Kennedy assassination I never indicated that was my goal. I could be faulted for not having found the page about Bloomfield in the archives site but that page for whatever reason isn't indexed by Google (which means it was probably added recently), but then again you could be faulted for making a claim on your blog without providing a citation, both of us were sloppy. It shouldn't be up to your readers to verify your claims and giving the wrong name for the archive certainly didn't help. I don't want to get into a fight with you, you seem to me to be an honorable unbigoted person, I have no "bones" to "contend" with you. I am just explaining my side of the story. My hand clutching an olive branch is extended. I am curious though, did they (the people who run the archives) say why they were not releasing Bloomfield's papers? On one of the pages you linked it said "Access is restricted until twenty-five years after the death of Justine Stern Cartier. Authority for restriction: Social Archives Sector. For access apply to: Social Archives Sector Canadian Archives and Special Collections Branch" who is (was) Ms. Cartier a relative of Bloomfield's? Len *http://search.blogger.com/?as_q=PHILIPPS&ie=UTF-8&ui=blg&bl_url=somesecretsforyou.blogspot.com&x=33&y=10

Your theory it not merely spurious it is remarkably spurious. It is based on fallacious assumptions. 1) People can't honestly agree with the Warren Commission with out an ulterior motive, I have serious doubts as to whether LHO acted alone but that doesn't mean that people who believe this have a hidden agenda. 2) If a Jewish person agrees with the Warren Commissions it must be because they know the Mossad killed JFK and they are covering for Israel. This is frankly a stupid and bigoted line of reasoning. It plays on the stereotype that Jews can't be trusted and we owe our loyal to Israel first and America (or what ever country they live in) second. You even assume that Chomsky who has been such a constant critic of Israel that he has been repeatedly (and unjustly) accused of being a "self hating Jew" really is a closet Zionist covering for the Jewish state that he knows killed the President of the US. You must think his opposition to Israel is an act. If Chomsky really was secretly covering for Israel it is odd that Edward Said would have maintained such a close relationship with him. Many people have criticized Chomsky for his stance regarding the assassination. In the grand scheme of things Chomsky's rejection of conspiracy theories regarding the assassination made very little difference. I doubt many people who would otherwise have adopted such an outlook rejected it because of Chomsky on the other hand his writings attacking Israel and the US's support of that country have been very influential among leftists. Norman Mailer used to believe there was a conspiracy now he doesn't I guess the Mossad got to him and told him his position was a threat to Israel's continued existence and like a good Jew he changed his tune! How do you take into account non-Jews who don't think there was a conspiracy, is Alexander Cockburn a closet Zionist? What about McAdams are you going to tell us he is a Jewish Zionist too? We let's see he has an Irish last name and teaches at a Catholic university, yeah he's probably Jewish. Larry Surdivan, Gay Savage and Dale Myers must be too. Following your logic authors who back theories that don't put the blame on Israel or at least go down the CIA/Clay Shaw route are suspect. Your ludicrous line of reasoning "makes sense only if" you're anti-Semitic I case you missed it Herr Piper showed up here and proffered his thesis but had few takers. I imagine at this point every one in the JFK research community has heard about Final Judgment but very few seem swayed by it's arguments. The few that do that I've seen have strong anti-Semitic or anti-Israeli biases. Indeed his book has gotten far more attention in anti-Semitic and anti Israel circles that among assassination researchers. . You find Piper thesis credible is because it fits with your extreme hostility to Israel, you are able to turn logic on it's head to fit your preconceived notions. If there is evidence to support the "Israel and the Jews did it" theory it's odd that the only person to write book with that thesis is an anti-Semitic, Holocaust denying new comer to the assassination who blames Jews for everything from Watergate and the pedophile priest scandal to the assassinations of Lincoln and Martin Luther King (jr.) and has spent his entire career working for a neo-Nazi. You claim not to be anti-Jewish but your line of thinking, the quote I highlighted below and appreciation of Israel Shamir make your claim suspect. Edgar J. Steele is another author you might enjoy, start with this essay. http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=6681 Please provide the evidence to back this assertion. Since you live in Australia you might want to join this group http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/ Len

LOL That's very rich coming from YOU Jack, should I compile a list of all the personal attacks you've levied against Evan, Bill, me and others who disagree with you instead of making substantive replies to the points we raised? I agree with Jason, the apperant disrepancies between the two frames could be explained by the different angles of view. it could also be that they were shot a second or two appart. who said 'officially' that these frames were taken at the same moment.? Try replying with a citation rather than a personal attack.. Len

So if it were a white stripper you'd find the charges more credible? It sounds like you have problems with blacks and Jews. I lived in the South when I was a kid and know it has changed a lot over the last couple of decades, apparently in some corners of Virginia it hasn't changed enough.

Good idea, Lee. Personally I doubt if Bloomfield, if involved, would include any mention of it in his papers but they would sure be an excellent read. I did various google searches and could find no other mention of Bloomfeild’s papers being held by the National Archives of Canada (let alone them not being released) so all we have is the word of a semi-literate anonymous blogger. You’d think if the story were true it would appear elsewhere on the Net. The author does not provide any citation or evidence that what he claims is true. You’d think if it were true he’d be able to provide a citation. We are not even told why supposedly the papers aren’t being released. Even if true as Mark pointed out the papers would be unlikely to shed any evidence on the assassination even if he was involved. Although he worked at various times for the Canadian and American governments Bloomfield was a private citizen, therefore no one is entitled to see his papers unless their caretaker (the archives) and his estate agree. If I am not mistaken in the US even a former president’s PRIVATE papers are only released to the public if he and/or his estate agree, I imagine in Canada it’s the same. Should Bloomfield have less privacy rights just because a couple of less than credible authors* have linked him to the assassination? I imagine if you made a list of all the people ever identified as being a key player in any book about the assassination it would have hundreds of names on it. Does the public have the right to see the private papers of all these people? *One was anonymous the other has a career long association with neo-Nazis.

Mark STAPLETON - Aren't YOU acting as a "self appointed judge and jury" - Bigotry isn't THE "most heinous of crimes" but it's up there - I don't suppose you're planning to read any books by Meir Kahane, David Duke or Edgar J. Steeele any time in the near future are you? I read the 2 chapters Piper made available here, read his posts and read what he said and wrote else where that was quite enough. Len

hi Len.i'm not going feed into to your loaded analysis of my statements ... In the post you quoted above I was questioning the other Mark about his statements which should have been obvious since I quoted him and not you. As for my doubts regarding your questionable statements see posts 50 and 53.

Ron can back the claim that"security at Logan was run by an Israeli-owned company." with a source other that Aljazeera?

What are you driving at?

so ron it sounds like you would choose answer . You left out the next paragraph which actually came from one of the staff reports 'Between 9:15 and 9:30, the staff was busy arranging a return to Washington, while the President consulted his senior advisers about his remarks. No one in the traveling party had any information during this time that other aircraft were hijacked or missing. As far as we know, no one was in contact with the Pentagon. The focus was on the President's statement to the nation. No decisions were made during this time, other than the decision to return to Washington. The President's motorcade departed at 9:35, and arrived at the airport between 9:42 and 9:45. During the ride the President learned about the attack on the Pentagon.... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5233007

Mark Wilson's favorite site about the assassination incredibly features an article by Edgar J. Steele an infamous white supremacist and anti-Semite and true to form he let his true beliefs shine through in his article. Do these views reflect the webmater's? Since he (or she) posted the article on his (or her) site without a disclaimer I would imagine so. The wisdom of Edgar J. Steele

Mark - It sounds an awful lot to me that you are saying: 1) The Goverment and media are responsible for the cover up. 2) The Goverment and media are controlled by Jewish Zionists. 3) The Government and media are covering for the assassins because they have something to hide. 4) thus Jewish Zionists are probably responsible for the assassination You said 1 and 3 explicitly, 2 and 4 were implicit. Please elaborate. What evidence do you have that the US goverment banned "Final Judgement" or any other books? Len