Anthony Thorne

There's a few theories going around, depending who you read. They range from 'it was accidentally leaked' to 'it was leaked intentionally by the Chinese' to 'it was leaked by the US but was intended to only cripple China' to 'it was either leaked or an accident, no-one is sure exactly which, but various US and Chinese officials are so tightly linked on the topic that none of them want to dig too deep to get answers'. RFK Jr's next book is entitled The Wuhan Cover Up, and is out in just over a month. It's on Amazon here. https://www.amazon.com/Wuhan-Cover-Up-Officials-Conspired-Childrens/dp/1510773983/ref=sr_1_1?crid=YF08W0JBWNEZ&keywords=wuhan+cover+up&qid=1686874995&s=books&sprefix=wuhan+cover%2Cstripbooks-intl-ship%2C267&sr=1-1 The listing notes - Among other things (obviously) RFK Jr's book makes note of the increase in biosecurity spending, and how various parties and groups benefited from this. Anyone interested in that topic should check out Susan Wright's 50-page academic thesis Terrorists and Biological Weapons - Forging the Linkage in the Clinton Administration. It's online here http://websites.umich.edu/~spwright/articles/WRIGHT.pdf In her thesis, Wright singled out Joshua Lederberg as being the number one figure pushing for exactly that goal in the 90's (in his case, over warnings of a future anthrax attack). Lederberg was an advisor to and business associate of Dick Cheney, and in Lederberg's papers there are letters from Cheney thanking Lederberg and asking him to return to advisory groups that Cheney was using throughout the George HW Bush admin. In the articles I've seen on some of the stuff mentioned by RFK Jr above, some names being touted all worked with or under Lederberg, and they appear to be pushing the same goals for profit since Lederberg's death in 2008. (Lederberg is cited in the final essay in COUP IN DALLAS, as he was joined at the hip to various folk who were repeatedly pushing for defense industry profits). There's a few rabbit holes and tip-of-the-iceberg scenarios going around with biological warfare research and the Biden admin at the moment, one of them being labs in Ukraine being potentially used on the sly to develop viruses that could ethnically target citizens in nearby Russia. An Australian medical institute in Melbourne was named in recent stories as helping out with the research (you send us the materials, we'll use our scientists to help give info and advice), and some health advisors to government looked very uncomfortable when Senator Gerard Riddick asked a couple of questions about it (during a COVID enquiry) on camera a month or two ago.

Tim Smith's HSCA volume from Trine Day is now up for pre-order. https://www.trineday.com/collections/upcoming-releases/products/hidden-in-plain-sight-how-the-house-select-committee-on-assassinations-played-games-with-the-evidence-in-the-execution-of-president-john-f-kennedy

Yep, straight from the Brookings Institute. Where do they pick these guys?

I think the Douglass book is fine. I can't think of a single Newman book I could give anyone at the moment that offers a decent overview of the full story and assassination. JFK AND VIETNAM doesn't go into detail about the assassination, OSWALD AND THE CIA won't clear up much of the overall story, and Newman's ongoing series is of marginal use right now to newcomers who might be looking for the sort of overview that the Douglass book offers. Hancock's book is good but there's probably a hundred different things that the Douglass book covers in depth which the Hancock book doesn't even mention. So for people looking for a broad overview of the story I actually agree with RFK Jr. that the Douglass volume is a good pick. RFK Jr. noted in either the Brand interview or another one, that once he got interested in the topic, he read something like 50 volumes on the subject, 'maybe a hundred', so he's now probably better read than most.

RFK Jr. did his interview with Russell Brand in front of a large bookshelf. Newman's OSWALD AND THE CIA is one of the volumes on the shelf, as is FAMILY OF SECRETS. RFK Jr. name checked the Douglass book again in the video, which currently has nearly half a million views. Pretty impressive.

Lovely article, captures some of my thoughts about RFK Jr as well.

I know Barnes pops up heavily in COUP IN DALLAS. Worth noting, several folks likely associated with the assassination cover-up - Nicholas Katzenbach, Leon Jaworski, Robert Storey and a few others, were assigned right afterwards to LBJ's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice (the Katzenbach Commission). I suspect the Katzenbach Commission was a group that would have paid careful attention to how the Warren Commission story, and the ongoing cover-up, was faring. As soon as the Katzenbach Commission finished in 1967, Commission member Kingman Brewster hired Tracy Barnes to be his personal advisor at Yale, see here. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP75-00001R000100230001-1.pdf And I don't have the name handy but another gentleman who helped out the Katzenbach Commission eventually left to oversee Edward Epstein's studies at Harvard. I'll have to write all this stuff up properly at some point. David, I chatted to you in Melbourne a few years back at Greg Parker's conference. I just sent you a personal message.

At Amazon Australia the book is #129 and has 'Best Seller" listed alongside it. Amazon US still has it at #7. It looks like RFK Jr's comments about it have encouraged people to buy it worldwide.

Interesting to see the Douglass book name-checked by the hosts above. As of right now, JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE is now at #21 out of all books on Amazon.

There used to be more. There are now significantly less. James Douglas is 86. JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE came out nearly 15 years ago. The 9/11 truth movement was heavily online for a while, and has now subsided a great deal. There are several sites that used to post 9/11 truth news daily which are now nearly defunct, several forums which used to be heavily trafficked which are now nearly deserted, and numerous writers who used to blog frequently on the topic, who now mostly don't. A few of them have taken to Twitter, some of the others have retreated from doing much publicly. A few esteemed writers from the 9/11 truth movement have died over the past six months, Graeme MacQueen being the most recent. In case it needs restating, I'm not criticising James Douglass in any way. I'm just slightly puzzled at Michael Griffith harping on about Douglass being a 9/11 truther, because if it wasn't for a couple of websites saying, yeah, Douglass is a truther, you'd never know it. As far as I can tell, Griffith has made more noise about Douglass having particular views about 9/11 than Douglass ever has. But I probably don't need to spend much more time puzzling out comments on this forum from Michael Griffith.

I'd missed the Ron Paul comment, and just read the Kennedys and King article about it. Good on him for saying so in public.

I thought it would have been obvious, I am a 9/11 truther myself - I've written as much a number of times - though I possibly look at things there from a slightly different angle to some others. I'm aware of the background of all three men you cite there (though I probably needed the reminder about Guyenot). It's possible for people to have a wide ranging intellectual background, and a graduate level education, and for those same people to also spend a lot of time writing about and thinking about 9/11. David Ray Griffin wrote about 9/11 quite a bit, for nearly two decades. Looking at the footnotes of his books, it's clear he put a lot of thought into what he wrote. So it's possible for people to be all the things you mentioned, and for them to also spend a lot of time writing and thinking about the topic, which is all I was really saying in my post above. I'm not sure how many Griffin books I have on the shelf somewhere, but it's probably close to five. My main point might have been poorly expressed or misconstrued. Michael Griffith tells us in every thread that Douglass is a 9/11 truther. I'd simply ask how much detail we have confirming that Douglass is one, other than that he was given honorary membership with the Consensus 9/11 group (who then give zero about what Douglass' specifics thoughts are on the topic), and another site that notes Douglass is a member and co-founder of Religious Leaders for 9/11 Truth. The site for those guys again has zero statements or quotes that are attributable to Douglass directly. So I find it funny how Griffith goes on yelling that the top of his voice that Douglass is a 9/11 truther, when Douglass never seems to mention the topic, never writes about it, has never been quoted about it, and doesn't seem that involved in saying much about it in public. This hardly seems like a towering body of evidence that can be used to lambast Douglass' JFK work. If Griffith has more detailed commentary or quotes from Douglass about 9/11 he can post it, I guess, but if he doesn't it seems slightly demented to constantly be attacking Douglass about it. He seems to be way more fixated on the subject than Douglass is. Douglass might have given the nod to have his name attached to a couple of these groups, but he largely seems to have other things on his mind, with JFK's death being high among them. So to say the general public will freak out about Douglass' name being listed on a couple of websites seems a bit of a reach.

Good luck if they try to link an article, interview or essay by Douglass where he expounds on that topic, as there pretty much aren't any online. Most 9/11 truthers spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about 9/11, and occasionally also writing about it. As far as I can see, Douglass has mainly just stuck to the JFK topic. I suspected you've mentioned the 9/11 topic on this site next to Douglass' name more frequently than he has in his whole career. Readers tend to blank out a little when the MSM keeps throwing assertions with zero links or backup alongside it, so absent a damning article where Douglass goes into the topic in depth - and I suspect there aren't any - I expect the assertion would be greeted with a shrug. Quite a good book for RFK Jr to suggest. Anyone who reads it will be given a detailed picture of JFK's struggles over his Vietnam policy, which is a useful, major part of the story for newcomers to encounter.

Whitney makes a pretty good case that Dawson didn't 'influence' her and that they were both just covering the same stuff. Likewise, she's right, she has produced two long books on Epstein and those various connections, Dawson has just put together his respective films (all of which really could have used a second pair of eyes to polish various post-production issues). But I'm posting Dawson's stuff here generally for the 9/11 material and the broad overview he offers. If Whitney produced a long documentary just on 9/11, or a book just on 9/11, I'd likely post those instead, but she hasn't. She has a couple of articles up on 9/11, including the substantial piece on the Israeli arrests of the morning of 9/11, but from what I've seen just a handful of pieces overall. Hopefully she doubles back and does a book on the topic as she could obviously write a good one. Ryan's documentaries aren't perfect and I disagree with his inflammatory and frequently aggressive approach on social media - that sort of stuff does no-one any favours - but there aren't that many other solid and comprehensive documentaries out there that dig particularly deep. Not going to dwell on it but Jonathan Elinoff's ECHOES OF TREASON was a documentary I paid for twice, first when I pre-ordered it, the second when I gave him a couple of hundred when he started a GoFundMe or Kickstarter and said the release of that film was finally imminent. Frustration on that state of affairs was part of what led me to go back to brass tacks and take nearly a year off and dig through archival materials to see if I could pull up some answers myself. CIA Crest helped at it had millions of documents that (from what I've seen) have been overlooked by every other 9/11 researcher out there. I found answers when I focused on the Zelikow / Carter / Deutch group that was studying catastrophic terrorism at Harvard (1997), looked at the dozen or so collaborators they had cited as working with them in various articles and reports, and worked backwards. Anyone can do the same. The answers are buried within the final years of the Reagan administration and make everything that followed a lot clearer. I don't mind that Dawson has changed his mind on some topics. He could wear it better if he became less aggressive with the people he disagrees with. I generally agree with him on topics concerning the Pentagon, think he's misreading some of the stuff that AE9/11Truth says about the WTC collapses, but overall find Dawson useful for his material on the hijackers, the Israeli art spy stuff, the guys filming the attack, and that whole through line, going through the years before, and the years afterwards. Everyone's mileage will vary and they need to take the info they find useful and connect it to the pieces they've been able to dig up themselves. I'm not happy to see Dawson causing trouble for Whitney, and I think he sometimes goes out of his way to make things difficult for himself. but ongoing useful 9/11 research is thin on the ground these days and 98% of the truther movement has remained stuck on discussing the same four or five topics for the past 20 years. Below, Graham Allison introduces the 'dismal' topic of catastrophic terrorism at a 1999 Harvard talk, nearly a year after he and Carter had wrapped their 9 month study group on the topic undertaken with 17 other folk, including MITRE's Victor DeMarines,

This only streamed a few hours ago, so it's as fresh as you can get, but not unconnected to this thread. Ryan Dawson, who has done a couple of different, heavily researched 9/11 documentaries, has recently started appearing on various popular streaming sites giving younger viewers a breakdown of his theories and studies into 9/11. This is from a mainstream lifestyle show hosted by what looks like a bunch of young rappers, but they give Dawson the floor from the outset. Four minutes into it, one of the young hosts starts referring to FOIA requests, so I credit those guys for an interest in the topic above the norm. Dawson hits the ground running at minute 5 or 6, with an opening discussion of the 1993 WTC bombing. https://rumble.com/v2m62j8-ryan-dawson-reveals-what-really-happened-on-911...what-the-mainstream-doesn.html Dawson has been cited by several as an influence on Whitney Webb, as some of the stuff that appears in his books, particularly the Epstein material, was covered (and possibly uncovered) by Dawson years earlier. The Rumble link above goes for nearly three hours, so maybe chuck it on while you're making dinner.

I remember the Barrett / O'Reilly interview. Those days were nuts. Two of the three Loose Change guys, Dylan and Korey, worked on an indie action movie shoot for a director friend of mine, Mark, mid last year. I asked Mark to mention the Chris Bury ABC interview where Bury had confronted all three of the Loose Change guys on camera, trying to make them look terrible. Korey shook his head - "We got ambushed on that one", said Korey. You'd probably be interested in seeing some of the stuff we dug up for COUP IN DALLAS, not included in the book. It was more relevant to 9/11 than the JFK assassination, and ultimately didn't appear in the book due to length reasons. A long series of connected incidents through the 80's bringing together Pentagon advisors at the Defense Science Board, corporate business partners of Dick Cheney, and various folk freaking out over the imminent drop of weapons sales as the Cold War started to cool down. The issues were significantly bigger than just lost profits. I'm familiar with all the 9/11 documentaries, Jon's work, David Ray Griffin's work, Webster Tarpley, the Shoestring 9/11 blog, you name it. The names and data uncovered on that topic made for a very neat additional puzzle piece that slots in neatly with the rest of the story, and for my money answered a couple of questions that I thought never would be. Sander's books on 9/11 are underrated, especially his second one.

Interesting thread. UNZ writer Kevin Barrett (who's overall writing career won't be to everyone's taste - he's appeared at conferences with Fetzer) has a new piece up about Chomsky. It's the third piece below - the first, an earlier transcript of a Barrett lecture on Chomsky. The second, correspondence between Chomsky and Barrett from years back that eventually went off the rails. The third, Barrett's new article on Chomsky from this week. Why Chomsky is wrong about 9/11. (Side note - keep your BS detector going while reading this article. Susan Lindauer, mentioned in one paragraph in Barrett's piece, is generally regarded as a Judith Baker-style opportunist who made stuff up to sell books. The 'document the event' quote Barrett makes about the dancing Israelis admitting as much on Israeli TV has never been sufficiently verified to my eyes - the only source out there for it is a Youtube clip of the guys talking from a show, and a subtitle pops up telling us they said it - no transcript or translation or additional evidence is provided, so I think that's always been another attention-grabbing tidbit dangled to trip researchers up. And Judy Wood, noted by Barrett as an AE9/11Truth style demolition expert, is another crank. But after stepping over those - and you have to do this sort of dodging-the-nonsense exercise with almost everything Barrett writes - he makes some interesting points here and there.) https://kevinbarrett.substack.com/p/why-chomsky-is-wrong-about-911 Gulity Demeanour - The Private 9/11 emails of Noam Chomsky. https://www.veteranstodayarchives.com/2013/11/05/chomsky-emails/ Chomsky's ties to Jeffrey Epstein exposed. https://www.unz.com/kbarrett/chomskys-ties-to-jeffrey-epstein-and-suspected-9-11-mastermind-ehud-barak-exposed/ Whitney Webb is great but she goes off the rails just a little with her comments about Allen, see at great length here -

I agree with Michael, (a rarity!), not every book they have there is maybe to my taste but they seem like just another publisher, and I wouldn't presume they'd either be familiar with or overly picking sides on the conspiracy stuff. Funny though - they have the above Brandus book (which I'll never read). They have Mark Shaw's COLLATERAL DAMAGE, which I think Jim tore apart at some point. They have Miranda Devine's book on the Hunter Biden laptop stuff, and they have that Kayleigh McEnany volume. I'll also never read the McEnany volume but I've always thought she was pretty cute so I tend to cut her a lot of slack. But this thread and the Devine link made me double check some stuff, and lo and behold, here's another anti-conspiracy piece from The Spectator, a. well-known conservative magazine, that was published earlier this year. Here's Devine on Tucker Carlson talking about the JFK case. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2022/12/16/miranda_divine_on_cia_outrage_at_an_unaccountable_spy_agency_should_be_the_one_thing_that_brings_americans_together.html And here's the January article from the Aussie edition of The Spectator, responding to Devine's appearance. https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/01/lee-harvey-oswald-killed-jfk/ That article is by John Ruddick, a NSW politician. I have no idea why he's weighing in on the JFK case. But Devine was a well-known fixture in the Australian conservative press for years, and I just wonder if Ruddick was sent to put out the flames in case her regular readers and viewers developed any ideas. Seeing this sort of thing makes me appreciate how Devine went out on a limb to talk about the topic. Ruddick's Wikipedia bio is below. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ruddick

Yep. It's a disquieting part of the 9/11 story.

Fair enough. BTW I don't doubt the paper exists given the specifics you noted, but I couldn't locate it either.

They can start a war and invade another country,. but they couldn't arrange for a handful of patsies to crash some planes into buildings? Shrug. Crime + Lies + Start a war + profit + cover it up with assets in media calling those who question the event conspiracy theorists. If you don't see connections between the two, that's actually fine, as I don't expect researchers to spend months reading about the JFK topic, and then spend months reading about 9/11. We all have lives, and I'm grateful to hear the thoughts of anyone on this forum who is considering the issues and has thoughtful things to say. TBH I think WTC7 is a bit of a distraction as talk about the topic goes round in circles, back and forth, around and around and around we go. There are likely other things about 9/11, where it came from, and where it went, which are of greater interest. But those are just my feelings on it.

Just jumping in briefly, you'd find more people addressing the paper if you bothered to link it, rather than telling us that it's out there somewhere, in X-Files land, and if we seek it we will find it. It may well be over 100 pages long but if you're relying on memory for it rather than checking it and telling us the exact length, I'm assuming it's not overly easy to dig up. Googling JOSIAH THOMPSON WTC7 EDUCATION FORUM brings up nothing. Putting the same term into the forum search engine here also brings up pages of results, but nothing like the paper you're describing. If no-one can find the paper, Thompson hasn't publicised it, and no-one here, including yourself, is linking to it, you probably have your answer as to no-one is discussing what Thompson wrote in it. Even a name for this paper would be of help. If it's all meant to be kept secret though, fair enough, but if you can't find this paper, remember what it was called, or know where to find it, I'm not sure how we're supposed to.

This strikes me again as a method by Fetzer to tar overall research into the topic with the dumbest brush, to poison the subject through association. At a Greens political gathering maybe 15 years ago, some guy (not me, I heard the story from someone who was there) tried to raise the topic of 9/11 to the speakers and the crowd. A woman elsewhere in the crowd immediately yelled, "Those are the guys that think no planes flew into the buildings!" The whole crowd yelled an angr, derogatory "Aaahhhhh" in response (there's actually an Australian vocalisation that would be best spelled out as "Nyyyyyoooooooahhhhggggh!!", but it's unexplainable to people outside the country who haven't heard it, and immediately recognisable to locals down here who have), and the topic was shut down permanently. Howard Stern picking a no-planer to appear on his show onetime so he could broadcast her nutty theories was another similar method to paint people with questions, or more, with the nut job brush. JFK researchers should be able to see the trend from the coverage of (maybe the 50th) anniversary a few back, where mainstream news stories noted how there were Elvis impersonators and folks talking about aliens in the crowd when they talked about the people who had gathered on the day.

I'm sure they can do all those things. I'm sure if 50 or 100 or 150 people were involved in a complex task, conspiracy, crime, project or initiative, those people, and other people that worked for them, would all know about it. So I'm not sure where 'without anyone knowing' comes into it TBH.

Just on Fetzer, it's always seemed that his M.O was to discredit credible areas of research by polluting it in the way that Pat described above - linking it to doubts about the moon landings, Holocaust denial, and potentially sightings of Bigfoot if he could. If that wasn't doable, he'd try to boil the discussion down to science, and only the science, as that would restrict the discussion another way - much as if someone had persuaded John Newman to spend a decade only looking at the ballistics evidence from the morning of JFK's murder in Dealey Plaza. It'd ultimately tell you much about that 1% of the story, and zero about the rest of it, so the same goal would be achieved - derailing or curtailing discussion of the bigger picture.