Anthony Thorne

Mods should have the ability to sticky a thread with 'controversial' or 'heated discussion'; or something. This would serve two purposes. Anyone who wanted to skip the heated rhetoric would have a solid warning to skip it. And anyone who wanted to thread-crap a subject into oblivion to kick a topic off the front page, wouldn't be able to do so. That said I agree with Pat that there the two most vocal sides here are each stuck in the ground, sticking to their guns, going around in circles etc. I asked Matt a question a couple of pages back about the bridge bombing plan, not because I was dismissive, but because I was curious what the full story was. Unless I'm wrong, he never answered it. If folks wanting to learn additional info are being brushed off in favour of the target shooting that has been going on for pages now, this thread may as well die a natural death. Relatively new, Joel van der Reijden's chronology of CIA / Mossad collaborations. He plans further updates to it. https://isgp-studies.com/mossad-cia-coups

Hi Chuck, I've posted a few things in some other threads which were met with either a 'hmmm' or a shrug. The big stuff I dug up takes a lot of writing to present in context and a chunk of it isn't even JFK related so it's on the back burner for now. That noted there were a few tidbits that Leslie and I discussed while mucking around on the essay that I'm not sure ended up in the final book. I have a couple of things here and there that might come out in the future, and there's an essay I want to write at some point that digs further into some of the stuff Lance De Haven Smith covered re the origins of the 'conspiracy theory' phrase used by the CIA in the 60's - he referenced some overseas news articles, and I dug up a couple of things referencing the names involved with that which kind of square the circle - but there's no timeframe for it. I'll just add my essay involved a heap of research and conversation (the final piece was around 13,000 words, the one in the book is a bit over 3000 words I think) but it was all done right at the tail end of the work Leslie and HP had already done for COUP and I kind of was just throwing them some insights and research here and there at the very end of the process - yet the process of researching a few areas dug up a bunch of stuff, all largely from CIA Crest, which I'll have to tackle properly at some point. I think a couple of posters have read the longer essay.

Matthew, can you explain more about what the guys arrested hoped to achieve at the Washington Bridge? I've seen the clips and heard the audio that was called in after they were arrested - what was their intended goal there if they hadn't been stopped. To blow something up and blame it on Palestinians, or was it something less dramatic than that?

My own searches this morning were versions of WHAT DOCUMENTS ARE ONLINE FROM THE 1960'S DISCUSSING [insert name here}, and WHO WERE THE MEMBERS OF [insert group} in 1987? Some useful info and food for thought came up in the responses.

Up to you, and I appreciate your vigilance, but as I said I just see the standard usual stuff from their FAQ right now. A bigger query would be what the success rate is for queries as far as their info goes. I just found some Lockheed and government doc stuff that I'd been after, and a few nice leads on some bits and pieces from the 60's. But I mainly found it useful as a starting point for further Google searches. Time will tell I guess.

Again, Robert, please calm down, and again - what are you going on about here? Did you read what you just posted? As proof that the AI is accessing your private Bard activity, you cite a link stating that Google is storing the bard activity in your Google account. This makes sense if they're keeping a standard record of what was searched. I figured that they would. Where does it say it's accessing the drive for queries? It doesn't.

Yep, I did figure that Google had access to all the documents stored on the Google drive. I almost view it the same as YouTube having access to all the videos that are on Youtube. Not a huge mystery whatever way you slice it.

Robert, what are you talking about? Google Bard is run by Google. I'm pretty sure Google already has everything that is on the Google drive. I know this because I can't access any of it unless I sign in to Google, at which point Google lets me access the documents that Google is storing there. I just clicked two different links just now at the Google Bard site reading their FAQ's as to what is kept and recorded and collected. it's exactly the same stuff that I would have figured Google was collecting, nothing particularly out of the ordinary. As far as banking information goes, I'm not sure how many people go so far as to store their own personal banking info with Google in Google docs. But if anyone is doing this, then they're giving their banking info to Google, probably without Google even asking for it. it seems a bit rich then to complain that Google has this, if you're going out of your way to give it to them. Beyond all that, and more specifically, where does Google Bard say that they're accessing the materials on your private Google account or drive to conduct their searches? This seems to be what you're implying. Feel free to post a link if Google states that they're doing this. I just read a couple of pages of their standard FAQ's and terms and as far as I can see, they're not. All the 'accessing your conversations' quotes refer to what you're typing into Google Bard, nothing more or less. Google Bard does appear to have an option where you can export its responses to Google docs. This actuality makes sense on a number of levels if you want to store its responses and commentary. I'd suggest people use Google Bard with a grain of salt and double check or verify whatever it digs up, but it appears to be a useful blunt level tool to dig stuff up quickly that might take you personally a good 30 or 40 minutes of surfing around to find things out the same way. Feel free to not use it if you think the Bard is stealing your data, but I just searched the term GOOGLE BARD ACCESSES GOOGLE DOCS on both Google and Duck Duck Go, and I'm not seeing any other commentary online from people suggesting that Google Bard is accessing their private drives for nefarious purposes. if you have more concrete data or links indicating that Google Bard is doing things outside their standard and somewhat boring terms and conditions, feel free to post it.

Zelikow was brought into the NSC by Robert Blackwill, and he and Blackwill then became fixtures at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, run by its Dean, Graham Allison. The Kennedy School was and is no ordinary school, and Allison was not an ordinary figure running it. Both Allison and the School had been joined at the hip to the Pentagon, CIA and military figures within government since the late 60's. Allison had started off in the 60's co-chairing a study group under Ernest May - known as the 'May Group' - for the Joint Chiefs to debate what had gone wrong during the Cuban missile crisis. In the 70's, Allison ran a program at the school preparing senior figures for positions in government. In the 80's, the school did work for the CIA, and created a permanent position for a CIA figure on campus. Allison also worked as an advisor to Dick Cheney, and worked for a strategy group run by the former Chairman of the JCOS, William Crowe. In personal correspondence to Barry Goldwater through this period, Crowe was adamant the country needed a new military build-up. Allison was doing other things of importance in the same vein through the 80's as well, but that's just a few of them. Allison's mentor Ernest May had been a historian for the Joint Chiefs in the 50's, was enlisted again to write further Pentagon studies and reports and histories in the late 80's, and was very enthusiastic about the 9/11 Commission report when it eventually came out. Zelikow, in turn, was enthusiastic about May's work and May's influence on his writings. You can take the notion of someone writing an 'official history' for the Joint Chiefs, or an official history providing the Pentagon's view of a particular incident to the public, and view the 9/11 Commission report under that light. It explains a couple of things. In the late 90's, Allison and Zelikow did a rewrite together of Allison's original ESSENCE OF DECISION text. Allison and other Kennedy School members also appear in the full roster of participants from the 1997/1998 Catastrophic Terrorism Study Group (CTSG) - this is the name given to it by Zelikow - that led to the Foreign Affairs article I linked to above. More than a few members of the Defense Science Board also appear in the roster of the CTSG. This was a group set up to deliberate on how an incident of catastrophic terrorism would affect the USA, and what the repercussions would be afterwards. When the Kennedy School eventually did a 20th anniversary discussion on the importance of 9/11, what it meant for the world, how to view it today, Zelikow gave the opening talk, and Allison gave the closing one. 9/11 researchers might need to read between the lines a little bit, and then maybe dig further to see what comes up, but any planning for 9/11 would have entailed a number of things that would need to be discussed and figured out in advance. Not just the attacks on September 11, 2001, but also The official story, including the narrative of what the hijackers had been up to The story of why the hijackers had not been captured, what went wrong, how mistakes were made, etc The subsequent War on Terror, in its specifics and how the War on terror would be presented to the public. That's the least of it, but if you go in with the notion that 9/11 was planned, you have to expect that some of the above was part of the planning, and that they needed a group to do the planning for them, and a place to do at least some of that planning. Who was Allison a personal advisor to again?

Rumsfeld had sent a letter to (I think) William Colby in the year or so before Colby's death, asking for his feedback and possible endorsement of a military strategy Rumsfeld was fixated on at the time. The strategy was 'shock and awe' and in the letter I read that Colby had sent back to Rumsfeld, Colby essentially said "Yeah, that's great, thanks for filling me in Donald, it's definitely interesting." or polite words to that effect. The strategy team that Rumsfeld was working with later distributed a study covering the tactic that Rumsfeld was keen on. It's here. http://www.dodccrp.org/files/Ullman_Shock.pdf That document was published in October 1996. The plan to invade Iraq appears to have been floating around through the 90's, and Rumsfeld was likely keen on the tactic as he knew it would get a good workout in the future. The first two names on the cover are James Wade and Harlan Ullman. Wade appears again below. A year before she died, Ullman was cited by DC Madam Deborah Palfrey as a regular customer. Go figure. https://edition.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/12/dc.madam/index.html The full 9/11 story has a lot of deep rabbit holes, but I'd boil some of it - not all of it - down to the following. The requirement for a catalysing event, and plans to carry it out, were devised over the course of a few years at the very end of the 80's when various government and industry figures became extremely alarmed at the imminent drop in defense spending as the Cold War drew to a close. The trickle-down effect of diminished military technology investment was viewed as a potential national security crisis by insiders. The decision that 'something needs to be done' was conveyed within limited circles. People who could be convinced, were convinced. People who could be encouraged to help out for a big future financial reward were encouraged to do so. In a few instances, people who would ultimately need to be blackmailed, to encourage them to either help or to keep quiet, were potentially blackmailed. And people who were best kept out of the loop, and in the dark, were not told of what was being prepared. Prominent figures involved in the activities described in the above paragraph, took place in some of the annual American Assembly conferences in Washington from 1989 to 1991. Go through the books that the Assembly prepared for each gathering, and you'll see members from the Israeli security scene popping up in the first, and Wolfowitz and a lot of hawks gathering together for the final one. (The 1991 conference received funding from the armaments industry, btw). Wolfowitz put together his Defense Planning Guidance around the time of the final conference, and gave a talk giving a preview of what was on his mind. I think some insiders knew that the future catalysing event would enable a reciprocal attack against a Middle Eastern target,. Some figures expected that target to just be Afghanistan. A deeper layer of participants felt that they could piggy back the event to direct a second attack against Iraq. The Afghanistan attack occurred not long after 9/11. The Iraq invasion took some insiders by surprise, and took the George W Bush admin a year and a half of extra effort to get off the ground. It's worth pondering whether some insiders knew the WTC buildings would be hit, and only a smaller circle knew that those buildings wouldn't be left standing. If you want a name to place near the very top, try Norman Augustine. He was the former government insider who had reached an elevated position both in industry and as an advisor to government. He led the circles that started the panic in the late 80's, and pops up in key places in what came afterwards. For additional reference, check the article at the end of this post detailing the scratch-each-other's-back govt/business relationship between eventual CIA director John Deutch and Augustine. The Defense Science Board, cited below, led the various studies that created the panic around defense spending in the late 80's. Augustine's 1987 study into the semiconductor industry, done at the request of Caspar Weinberger, was the trigger for those, see here. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1987/05/10/us-chip-industrys-gloomy-future/93b379fd-1e80-48b1-8d78-08461e556606/ Augustine's 'the sky is falling' activities (there were several more than are cited here) took place just as a wave of Reagan administration figures had exited or were preparing to leave government, and were looking for new avenues of making some cash. Cited below, James P Wade, the co-author with Ullman of Rumsfeld's later Shock and Awe planning. A decade after Augustine began rattling the cage, Deutch would sit on a 1997 group alongside Philip Zelikow at Harvard studying castrophic terrorism as a likely imminent event for the country, and co-author the Foreign Affairs paper on the topic with Zelikow and Ashton Carter, another Defense Science Board figure. https://web.mit.edu/chemistry/deutch/policy/1998-CatastrophicTerrorism.pdf Bruce P Jackson, who worked under Augustine at both Martin Marietta and Lockheed, later served as Executive Director of the Project for a New American Century. https://powerbase.info/index.php/Bruce_P._Jackson https://www.vice.com/en/article/avygxk/how-to-make-millions-by-selling-war-917 Below, Deutch helps Augustine make some extra cash. There are additional names and events that flesh out the above narrative significantly, but this will do for now.

W. Niederhut, thanks for the clip. I've seen it before, as it appears to be the only clip online with footage from the later Israeli TV interview of the young men. (There was also a British TV series that interviewed them, possibly the BBC or Channel 4). I stand by my comment that researchers should be cautious about claiming that the men stated 'our purpose was to document the event'. We see footage of the guys talking. We hear some intro music from the show, and the sound of the host chatting to them. After that, for whatever reason, we don't get to hear what they say and read any accompanying subtitles. Instead, we get our unknown narrator talking over the top of them. So we're left to guess if the translation is accurate, and whether the men said the attributed statement. Did they? I have no idea. At around 1:40 into the video, the narrator replays the clip twice where the audio track quotes the man as saying 'our purpose was to document the event', and the second replay of it is over footage of the guy saying maybe two syllables at most. So good luck finding where he actually said it. Realistically, if there was a subtitled clip of the guy making the claim, and you could clearly hear him saying it, with all the words discernible, and subtitles at the bottom of the screen, you could take the footage to your nearest Jewish pal, or the Israeli embassy, or a local community TV outlet, play the clip, and say "Hey, what was this all about?". Then anyone watching it would have to debate or discuss or query the point, and uncomfortable questions might get asked. But this has never happened, and won't happen, because we can't hear the audio of what the guy is saying, and we just have to take the word of the narrator. So the 9/11 truth movement gets a tidbit thrown their way at them to keep everyone occupied and make everyone excited, but it's a piece of evidence that you can't use, can't quote, and can't actually show anyone else, because we have no way of clearly verifying the above. Funny how that works. You'd think that if the guy had made the comment on Israeli TV, and someone wanted to prove to us that he had made the comment on Israeli TV, they would just play us the clip, subtitled, so we could see and hear it for ourselves. But not here. Either way, aside from that statement, the rest of the evidence is on target. It's worth noting that researcher Ryan Dawson has given a much longer breakdown of the Israeli events of that day in his documentary work, and he very recently spent a few hours covering it all again for the Fresh and Fit podcast, a popular lad's lifestyle show on Rumble (which usually focuses on interviews with bikini-clad bimbos and wannabe rappers) where the hosts, more red-pilled than you'd expect, basically turned the show over to Dawson for three episodes and allowed him to detail the above to more than half a million people. The episodes are worth a listen, as Dawson made some FOIA requests of his own, connected the dots to some other news reports, and overall turned up way more to the story than what we'd heard before. FWIW, Dawson talks about the events of that day for a couple of hours, but from memory he also doesn't cite the 'document the event' claim in his breakdown of it. Just a side note if my perspective on things isn't clear. I think both Paul and W. Niederhut are more on target than most with their observations, and I also think if you play devil's advocate and take the 'document the event' claim out of the breakdown cited above, everything else still hangs together. It's that one claim I'd suggest people be wary of.

Thank you Sean. The FOIA documents have their selfies from the morning, where none of them appear to be particularly gloomy.

I'd caution against researchers citing that as a fact, as there's no evidence anywhere confirming this. I've seen the same screenshots and videos that everyone else has of the guys apparently from Israeli TV. There's no transcript of their statements, no audio, and an unidentified narrator makes the same claim that W. Niederhut makes above. It's all very tenuous and there's every chance the claim was made to lead researchers up the garden path - i.e for all I know the men simply appeared on television and told the host, "Well, we're glad that's over with and it's great to be back home." But the Israelis in question were definitely on top of a van, were celebrating at one point, and were definitely arrested. From Marc Perelman's article in the Jewish Daily Forward, March 2002 - https://web.archive.org/web/20030413184526/http://www.forward.com/issues/2002/02.03.15/news2.html So I wasn't there, but if Allen Lowe wants to query why folks believe the arrested suspects were on top of a van, he can ask the New Jersey police who made the claim in their original report. The FOIA release of some police documents, complete with pictures of the goofballs involved from the morning, is linked here. https://www.scribd.com/document/409691150/FOIA-Release-of-9-11-Dancing-Israelis-thru-the-FBI# Christopher Ketchum's March 2007 article on the men for Counterpunch cites the above Forward piece, and goes into additional detail. If Allen above needs further confirmation that the event happened, someone else can post the photos of the twits involved from the FOIA document linked above.

Dr Colleen Shogan is also a novelist. The blurb below is from her novel STABBING IN THE SENATE. The third volume in her detective series, CALAMITY AT THE CONTINENTAL CLUB, features her heroine Kit Marshall searching for clues at the National Archives. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B017CBHTOE?notRedirectToSDP=1&ref_=dbs_mng_calw_0&storeType=ebooks

So they could eventually have bio-weapons near the Russian border. This isn't rocket science.

Less nervous than having missiles pointed at them? There's maybe a difference, but I don't see it as being a big one.

If they were producing biological weapons - on the sly - would it have been written up in the public agreement, or would it be left out of the public agreement? Equally, I'm not sure why you're asking me personally to produce evidence that the US was doing those things at the labs, as I've never asserted there was definite proof that they were doing so. But so far we have the public agreement, and some journalists writing up their reassuring tour of the facilities, presented as evidence that they weren't. Go figure. The long public statement, with screenshots and documentation and photos, that was presented by the Russians as their proof of the assertions, is in the public domain and can be found online if you're curious. I browsed it many months ago, but didn't feel the need to dive deeper into the rabbit hole then, and don't feel the need now. I actually agree with Sandy above, that's it's a possibility. Others can produce greater evidence if they want to confirm it as being a thing.

Who knows? I can see those EU and WHO members bossing their Pentagon counterparts around though.

I doubt the Russians were confused about any of the above. The Nunn-Lugar threat reduction program - the safeguard activities tackling old Soviet weapons programs that seem to be a precursor to the biological weapons agreement - popped up while I was reading stuff for my COUP IN DALLAS essay something like two years ago when documentation showed how several Defense Science Board members were involved. (Ashton Carter, who I'm not a fan of, even wrote a very funny chapter about his travels with William Perry to Russia to work on it in one of his books). I stumbled across it all randomly so I'm sure they've never been too confused about it. Seeing documentation that the lab's stated purpose was not nefarious would never be enough to calm the Russians, simply as the US government, Pentagon and intelligence agencies have a history of setting up organisations or groups for one purpose and then using it for another. How many front groups and activities did the CIA start up in their fight against Communism? More than a few. Don't mind us, we're not doing anything sneaky here, we promise. Oh, okay. Final link in Sandy's good post above - the facilities are operated by the Ukrainian government. Would they be against a bio-weapons program targeted at the Soviets, or for it? If they were against developing weapons to use against Russia then good for them.

I'm not sure why you're treating the presence of American-financed labs in the Ukraine as possible, but unconfirmed. Did you read the Snopes article and follow the initial 'debunking' link that it provided? The second paragraph of the Snopes article says this. As part of the Snopes expose of Russian propaganda, they send us to this debunking link. https://www.codastory.com/disinformation/does-the-us-have-a-secret-germ-warfare-lab-on-russias-doorstep/ And it then notes the following. So the labs are there, they're funded by the Department of Defense, and they have a lot of lethal bacteria and viruses collected there for research. The distinction between the US and Russian explanations for this, are that the Russians feel that the Pentagon built a bio lab containing lethal viruses on their border for nefarious reasons, and the US government says its purpose is benevolent. Does the Pentagon have many other projects on the go at the moment that are funded for altruistic reasons just to help out the world? I guess If this is one, maybe there are others.

Here it is. I wish more people would watch this. Helms acts so guilty here.

George Galloway put out an interesting video today, noting that even though he strongly disagreed with RFK Jr's Israel stance, he was still by far his preferred candidate. I'd be happy to see RFK Jr make it to the Presidency.

Interesting Greenwald interview following RFK Jr's recent Breaking Points interview.

I can't speak for the many US government scientists that regularly collaborate with Chinese ones. The US isn't at war with Chine so maybe joint bio-weapons research wasn't verboten back in the day. I doubt either side would be overly thrilled to continue similar research at the moment. I'm confident every single mainstream US media outlet has called it this, and numerous non mainstream outlets that I've seen have stated the opposite. My own take, I'm sure NATO is involved with standard weapons research concerning nukes and regular armaments, others will need to be the judge as to whether accompanying biological warfare research seems logical or a forbidden step too far. I haven't read RFK's new book yet, so I'll be curious if he talks about it.

Fascinating to read they were using blackmail to get those results back then. I guess if it works, it works. This is what many people cite as being a key thing with the Jeffrey Epstein situation (ie his murder and probable cover-up), that Epstein was a guy who helped blackmail many high profile business people and politicians by getting them on camera sleeping with underage models. Once they'd done it, Epstein and his pals would say, great, now you need to do these things for us - and you're welcome to keep sleeping with those young women, come to our island if you want - or we can leak the tapes and ruin your career. Whitney Webb is all over this stuff at the moment, but I haven't kept track of every detail. I have the ebooks of Newman's earlier volumes, but not this one. I do hope his next volume starts to feel more like a JFK assassination book, as he's taking the long slow route from a good sized distance. But his books are good books and I've learned new things in each one.