Michael Hogan

Len, You posted: Mike – I didn't start this "xxxx fight" and if you so want it's over. I acknowledged my mistakes; do you have the courage to admit to yours? If you want to address the points I made instead of slinging mud feel free. Peace, Len First of all, if you want to call it a "xxxx fight," that's up to you. And if you want to consider my post "mudslinging" that's up to you also. Those are your characterizations, not mine. In my intitial response I said two things that could be construed as personal, although they referred to your methods of research, and not you personally. 1) What kind of "research" is this? 2) I guess its no secret I don't think much of Mr. Colby's "research" or his reasoning on these matters. If other members have been persuaded by what Mr. Colby posted, I would be interested in hearing. Here were some of your responses: 1) Mr. Hogan's claim is totally bogus 2) it's not hard to find, my 10 year-old daughter found it. Obviously Mr. Hogan has no business criticizing anybody else's research. 3) I left out the above link inadvertently. I presume you have heard of Google, Yahoo and other search engines? With all the time you spent trying to debunk my post you could have found the article in about 5 seconds. That's doing something called 'research'. 4)Since your reply had more error and more serious errors than my original post you disparaging my research is like the "1st little pig" criticizing the "2nd little pig" for building a shoddy house. 5) I agree you post was very tediuos.(sic) 6) Do you understand the difference between ABOVE and BELOW Mr. Hogan? 7) Obviously "Mr. Hogan's" insinuation that I was being misleading is false. (I don't understand why you chose to put my name in quotation marks and I never insinuated that you were being misleading. Once again, that's your choice of words, not mine.) My reference was only to the quality of your research and reasoning about a narrowly defined subject. (The stand down order) It is you who turned this exchange personal. I concluded with: In closing, I will offer the following quote from Nafeez Ahmed's well documented book The War On Truth: Throughout the 9/11 terrorists attacks, then, the US national security apparatus systematically facilitated the attacks by implementing policies that either inexplicably delayed the response of US air defense or methodically diverted it. Both the FAA and Norad inexplicably delayed their responses for unconscionably long periods, in breach of standard procedures. Repeatedly, fighter craft were indefinitely postponed, continuously misdirected, and ultimately stood down, in such a manner that permitted the attacks to occur entirely unhindered for over one and a half hours in the most restricted airspace in the world. Your reply: There are published books and websites many of them full of footnotes that assert: the Holocaust was a hoax, the Moon landings were a hoax, the Zapruder film was a hoax, the pyramids and Nazca lines were made by aliens, The world is controlled by the Illuminati, Queen Elizabeth is the Worlds biggest drug dealer, the Twin Towers had reinforced concrete cores, global warming will cause the World to explode and that sex between adults and young children should be permitted.(Emphasis mine) Simply repeating someone's assertion isn't enough if Mr. Ahmed has any hard evidence cite it. Without that his opinion and your assessment of it are meaningless. You use the tactic of linking Nafeez Ahmed's book with books that assert "sex between young adults and young children should be permitted." You say that simply repeating someone's assertion isn't enough, and challenge me to cite his evidence. Yet you repeatedly provide links that do nothing more than repeat someone's assertion to bolster your claims. You did the same thing with Wittenberg. You asked "find me ONE airline pilot in good standing (not the nut who got fired from Continental in the 80's after failing psychological exams) who says Atta, Shehhi and Hanjour weren't good enough to have done what that did." After one was pointed out to you, you responded by noting: 1) Wittenberg is a pilot but he is also right-wing extremist. 2) In 1988 he attended the fifteenth annual Conservative Political Action Conference. 3) Echoing ultra-right paranoia ..... 4) The fact that on top of this he is associated with a Holocaust denier (Hufscmidt) isn't comforting. Might his judgment be clouded by his extremist political views? Shades of Michael Collins Piper. You attack Wittenberg for his right wing extremist views. The you post a link to The New American, a decidely right wing organization. The author you cite for your claims, William Jasper, also writes stuff like, "May 1st has for over a century been the most important holiday of the year for communists, socialists, and anarchists".....and other extreme right wing views. Contrary to what you might think, Len, I make/made no claims as to whether there was a standown or not, or whether something else hit the Pentagon. To tell you the truth, what irritated me and prompted my response was your claim, "So much for stand down, LOL." without even addressing the two later flights. Or without posting information that was convincing beyond doubt. To me all the links you posted are proof to no one but yourself. I lack the desire or energy to argue any more with you point by point. You've already told me I have no business criticizing your (or anybody's) research. You've as much as called me a mud slinger. I could go over things point by point, or link by link....but that would be more tedium than I'm willing to commit to. And Len, despite your challenge, it has nothing to do with my courage or lack of it. I suspect you don't like me, and that is understandable. Bottom line, neither of us is going to change the other's mind, if we post links until the cows come home. I'm willing to listen and willing to learn from others. Nowhere did I claim to have answers to what happened on 9/11. I'll close by repeating myself. If other members have been persuaded by what Mr. Colby posted, I would be interested in hearing. Peace. Mike Hogan

Point well taken Matthew. It was not my intention to misquote Mr. Colby. The omission was inadvertant. I hope it had no bearing on the point I was trying to make Thanks for bringing that to my attention. And thanks for reading my post carefully, I wasn't sure anyone would. Mike Hogan

Sander Hicks, Thanks for your interesting answers to John Simkin's excellent series of questions. I am unaffiliated politically, but reading some of your writings has given me added respect for the Green Party. You would have/will someday make a great US Senator. Good luck to Howie Hawkins. I hate to nag you, but can you give members of this Forum any indication as to when Mr. Ayers' book will be released? Best wishes to you and your family in all endeavors. Mike Hogan

Len Colby poses the questions: "Could the fighters from Otis have intercepted flights 11 and 175? If they had would they have shot them down?" In his first paragraph, Mr. Colby asserts: The fighters were capable of supersonic speeds but "Rules in effect … on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts" (Mr. Colby's emphasis)[ http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/de...html?page=3&c=y ] If the reader clicks that link, he/she will see that there is no mention at all of Mr. Colby's assertion of prohibitions on supersonic flight. Next Mr Colby states: The speed of sound in air varies depending on temperature and pressure. The fighters would have flown at least 10,000 feet because below that altitude there is a 250 KAIS (290 mph) speed limit [ http://www.cadets.net/pac/aircad/trg/CASC/ac_books.pdf - pgs. 41 -2]. That link didn't work for me. I got "The page cannot be found" message. After some non-conclusive information about temperature changes at various altitudes, Mr Colby states: So the planes would have been limited to 610 mph or less. At that speed it would take 19 minutes to cover the distance from Otis to the WTC. I think we can safely assume they would loose at least a minute climbing to 10,000 feet and accelerating to 610 mph and descending to 1000 and decelerating to 290 mph so best case scenario they could have gotten there in 20 minutes. His source for this? Apparently this website: http://www.accessscience.com/Encyclopedia/...ameset.html?doi However, there is only one paragraph there. McGraw-Hill tells us "The full article available through subscribing libraries." What kind of "research" is this? Next Mr. Colby addresses this topic: WHAT TIME THEY TOOK OFF. He writes: To have intercepted flight 11 the fighters would had to have taken off at 8:26 and to intercept flight 175 at 8:43 which struck the towers at 8:46 and 9:03. Is it reasonable to expect such a quick scramble time? There was only one intercept of a civilian aircraft over the US in the 10 years preceding 9/11. That was Payne Stewart's and it took 81 minutes from the time the air traffic controller was unable to contact the pilot. NORAD was set up to stop intruders coming into US and Canadian airspace not those already in it. Let's consider two similar events that happened AFTER 9/11 when we would expect response times to be faster. What on earth does it have to do with this topic that there was "only one intercept of a civilian aircraft in the last 10 years?" 9/11 involved commercial aircraft. It is common knowledge that military aircraft have been scrambled often in response to emergencies or possible hijackings. Mr Colby makes reference to a small plane that "violated restricted air space around Washington until more than 10 minutes after the Cessna 182 passed near the White House." At this point Mr. Colby offers no links. In fact he offers no documentation at all. Mr Colby then makes the smooth transition to the timeline of response on 9/11. He gives a link to a Thompson's website that gives a timeline of 9/11. http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timelin...ay_of_9/11=aa11 Mr. Colby then says: In other words the times are comprable, it only took a minute less to scramble fighters to intercept a plane flying towards several potential targets in D.C. 9 months AFTER 9/11 than it did that morning to intercept a hijacked plane that no one could have been expected to be used as a giant guided missile. CTists will complain that the above timeline is based on information from a "Senior administration official" but similar accounts were given by other news outlets such as CBS News http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/19/...ain512816.shtml, This now is the link to the CBS article about the Cessna mentioned above. Mr Colby states that "CTists" will complain about the timeline." There is NO timeline in the CBS link he supplied and NO reference to a "Senior Administration official." This is research? Mr. Colby ends his research by concluding: Even if they had gotten to the Twin Towers before flight 175. it's doubtful they would have been given a shoot down order. At that time few people knew the whole story, millions of people knew the North Tower had been struck by a plane but only those watching CNN knew that it was a passenger jet but few if any of those people knew that two passenger jets had been hijacked and only a handful of those knew that one of those planes had disappeared from radar in the vicinity of the towers. It is doubtful that anyone giving orders to the pilots had the authority to order a shoot down or knew all of the above. Even if they would not have know how few people were onboard the plane nor how many people would die because it hit the South Tower (only a few people with structural engineering, controlled demolition or firefighting backgrounds said they expected collapses. So much for the stand down. LOL I know that reading the above has been tedious. In closing, I will offer the following quote from Nafeez Ahmed's well documented book The War On Truth: Throughout the 9/11 terrorists attacks, then, the US national security apparatus systematically facilitated the attacks by implementing policies that either inexplicably delayed the response of US air defense or methodically diverted it. Both the FAA and Norad inexplicably delayed their responses for unconscionably long periods, in breach of standard procedures. Repeatedly, fighter craft were indefinitely postponed, continuously misdirected, and ultimately stood down, in such a manner that permitted the attacks to occur entirely unhindered for over one and a half hours in the most restricted airspace in the world. I guess its no secret I don't think much of Mr. Colby's "research" or his reasoning on these matters. If other members have been persuaded by what Mr. Colby posted, I would be interested in hearing. Mike Hogan PS. I supose it is worth noting that in concluding "so much for the stand down. LOL " Mr. Colby made no references to the planes that crashed in Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C.

Riding the Tiger's Back by Hemenway http://www.heidelberggraphics.com/Heidelbe...0back%20rev.htm Available here: http://dogbert.abebooks.com/servlet/Search...r%27s+back&x=83 Available from Publisher: http://www.heidelberggraphics.com/Heidelbe...0back%20ord.htm

Len Colby challenged Ron Ecker to: "find me ONE airline pilot in good standing (not the nut who got fired from Continental in the 80's after failing psychological exams) who says Atta, Shehhi and Hanjour weren't good enough to have done what that did." Russ Wittenberg makes that claim during an interview on Wing TV (Whatever that is). Here are his claimed credentials: Russ Wittenberg has numerous FAA certificates ranging from Airline Pilot and Flight Engineer to Ground Instructor and Aircraft Dispatcher. He is certified to fly an incredible range of aircraft including Boeing 707s, 727s, 747s, 757s, 767s and 777s. The supposed aircraft used on 9/11 were Boeing 757s and 767s. At the beginning of the interview, Wittenberg says: "I started out in aviation as a graduate of the University of Miami, Florida, a Hurricane and I went through Air Force ROTC. And received my commission in the Air Force as a second lieutenant. Afterwards I went through Air Force flying schools and Air Force fighter pilot during the Vietnam Era. A hundred combat missions in Vietnam. And there I got out of the Air Force and I got a job with the airlines, airlines up in Miami, and I flew with them for a short time then I went with Pan American World Airways for twenty years. Then in 1986, Pan Am sold its Pacific division to United Airlines for 750 million dollars and 430 of us pilots went from Pan Am to United. So the reason I tell you that is because I have a unique position of having been with two different airlines. I flew the Pan Am 747 that went down in Lockerbie. Scotland sixteen years ago and I also flew the two United airplanes that were involved in 9/11. Those two actual airplanes." "Well you can...you can simulate the flight in the simulator but what I'm talking about is they're saying this airplane was flown at around 500 knots which is beyond the speed envelope. The VMO/MMO speed of a 757 that down low is around 320 knots. So it was exceeding it's design speed envelope well over a hundred knots. Now when you start doing that and you start pulling high speed turns the airplane's going to start what they call high speed stalls and it's going to fall out of the sky. These...the only vehicle that could do that would be a missile or a jet fighter." For anyone interested in the subject, I urge them to read the interview in its entirety and judge Wittenberg's credibility for themself. http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb...opic.php?t=4565 Here is another extensive article by Joel Harel, a member of Physics 9/11, which purports to be the "Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven." For his qualifications and others, see their member list. Harel claims to be an aeronautical engineer and pilot. He says: "There are some who maintain that the mythical 9/11 hijackers, although proven to be too incompetent to fly a little Cessna 172, had acquired the impressive skills that enabled them to fly airliners by training in flight simulators. What follows is an attempt to bury this myth once and for all, because I’ve heard this ludicrous explanation bandied about, ad nauseam, on the Internet and the TV networks—invariably by people who know nothing substantive about flight simulators, flying, or even airplanes. A common misconception non-pilots have about simulators is how "easy" it is to operate them. They are indeed relatively easy to operate if the objective is to make a few lazy turns and frolic about in the "open sky". But if the intent is to execute any kind of a maneuver with even the least bit of precision, the task immediately becomes quite daunting. And if the aim is to navigate to a specific geographic location hundreds of miles away while flying at over 500 MPH, 30,000 feet above the ground the challenges become virtually impossible for an untrained pilot. I shan't get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A discussion on ground effect energy, vortex compression, downwash reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the scope of this article.... Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-lb airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH." Harel claims to have a letter from a senior airline captain currently flying with an airline involved in 9/11 containing the following statement: "Regarding your comments on flight simulators, several of my colleagues and I have tried to simulate the hijacker's final approach maneuvers into the towers on our company 767 simulator. We tried repeated tight, steeply banked 180 turns at 500 mph followed by a fast rollout and lineup with a tall building. More than two-thirds of those who attempted the maneuver failed to make a "hit". How these rookies who couldn't fly a trainer pulled this off is beyond comprehension." Once again, I urge the interested reader to examine Joel Harel's article in its entirety. http://physics911.net/harel.htm Ironically, I found this information at the very website Len Colby used to buttress his claim that: "Finding the Pentagon would not be difficult all Hanjour had to do was program the autopilot to fly the plane to Washington National Airport...." and: "Hanjour was not as bad a pilot as made out to be: he had a commercial pilot's license and about 600 flight hours and had trained on a Pan Am 737 simulator and 757/767 PC simulators. http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_school...outs.html" Interestingly, the link that Mr. Colby provides for his claims provides all sorts of conflicting information at to the training and capabilities of Hanjour. I think people often find a website, pick out excerpts that tend to support their view, and post the link as if somehow it proved their assertions. Often, visiting the website actually offers evidence which refutes the very point they were attempting to make. If the reader doubts this, just visit the website supplied by Mr Colby (link above). According to reports from CBS: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/10/...ain508656.shtml (CBS) Months before Hani Hanjour is believed to have flown an American Airlines jet into the Pentagon, managers at an Arizona flight school reported him at least five times to the FAA, reports CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales. They reported him not because they feared he was a terrorist, but because his English and flying skills were so bad, they told the Associated Press, they didn't think he should keep his pilot's license. "I couldn't believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had," said Peggy Chevrette, the manager for the now-defunct JetTech flight school in Phoenix...... Chevrette said she contacted Anthony (FAA Inspector) again when Hanjour began ground training for Boeing 737 jetliners and it became clear he didn't have the skills for the commercial pilot's license. "I don't truly believe he should have had it and I questioned that," she said. Other Arizona flight schools he (Hanjour) attended also questioned his abilities. And finally from the Washington Post in an article entitled Hanjour an Unlikely Terrorist: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hanjour_history.html While in Oakland, he enrolled at the Sierra Academy of Aeronautics. He attended a 30-minute class on Sept. 8 and never came back. Dan Shaffer, the academy's vice president for flight operations, speculated that Hanjour was intimidated by the school's two-year training regimen and $35,000 price tag. The next month, he turned up in Arizona, a magnet for aspiring pilots because of its clear weather and relatively affordable flight schools. Hanjour paid $3,800 by check and $1,000 in cash for lessons at CRM Flight Cockpit Resource Management in Scottsdale. During three months of instruction in late 1996, Duncan K.M. Hastie, CRM's owner, found Hanjour a "weak student" who "was wasting our resources." Hanjour left, then returned in December 1997 - a year later - and stayed only a few weeks. Over the next three years, Hanjour called Hastie about twice a year, asking to come back for more instruction. "I would recognize his voice," Hastie said. "He was always talking about wanting more training. Yes, he wanted to be an airline pilot. That was his stated goal. That's why I didn't allow him to come back. I thought, 'You're never going to make it.' " The last time Hanjour called, sometime last year, he was asking to train on a Boeing 757, the kind of aircraft he is believed to have crashed into the Pentagon. Rebuffed by Hastie, Hanjour went elsewhere. In 1998, he joined the simulator club at Sawyer, a small Phoenix school known locally as a flight school of last resort. "It was a commonly held truth that, if you failed anywhere else, go to Sawyer Aviation. They had good instructors," said Fults, the former simulator manager there. and: That plot was in high gear by the second week of August, when Hanjour arrived in the Washington area for what appears to have been his final preparation - this time, at Freeway Airport in Bowie, Md. Instructors once again questioned his competence. After three sessions in a single-engine plane, the school decided Hanjour was not ready to rent a plane by himself. Its 43 years after the murder of John Kennedy, and people still debate whether or not Oswald possessed the skills and the weapon to do what the Warren Commission claimed. Anyone can post a link to some "expert's" testimony and make a case for either side. It's just a shame the 9/11 Commission failed to do a proper job of investigating, relegating the search for the truth in the hands of internet websites. I don't claim to know what happened. I wonder how others can be so sure. Mike Hogan

I'm not about to get into a back and forth with you. As I noted, you are always determined to have the last word. You didn't even mention the subject of my post, the affinity of some to start a new thread when one already exists. Instead you resort to asking me why I posted if I found the subject matter mundane. Such an irrelevant question, much like most of your others. It doesn't take a photo expert to recognize someone with a severe ego problem. There are a lot of people on this forum I'd love to have a cup of coffee or a spot of lunch, as John Geraghty put it. You ain't one of them. Your weak attempts at condescension lack the power to provoke me. You don't intimidate me in the least, David. However these are my last words ever on the subject of David G. Healy. I've already spent too much time.

Someone ought to hire Ed Lopez as a consultant, a few translators and go to Mexico City where the flickering embers of truth may still exist about what really happened there in 1963. Admittedly. the longest of shots, maybe someone there is still alive that could shed light on this most important matter. Chances are its already too late. In all likelihood, the full truth now resides beyond our ability to know. The real keepers of the truth were US Intelligence and they are of course, long since gone. I would love to see a historian tackle the subject. John Armstrong did a great job in his remarkable book, Harvey & Lee. His research puts a lot of things about Mexico City in context, yet in the final analysis, seems to raise more questions than it answers. By the way Robert, thanks for your posts. I always learn something from them. Mike Hogan

Yet another new thread on a subject that has been repeatedly beaten to death for years and appears in one form or another in numerous recent threads on this forum. This forum, as was previously noted in another thread, does sometimes seem to exhibit the distinct feel of a chat room. There's always a few people that apparently just enjoy seeing their name in print, to the point where they post the same stuff over and over. Not content to remain in the threads they have already started or responded to or hijacked, for some reason they find it necessary to start a new one. I've heard it referred to as the "chat testosterone syndrome." This syndrome is marked by an obsessive, compulsive desire to always get in the last word and have others see it. Often misguided, idiosyncratic attempts at humor come off as nothing more than ignorance and rudeness. Believing that they somehow are the star of the chatroom, the afflicted one thinks that everyone else is interested in their worn out banalities and insults. They seem to delight in provoking others, like they guy that pulls out in front of you in traffic or interrupts you when you are talking to someone else. This person feels that everyone else is hanging on their every word. Thank goodness for the dozens of intelligent men and women I've observed in this forum. They are they reason I visit often and try to learn something new about a subject that has interested me for a long time. Thanks in part to significant efforts by John Simkin, this forum has become an important tool for learning, as was probably intended from inception. Many informed and brilliant thinkers come here to articulate their thoughts. I would begin to list them, but then I would invariably leave some out. I know I have a tendency to ascribe an importance to my posts that does not exist. I know that it matters not much in the scheme of things what I write or post in here. I have learned, however, that if someone feels the need to be constantly adversarial, constantly insulting, and generally negative and disagreeable and focus on basically one subject for years and years like it was the Rosetta Stone of the Kennedy assassination, offering little, if nothing new.......well, I'll let the reader complete the thought. Mike Hogan

Mark Stapleton wrote: "The US mainstream media.......represents the most offensive, gutless, greedy collection of shameless criminals I've ever seen." Yes, Mark. And let it be noted our fourth estate has been carrying on in that fine tradition for many, many decades now. The American public, by and large, has long since become anesthetized and apathetic to the truth. Our collective political attention span has been reduced to about the length of an American Idol episode. Mike Hogan

Hello John, I've enjoyed reading your posts on the forum. Your posts are positive and informative, always a good combination. I hope your visit to the US is pleasant and productive. Will this be your first visit to the States and/or the District of Columbia? I'm sure you plan on visiting Arlington and some of the other landmarks. If time and finances allow, take a day trip to Baltimore. There is a lot of history there as well. If you do go, don't miss this place: http://www.lexingtonmarket.com/ Good luck in your search to obtain accommodations, John. I hope you find most Americans to be friendly and hospitable. Mike Hogan

According to Len Osanic, Scott Enyart will be interviewed on Black Op Radio tonight at 9pm, EST. I asked Mr. Osanic if Scott Enyart would be willing to share his views on the assassination of RFK's brother. http://www.blackopradio.com/

There are plenty of astute, and I think accurate observations about Jim Garrison on this thread. As others have noted, Garrison was roundly criticized by many top researchers after Clay Shaw was found innocent. Harold Weisberg and Sylvia Meagher were brave and brilliant and tireless in their efforts to expose the federal government's lack of a proper investigation. Their criticisms of Garrison are probably warranted, to a large extent. Weisberg did write in his epilogue to Oswald in New Orleans, "Garrison carries a burden no federal authority ever assumed. The legal and statistical odds are stacked against him and his success, as is the might and influence of the federal power that is the inevitable defendant in the New Orleans courtroom. Even if he fails, as I believe he will not, he will have succeeded, for he has already taken the first official step down the road that can lead to the recapture of our national honor and the integrity of our institutions." And although Sylvia Meagher excoriated Garrison for "increasingly serious misgivings about the validity of his evidence, the credibility of his witnesses, and the scrupulousness of his methods," she also said that Garrison, "in accusing anti-Castro Cuban exiles and CIA agents of complicity in the assassination, has postulated a theory which has much in common with the hypothetical construct elaborated in Chapter 21." In otherwords, when it came to the big picture Meagher and Garrison were not that far apart. The enormity of the forces that opposed Garrison's investigation have been well documented. According to Gaeton Fonzi, the HSCA learned that the CIA planted several undercover operatives on Garrison's staff. Garrison had to depend on borrowed or donated funds to conduct his investigation. Contrast this to the enormous resources of the Warren Commission, the FBI, and even the national media, that marginalized Garrison at every opportunity. Even with the benefit of hindsight, I think it is difficult to fully understand just what Garrison was up against. The pressures on him had to be enormous. Garrison's investigation came during a period of great social and political upheaval in the United States, due in large part to assassinations and the Vietnam war. It can be argued endlessly to what extent Garrison's failings affected future investigation into Kennedy's murder. I do believe that Jim Garrison came to understand after Shaw's trial what had happened to him. I also believe Garrison was chillingly prophetic when he wrote in his passionate and eloquent book, A Heritage of Stone: A successful coup d'etat affects not merely the history of a nation but may change its very power structure. With the killing of John Kennedy, the very position of the Presidency was drastically reduced in status. Henceforth, the President would be a broker for the war machine. He would be an advocate and spokesman for the Pentagon. All Presidents that followed Kennedy would have to know of their impotence, no matter what their public role. And: If we cannot have the truth once and for all about the government's murder of John Kennedy, if the warfare interests in our government are so powerful that they cannot be questioned about such things, then let us have an end to the pretense that this is a government of the people. If the American people choose to do nothing about what was done to John Kennedy and about the subtle conversion of their country from a democracy to a thinly disguised version of the warfare state, then the republic is lost and we shall never see it again in our time. Garrison's words were written 36 years ago. Are they still relevant today? I suppose that is for each of us to decide for ourself. Mike Hogan

In the link Adam posted, the author Will Durham stated: "The front of the hijacked Boeing 757 can be seen entering one video frame, with a massive explosion and orange fireball erupting upon impact with the Pentagon, followed by a plume of smoke." Judicial Watch (They filed the FOIA action) president Tom Fitton was quoted elsewhere: "This ought to put to rest the conspiracy theories out there that American Airlines Flight 77 was shot down and that a missile hit the Pentagon." Widely reported yesterday in an article by Robert Burns: Debra Burlingame, whose brother Charles was the pilot of the American Airlines plane, said in a telephone interview that she realized Pentagon officials were compelled to release the videos under the Freedom of Information Act. But she said the images provide no new information about what happened that day. Ms. Burlingame said she doubted that release of the videos would do anything to dispel the many conspiracy theories, including the claim by some that the Pentagon was hit by a missile. The Pentagon videos provide only the briefest glimpse of the plane as it hits the building; the images were recorded on cameras designed to record license plates of vehicles entering the Pentagon grounds and were too slow to capture the airplane’s approach. The series of still images can be viewed here: http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/index.html I offer no opinion on the above except that that I agree with Ms. Burlingame. Releasing these images five years after the event, and the fact people are still analyzing photographic evidence from Dallas and the authenticity of same 43 years later indicates that debates about what actually hit the Pentagon are likely to continue for a long time. Adam, did you view those images before posting what you did? Mike Hogan

I think at the time Marty Venker was in Secret Service school, only grainy, black and white bootleg copies of the Zapruder film were available to the general public. It was not until 1975 that the public actually saw Groden's color version. In that context, Venker's statement might make a little more sense. Mike Hogan

The early reviews are in...... http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-...onDate&n=283155

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/fortwayne/new...al/14569655.htm No comment

Ron Ecker, Ron, that was an interesting essay by Abid Ullah Jan. Thanks for posting the link to it. And I'm glad to see you sticking to your guns. I read the essay and your intitial assessment in your post seems fair and even understated. Forty years ago Sylvia Meagher and Harold Weisberg wrote pioneering books that demonstrated that the Warren Commission conducted an inadequate investigation into the murder of President Kennedy. Today, their books are considered classics and there is no serious doubt among historians and researchers that Meagher and Weisberg (and others) signified the beginning of a collapse of the official government version (like a house of cards, as Schweiker put it). Did these authors prove a conspiracy? Did they prove the who, how, and why of Kennedy's murder? Were they right about everything they wrote? Of course not. Did they prove, using the government's own data and conclusions that something was seriously amiss? Of course they did. Their criticisms have stood the tests of time and probity. Here we are almost half a century later the events surrounding Kennedy's death are still being researched, explored, debated, and written about. Perhaps if the Warren Commission had conducted a complete and truth seeking investigation, we would be much closer to closure in this case. Many believe that failure to investigate properly has made it likely that the full truth will never be known. It has been not quite five years since 9/11. The executive office resisted with great vigor any attempts to have a formal investigation of what led up to and what happened on that horrible and tragic day. It was only after unyielding pressure from a group of "9/11 widows" in New York, demanding an investigation that the administration was forced to relent. Bush followed by nominating Henry Kissinger to chair the Commission, but that's another story. Just like the Warren Report, the 9/11 Commission Report was released with great fanfare and glowing praise by the major media. Of course, it was another case of the government investigating itself, all the while beholden to the executive branch. Weisberg and Meagher had to struggle to be heard. No publisher would touch Weisberg's findings; he had to self publish. Meagher managed to find a small publisher named Bobbs-Merrill. Today we have the internet and information flows infinitely faster, and anyone can have a blog or website and cut and paste a few links to buttress their opinions. While the access to information is to be welcomed, it becomes all the more important to check and cross check sources. There is a plethora of sensational, unproven and unsubstantiated claims that litter the information highway. Separating information from misinformation or disinformation can be difficult, if not impossible at times. Just as there were people that thought the Warren Report was gospel, there are people today that believe the same thing about the 9/11 Commission Report. Oft times they ask doubters for proof of the unprovable. They lump the credible concerns about the Report in with the sensationalistic claims and tend to paint all with a broad brush. It is quickly becoming a given that the government's investigation into 9/11 was at best, incomplete and, at worst, incompetent and dishonest. Not even mentioning the collapse of WTC7 in their findings cannot be defended. Not addressing serious concerns about the identities and backgrounds of the alleged highjackers is also indefensible. They identified Mohamed Atta as "the tactical commander of the operation," and spent one page on his life, upbringing, and religious metamorphasis. A careful reading of the footnotes will indicate they got their information from "friends and acquaintances" of Atta's and they did so in a very cursory manner. I could go on, but there really is no point in doing so. Those that accept the government version are going to continue to cast aspersions on views that differ from theirs and are unlikely to be convinced. On the other hand, those that read and study will have to go through the exercise of separating fact from fiction, not an easy task as I mentioned earlier. To me it boils down to this: The 9/11 Commission failed in its duties. Where do we go from here? Digressing from the above I just want to note that in the link you provided, Abid Ullah Jan wrote: There is evidence, which shows that the Arabs used in the 9/11 operation were working with the U.S. government. A series of articles suggest that at least seven of the so-called 9/11 hijackers were trained in US military bases.400 The New York Times reported: “The Defense Department said Mr. Atta had gone to the International Officers School at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama; Mr. al-Omari to the Aerospace Medical School at Brooks Air Force Base in Texas; and Mr. al-Ghamdi to the Defense Language Institute at the Presidio in Monterey, Calif.”[401] Ahmed Alnami, Ahmed Alghamdi, and Saeed Alghamdi even listed the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Florida as their permanent address on their driver’s licenses.[402] Hamza Alghamdi was also connected to the Pensacola base.[403] According to Guy Gugliotta and David S. Fallis, Washington Post Staff Writers: "Two of 19 suspects named by the FBI, Saeed Alghamdi and Ahmed Alghamdi, have the same names as men listed at a housing facility for foreign military trainees at Pensacola. Two others, Hamza Alghamdi and Ahmed Alnami, have names similar to individuals listed in public records as using the same address inside the base. In addition, a man named Saeed Alghamdi graduated from the Defense Language Institute at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, while men with the same names as two other hijackers, Mohamed Atta and Abdulaziz Alomari, appear as graduates of the U.S. International Officers School at Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala., and the Aerospace Medical School at Brooks Air Force Base in San Antonio, respectively."[404] Len Colby posted a link and stated: "The bit about hijackers being trained by the gov't was dealt with here." As if somehow that was a rebuttal of what Ullah Jan wrote above. I went there and searched in vain for any identification or credentials of those responsible for the website. Perhaps I missed it. But they did write this good advice: Whatever you believe about 9/11, the spreading of false claims helps no-one, and we’d like to play a small part in revealing some of them. We’re not about debunking entire conspiracies, then, but will use this site to zoom in on what we think are the more dubious stories, revealing the misquotes, the distortions, the inaccuracies that are so common online. But does this make us an authority? No. If we’ve an overall message here, it’s check things for yourself. Don’t trust a site just because it’s telling you what you want to believe. Don’t believe us without evaluating our arguments and checking the references we provide, either (we’re as likely to make mistakes as anyone else). Look into the claims yourself, discover both sides of the argument, and make your own mind up. The truth deserves nothing less. (Bold mine) I looked at what they offered about claims some of the highjackers were trained to fly by the U.S. Government. They cited Newsweek magazine as a source. Here is what Newsweek's team of authors said: Sept. 15 — U.S. military sources have given the FBI information that suggests five of the alleged hijackers of the planes that were used in Tuesday’s terror attacks received training at secure U.S. military installations in the 1990s. THREE OF THE alleged hijackers listed their address on drivers licenses and car registrations as the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Fla.—known as the “Cradle of U.S. Navy Aviation,” according to a high-ranking U.S. Navy source. Another of the alleged hijackers may have been trained in strategy and tactics at the Air War College in Montgomery, Ala., said another high-ranking Pentagon official. The fifth man may have received language instruction at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Tex. Both were former Saudi Air Force pilots who had come to the United States, according to the Pentagon source. But there are slight discrepancies between the military training records and the official FBI list of suspected hijackers—either in the spellings of their names or with their birthdates. One military source said it is possible that the hijackers may have stolen the identities of the foreign nationals who studied at the U.S. installation. The five men were on a list of 19 people identified as hijackers by the FBI on Friday. The three foreign nationals training in Pensacola appear to be Saeed Alghamdi and Ahmad Alnami, who were among the four men who allegedly commandeered United Airlines Flight 93. That flight crashed into rural Pennsylvania. The third man who may have trained in Pensacola, Ahmed Alghamdi, allegedly helped highjack United Airlines Flight 75, which hit the south tower of the World Trade Center. My point is the information provided by the website that Len Colby provided to deal with "the bit about the highjackers being trained by the gov't" seems to either support or be inconclusive about Ullah Jan's claims. And frankly, whether it is or is not, the fact that they use sources like Wikpedia makes it incumbent to heed their advice and check the references they provide. And check other sources. Somehow, I think you do that Ron. Mike Hogan

I saw that video clip, John. At first I didn't recognize Groden. That's an explosive revelation he made. Gotta look forward to any book by Groden, controversial or not. Gerald McKnight mentions a forthcoming book from an unknown author that will show Oswald was not on the sixth floor at the time of the shootings. And Mr. McKnight is working on sort of a prequel to Breach of Trust. And if I'm not mistaken, Mr. McKnight mentioned he's seen a manuscript by Michael Kurtz that will probably be published soon Larry Hancock's revised Someone Would Have Talked is due early this summer. Personally, I can hardly wait for it. Bradley Ayers' book is due to be released very soon, according to the publisher. . David Lifton's opus on Lee Oswald is due to be released any day now. I think I must be leaving out several others. For forty years I have eagerly awaited the next big book on the Kennedy assassination. I've kept hoping for the one that would break the case. Hoping against hope. I do think that many authors feel they either solved the case, or came very close, only to have their work either ignored or discounted by the rest of the research community and the public at large. I was just kidding about Lifton's book. Mike Hogan

John, I think you left out a "[sic]"

If, after readily determining "the location of the Presidential Limousine at the impact point to JFK of each of the three shots fired," the Secret Service would have done things differently maybe things would only be, say 2.8 times more "confused and asnine" than the about 20X that Mr. Purvis says exists today. The HSCA stated in their findings: D.) Agencies and departments of the U.S. Government performed with varying degrees of competency in the fulfillment of their duties. President John F. Kennedy did not receive adequate protection. A thorough and reliable investigation into the responsibility of Lee Harvey Oswald for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy was conducted. The investigation into the possibility of conspiracy in the assassination was inadequate. The conclusions of the investigations were arrived at in good faith, but presented in a fashion that was too definitive. 1.The Secret Service was deficient in the performance of its duties. 2. The Secret Service possessed information that was not properly analyzed, investigated or used by the Secret Service in connection with the President's trip to Dallas; in addition, Secret Service agents in the motorcade were inadequately prepared to protect the President from a sniper. 3. The responsibility of the Secret Service to investigate the assassination was terminated when the Federal Bureau of Investigation assumed investigative responsibility. The above was in carefully guarded language. In more direct terms, important Secret Service agents stayed up late and got drunk the night before. In Dealey Plaza, reactions of the agents (save Clint Hill) were woefully slow. The Secret Service repeatedly violated their own Presidential security directives. There were numerous reports of mysterious men producing Secret Service identification in Dealey Plaza immediately following the assassination. Secret Service agents gave conflicting and false testimony to the FBI and Warren Commission. Secret Service agents were among the first to see the President's mortal wounds, even before the doctors at Parkland and their early descriptions are at odds with official findings. The Secret Service hijacked the late President's body out of Dallas, ultimately denying a proper autopsy. The Secret Service had initial possession of much of the crucial evidence including Connally and Kennedy's clothing, the crime scene in the limousine, photographs and films, CE399, and later, autopsy photographs and x-rays. They destroyed certain evidence that would have been necessary had Oswald gone to trial. Pretty impressive performance from an agency whom some believe had the facts all figured out shortly after the assassination. Mike Hogan

Lying thugs like Gordon Liddy, Oliver North and Mark Fuhrman become media darlings. Honest, accurate books like Somebody Would Have Talked and Breach of Trust struggle to find an audience outside of the JFK research community and are ignored by the major news organizations. Its business as usual in the United States of America. If the truth "shall set ye free" then we Americans are living in the shackles of whatever the opposite of freedom is. We live in a prison of falsehoods and dark secrets far beyond our ability to understand. We have been conditioned to accept the unacceptable, believe the unbelievable, and quickly forget the unforgettable. Is our mental incarceration outrageous, tragic, or just cynically laughable? Personally, I find it revolting and repugnant that Mark Fuhrman could offer his Posneresque bulls___ theories to the mix and get national publicity to help his crap sell. Aware of the publicity, the publisher Harper Collins will undoubtedly print a plethora of copies, many of which will ultimately be resigned to the remainder shelves at your local Borders or Barnes & Noble. But the damage will have been done. With a heavy, collective sigh, we can add another one to the Liebleresque pile of disinformation. Harper Collins has generously afforded us a look at this masterpiece. Fuhrman begins in the first person with the "everybody remembers exactly where they were when they learned President Kennedy had been killed" vehicle. He quickly goes on to relate that he grew up in Los Angeles, tells a few anecdotes that have the distinct flavor of an author's imagination, conjured up to make good reading. In the sixth grade in 1963, Fuhrman tells the reader that he didn't know anything about the Kennedy family and that he "didn't even understand what they meant when they called him rich." Those claims deserve no further comment. They speak for themselves. Fuhrman says that he spent the next couple of afternoons in front of his family's Zenith black and white television. He writes: One afternoon, sitting just a couple of feet from our television, I watched carefully as the assassin walked in front of the cameras. Looking back over my shoulder, I saw my mom ironing our uniforms for school the next day. Turning back toward the television, I saw Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed by Jack Ruby. One afternoon? Ruby shot Oswald at 11:21 CST. In Los Angeles, it would have been a couple of hours earlier. Where the hell are Fuhrman's editors and fact checkers? Fuhrman can't even get his own story straight. Granted, this has nothing to do with the facts surrounding President Kennedy's murder. But it does smack of the intellectual dishonesty that is almost certain to be inherent throughout Mark Fuhrman's book. If there is any doubt of that, just read the interview he gave to Harry Smith of CBS. (Thanks to Ron Ecker for the link). Mike Hogan

Mike Hogan wrote: .....isn't it possible Sirhan actually believed (or came to believe) that his shots were fatal, when in fact, as some have posited, the fatal shot originated elswhere? I know you have additional reasons for your conclusion that it was Sirhan, and Sirhan alone and I respect those. In otherwords, Sirhan may or may not have believed what he told Time Magazine, but that quote does little to convince one that it was he and he alone. The physical evidence and eyewitness accounts are entirely different matters. Dan Moldea replied: Come on, Michael. You're suggesting that Sirhan thought he did it and took credit for doing it--but didn't really do it. Once again, prove that there was a second shooter at the crime scene. Believe me, you can't do it. With regard to the apparent discrepancies in the physical evidence and eyewitness accounts, I refer you to my book. In my opinion, there are simple answers to just about everything. Yes, Dan that is exactly what I was suggesting. I took great care in my post to indicate that if the other evidence implicated Sirhan, then so be it. In that case Sirhan and you are both right. My only point was that a quote that Sirhan gave Time magazine in and of itself is not enough to incriminate him and, in fact has little, if any bearing on the actual evidence as to whether or not he acted alone. Although its been years, I did read your book. I made no claim in my post of Sirhan's singular guilt or innocence. And I didn't refer to any discrepancies in the physical evidence and eyewitness accounts, even though they may have existed. I just feel like you missed my point. Or perhaps I didn't do a very good job of making it. The murder of Robert Kennedy's brother sure seems to be an exception to your dictum that there is a simple answer to just about everything. With that said, thanks for joining the forum and sharing your views. Mike Hogan

I sort of like replying to my own post...... Porter Goss recently (5/6/06) spoke to the graduates of Tiffin University in Ohio. He said: "If I were speaking to graduating CIA case officers I would advise them, Admit nothing, deny everything, and make counter-accusations." And to think they fired this guy!

Forgive me for interjecting Mr. Moldea. I never interviewed Sirhan and am by no means an expert but isn't it possible Sirhan actually believed (or came to believe) that his shots were fatal, when in fact, as some have posited, the fatal shot originated elswhere? I know you have additional reasons for your conclusion that it was Sirhan, and Sirhan alone and I respect those. In otherwords, Sirhan may or may not have believed what he told Time Magazine, but that quote does little to convince one that it was he and he alone. The physical evidence and eyewitness accounts are entirely different matters. Mike Hogan