1 hour ago, Ron Ecker said:

We should fear the cult leader who sent him there. I believe the number of Americans who voted for this narcissistic would-be autocrat was 70 million, and they don't wear buffalo horns. At the state level they are presently busy passing laws to suppress the vote across the land for their leader. And he has turned one of our two major parties on Capitol Hill into a band of cowardly sycophants. We had better fear him and his "rabble."

 

Ron E.--

Obviously, we have different points of view, and that's fine. 

I will say this: Someday Trump will be gone (I hope sooner rather than later), but the globalist-national security state and its allies in an increasingly concentrated, pervasive and censored media, will be here and stronger than ever. 

We might even agree what are the root causes behind the BLM movement, and the Trump movement. I think it is declining living standards for people who work for a living.

There is some culture-war stuff, and some race stuff, but at bottom is the globalists crapping on the employee class for 50 years running. And then playing ID politics to the hilt. 

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Does Carlson know what  False Flag operation even is?

Northwoods was an example.  That was completely sponsored by the JCS and run by them and then painted over.

That is not what happened on Jan 6th. That was recruited and organized and then fomented by Trump and his followers. 

If someone is going to argue that it was allowed to happen, that is not a False Flag operation. 

 

I dunno. I would not draw conclusions yet. In the wake of 9/11, the FBI entrapped some half-wits into making terrorist statements and plans, in which the FBI itself was the driving force.

I have seen films of the riot at the Capitol.

Believe me, I have a lot of sympathy for the marginalized, the outcasts, the misfits, the estranged, the lost, the embittered. With a bump or two in the wrong direction, there goes I. 

That's who invaded the Capitol that day. Unsympathetically put, the "rabble." The guy in buffalo-horns hat? That's who we fear? 

We have already been through the whole debunked Brian Sicknick story. 

Really, the national security state is about 1 million times better-financed and globally menacing than the lulus who occupied the Capitol on Jan. 6. 

The national-security state (and media allies) always want dangerous domestic subversives and foreign enemies. 

I refuse to be afraid of the guy in the buffalo-horned hat. 

2 hours ago, Robert Burrows said:

I think it would be more accurate to say that Trump was the first president since Jimmy Carter who wasn't embedded in the national security state.

Carter too was set upon by the intelligence community and the media. 

Oh, I lived in DC in the Carter days. He became the punching bag and was framed as a weakling. Boy, he had bad luck. OPEC oil shortages, the failed rescue mission in Iran, inflation. 

On the other hand, he had been a sub captain in the Navy. There was no Russiagate. 

Carter was an outsider, but not from the moon, like Trump. 

The highlights of the Carter Presidency include Billy Beer and this nugget:

"In 1979, Carter deregulated the American beer industry by making it legal to sell malt, hops, and yeast to American home brewers for the first time since the effective 1920 beginning of Prohibition in the United States.^[157] This Carter deregulation led to an increase in home brewing over the 1980s and 1990s that by the 2000s had developed into a strong craft microbrew culture in the United States, with 6,266 micro breweries, brewpubs, and regional craft breweries in the United States by the end of 2017.^[158]"

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

Squabbling over red and blue prevents us from addressing the real issues. 

Chris B-

Not even! On top of that, we have odious ID politics. 

Yes, if the CIA runs a woke ad, then everything is OK.  

Biden is bombing them in Syria and Iraq with rainbow soldiers. 

And "left-wing" publications are running down the Kennedy legacy in front of Biden's decision to honor the JFK Records Act or not. 

The odd truth remains: Trump was the first president since JFK who was not embedded into the national security state and its allies in the media. That does not make Trump a nice guy or a pillar of honesty, or even admirable. It is just a fact. 

7 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

You’re spot on Benjamin. 

Chris B-

Thanks.

My point is this: We should be for freedom of speech, not just when we agree with what is being said. 

We should be skeptical of the national security state, regardless of whether it is targeting one party or the other.

See my topic "New York Magazine gets Punked" 

This is what I am talking about. And this security-state minion Jonathan Chait. 

Matt A:

That's fine.

Still, which does not fit the pattern? 

The nation security state lied--

1. About the JFKA

2. Vietnam and SE Asia

3. 9/11

4. WMD

5. But told the unvarnished truth about Russiagate. 

14 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

The national security state didn't fabricate "Russiagate".  It originated with Hillary Clinton, who knew Trump was totally mobbed up with Russian money, and wanted to use it against Trump. And she was perfectly entitled to do so. 

Do yourself a favor and read the Mueller report.

Matt A: I am pro-democracy also. 

You are correct that the Clintons, who are tight with the national security state (Hillary is little warmonger in pantsuits) went after Trump, which is their right and that is hardball politics. So they commissioned a "study" that found Trump was urinating on Russian hookers or vice versa and so on. They gave the study to the national security state.

My point is the national security was planting stories, through useful idiots like Chait. Chait carries water for the national security state.

And now Chait is sullying JFK---right before Biden (another security-state apparatchik) is set to decide whether the JFK Records act is law or not. 

I want to draw your attention to Chait---who does he carry water for? The track record suggests the national security state, which is why Chait is sometimes called the "liberal hawk." 

I loathed President Nixon, but when the CIA does not turn over Bay of Pigs files to the elected president of the US as requested, and gets away with it, then I am concerned.  

There are some very good writers who think the press was totally bamboozled on the Russigate story, and by the national security state.  Matt Taibbi is one. 

See https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-million

The real story: Trump will be gone someday. The national security state will still be here. 

What do you think of that little twerp Chait? 

Ad on:

But, a recent article by Jonathan Chait suggests that the Trump-Putin relationship goes far deeper than mere admiration. Coupled with Trump's ties to Russia and the indictments people close to him have received, Chait suggests the question to ask is: What if Trump has been a Russian intelligence asset since 1987?

---30---

I am not posting this add-on to trigger yet another Trump debate. If you are pro- or anti-Trump, that is fine.

The point is, the national security state fabricated the Russiagate story, and Chait acted as a mouthpiece---is he is yet another "journalist" security-state flunkie? 

Ergo, Chait is carrying security-state water on the above JFK story and that explains why now, out of the blue, he has decided JFK wasn't so hot? Now that Biden has to decide whether to release the JFK Act documents or not? 

Yes, we need a twerp NY journalist to tell us the real JFK story....

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/06/jfk-accomplished-little-but-his-historic-myth-endures.html

1 hour ago, Tony Krome said:

Harold Norman in the mock courtroom trial was twice asked if he thought there was an armed man upstairs. He answered only that he thought there was a man upstairs.

Harold Norman, at the HSCA, repeated what he heard from his location on the 5th floor;

He told CBS exactly the same thing.

The problem is that the Carcano was loaded when found. The final loading of that bullet required an additional "clack-clack" working of the bolt. Norman should have heard that, and he would have, at the time, expected another boom. Norman made no mention of that expectation.

The first BOOM;

I remember one time when we were out shooting. We were on the back of a ute (pick-up) with high-powered rifles. We just got underway, and I was looking into the bush for a target. Unbeknown to me, one of the guys behind me handed a rifle to another guy, and the recipient grabbed it by the trigger and the rifle fired. The unexpected noise was tremendous and I damn near jumped from the ute. The rule of thumb is that you give everyone the heads up if you're about to start shooting to avoid scaring the crap out of everybody. Norman, in fact all three amigos on the 5th floor, should have jumped out of their skins at the sound of that unexpected explosion just 10 or so feet above them. Yet we note that Norman was so collected, he was able to recount the sounds of explosions, the sounds of the bolt actions, and the sounds of shells hitting the floor.

Mr. BALL. Did you notice where did you think the shots came from? 
Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, the first shot-I really did not pay any attention to it

haha, yeah right!

"Unbeknown to me, one of the guys behind me handed a rifle to another guy, and the recipient grabbed it by the trigger and the rifle fired. The unexpected noise was tremendous and I damn near jumped from the ute."--Tony K.

A hunting party with Dick Cheney? 

12 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Jeff Morley's book about his unsuccessful lawsuit for the classified Joannides file is about more than just that lawsuit,  

Its also about the culture of the Washington Post in relation to the JFK case.  And about how decades of The Federalist Society has completely altered the judiciary system to the point that they have little qualm about overturning precedent. In his case this was done through Richard Leon and Brett Kavanaugh. In the appendix, Morley includes the dissenting opinion of Karen Henderson which shows that in overturning precedent, neither the facts of the case, nor the law really mattered: its like the JFK Act was just shunted aside. George is having a pleasant time wherever he is right now. Thirty years after his death and the Federalist Society is still keeping his secrets.

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/morley-v-cia

This is so dispiriting. 

And the D-Party had little interest in the little GOP-hack judge Kavanaugh's support of state censorship and suppression of documents that the public deserves to see. 

But the Donks had an oceanic interest in Kavanaugh's activities at a high-school beer party, where 30-odd years earlier he might, or might not have, pawed a girl. 

"ON A MONDAY AFTERNOON, on July 9 (2018), the D.C. Court of Appeals handed down a 2-1 decision against me (Jeff Morley) and in favor of the CIA in a long-running Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. At 4:20 p.m., Judges Brett Kavanaugh and Gregory Katsas, a Trump appointee, filed a 14-page opinion with the clerk of the court in Washington. They ruled that the CIA had acted “reasonably” in responding to my request for certain ancient files related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963. Appended to their decision was a 17-page dissent from their colleague Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson who strongly objected to their decision."--The Intercept.

You can't make this stuff up. 

2 minutes ago, Dr. Gregg Wager said:

I lived in Manhattan during 9/11 and remember a colorful newspaper (the New York Observer) which I wrote a few music reviews for in 2001. Every issue had a large color caricature of a prominent New Yorker on it. I remember the caricature of Larry Silverstein when he got the 99-year lease to the World Trade Center only a few months before 9/11. He was fast becoming one of the biggest land developers in Manhattan and a scheme to demolish the buildings on WTC to collect insurance (twice it turned out--considered two terror attacks because there were two airplanes) and then rebuild would make him a ruthless operator indeed (not to mention mass murderer).

Many people also don't mention that 9/11 was an election day for Mayor, and I had gone out early to vote (that is, before the planes hit--the election was of course cancelled later in the day). Local news interrupted the Today Show with the first news of a plane hitting the north tower, but there was a complete blank in terms of news gathering after that until all four planes were down. No one could identify the flights or what airport they had departed from. Even a hijacking by itself would have been national news and would have interrupted any scheduled program not more than five minutes after it occurred. An air traffic controller in Connecticut heard a broadcast from Flight 11 and knew the plane had been hijacked 20 minutes before it hit the north tower. Not one word until more than an hour later.    

 

Dr. Wagner: See my q's for WN. 

Love the LA Philharmonic, but left L.A ten years ago....

29 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Benjamin,

      I agree with David Ray Griffin's analysis that 9/11 was most likely a false flag op used as a "New Pearl Harbor" type event to mobilize popular support for widespread military interventions in the Mideast and Central Asia by the Bush-Cheney administration.  And, in fact, George W. Bush's approval rating sky-rocketed to 90% after 9/11-- as Henry Kissinger correctly predicted in December of 2000, after the 5-4 Bush v. Gore ruling by the SCOTUS.

     As for WTC7, it was built and owned by Larry Silverstein, the same man who was awarded the leases for WTC1 and WTC2 by the Port Authority in July of 2001.  Silverstein, ultimately, collected $4.5 billion from a consortium of insurance companies that underwrote the policies for the WTC in the summer of 2001.

     Silverstein stated in a video recording that he, "Told them to pull it" (i.e., WTC7) shortly before WTC7 collapsed in a free fall demolition late in the day on 9/11.   But who was he referring to as "them?"  The NYFD does not conduct building demolitions, and an expert demolition of a 47 floor steel skyscraper like WTC7 would have required lengthy, advanced preparation by a crew of demolition experts.

So, Silverstein was part of a 9/11 false-flag op, in order to profit from insurers? Did he also retain redevelopment rights? 

I guess 9/11 false-flag op required a number of personnel to install an elaborate system of demolition devices in all three towers? Were the demolition devices masked as something innocuous? Why did nobody notice? 

Also, back to the original question: There seems little propaganda value in WTC being demolished. Was this a favor to Silverstein to increase his insurance claims? 

Did the insurers never become suspicious? My brother once worked for an insurance company as an investigator.  They tend to investigate suspicious and large claims (although they also tend to just raise rates and get regulatory bodies to agree). 

8 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Griffin's work is excellent.  It should be studied by everyone who wants to understand 9/11.

As for the steel substructures of WTC1 and WTC2, they bore no meaningful resemblance to the Surfside building.*

Among other major differences, the WTC towers were constructed of massive exterior and interior steel core columns.  The only way the towers could have collapsed to Ground Zero at near free fall acceleration on 9/11 is if the massive steel interior and exterior columns of the entire building were abruptly demolished.

The gravitational force of collapsing/pancaking upper floors-- not observed on 9/11--would not have sufficed, in any case, to demolish the lower steel substructures.  They were already strong enough to sustain the weight of the upper floors.

But the towers didn't pancake.  They were explosively pulverized into the atmosphere of lower Manhattan.

As for WTC-7, it's a no-brainer that it was also demolished by pre-planted explosives on 9/11.  The bogus NIST computer "simulation" didn't even pretend to explain the observed total free fall collapse of WTC-7.

 

* Official Reports Misrepresented the Towers' Construction

https://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html

Portion of photograph in the collection of the Skyscraper Museum

The detailed architectural drawings make clear what official reports have apparently attempted to hide: that the Twin Towers had massive core columns, and those columns ran most of the height of each Tower before transitioning to columns with smaller cross-sections.

Based on construction photographs exhibited in the Skyscraper Museum and illustrations from the Engineering News Record , 9-11 Research had established by mid-2005 that, low in the Towers, the sixteen core columns that bounded the long faces of the buildings' cores had dimensions of 54 by 22 inches. The detailed drawings show that these columns maintained these dimensions through about the 66th floor.

Both of the government-sponsored engineering studies of the Twin Towers' "collapses" -- FEMA's and NIST's -- are highly misleading about the core structures. Neither FEMA's Study nor NIST's Report discloses dimensions for core columns -- dimensions that are clearly evident in the architectural drawings. Both Reports use a variety of techniques seemingly designed to minimize the strength of the cores or to conceal their structural role entirely.

So effective was FEMA at concealing the nature of the cores that the 9/11 Commission Report , citing the FEMA Report, denied the very existence of the core columns.

 

W. Niederhut: 

I have never looked into the 9/11 scene; too much on my free-time plate with the JFKA. 

But one question: I understand a false-flag op, and taking down the WTC as a false-flag op makes "sense," if one accepts it as such (it goes without saying I oppose all violence). 

But what would be the point of taking down WTC7? The additional propaganda value would seem minimal, even non-existant. 

Well, if 9/11 was a false flag op, it was successful, and for the long run. Today's headline: 

"U.S. carries out air strikes against Iran-backed militia in Iraq, Syria" 

7 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

Looks like the best gamble right now would be to try and replicate more 3d models that match the pictures taken in Dealey Plaza, and seeing if the geometry is compatible with the SBT. That's a few thousand dollars in exchange for what may become a game-changer for how the western establishment is viewed.

Micah M--

My take, which I will post in a few days, if that the shot sequence is determined by the Z-film and Connally's coat and injuries, and the unyielding unchanging testimony of Connally his wife and others over the years---they all believed three audible shots, three hits. The rather clear evidence is that Connally was struck less than a second before JFK was struck (JFK in frame 313). 

The "tumbling bullet" striking Connally is an entirely weak argument, which I will demonstrate. 

Stay tuned!

4 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Thank you Andrew, some good stuff here. It was probably Newman reading a typo, as he said Churchill mentioned an "Iron Curtain" descending over Europe in May 45. The actual date is March 46.   VE day was in May 45, and some time elapsed after VE day for Churchill to make that valuation.in Europe.

But one passing fact I found interesting was to find

"Alan Dulles found out that navy officer Richard Nixon had been out in charge of captured poopoo documents revealing  Dulles was a traitor.  Dulles financed Nixon's first race for office in exchange for burying the documents."

This is the  first  I've heard of Nixon being part of any Naval Intelligence, much less being privy to any N-zi documents involving Dulles..He started out in the Navy as a lieutenant junior grade in 1942 and eventually went out into the other main venue, the South Pacific, Perhaps it could have been here, from the Naval History and Heritage Command. "From December through March 1945, he served at the Bureau of Aeronautics, Navy Department, Washington, D.C. In March, his next assignment was as the Bureau of Aeronautics Contracting Officer for Terminations in the Office of the Bureau of Aeronautics General Representative, Eastern District, headquartered in New York."  Still it does seem a bit unclear how he was privy to such information about Dulles.

Nixon  left the service in 46. It is true  that Nixon initially answered an ad from Prescott Bush (not Alan Dulles)to first get into politics and it was Bush who did finance his first political campaign.   

I second Kirk G's sentiments. I would like to see the source material on this one from John Newman, a top-notch researcher. 

12 hours ago, Jamey Flanagan said:

Benjamin Cole, it's getting about time for something investigatory from the government! So far every 20 or 30 years they do something to look like they are actually doing something in hopes to appease us "conspiracy theorists", lol! You had the Warren Commission right away nearly, then we got the HSCA in the 70's, and the ARRB in the 90's. But those last 2 were only formed after something major to sway the public towards conspiracy (Z film shown on TV, the film JFK). Sadly, it looks like we'll need something to force a new investigation. Hopefully the new Oliver Stone, Jim D doc will be a catalyst. But I fear it will take more than that. Some kinda bombshell.

Jamey F.---

Verily, and we are running out of innings.  Obviously, many people have died, and evidence becomes aged. 

Soon I will post about Connally's coat and Dr. Shaw, and the Z-film, evidence which again underlines the inconvenient truth that whoever fired on Nov. 22 did it too quickly for a lone gunman armed with a single-shot bolt-action rifle. 

I contend this simple, digestible and true story-line could be useful in bringing about another official investigation and report on the facts, and once and for all burying the lone gunman theory. Or, at least, a full release of all records under the JFK Act. 

3 hours ago, Tony Krome said:

 

Apparently, the guy on the right is not Jack Ruby, so I put Basement Ruby's hat and eye shadow on to see what he looked like, and Presto, 2 Jack Rubys. 

 

The photos are from where? Sure look like the same guy to me. Nice work.   

Jeez, you could a bang-up two-hour movie just on John Newman's  "WWIII" virus idea (Dan Hardway had a similar observation). 

It has been a few decades since I read a John le Carre novel, but the LHO biography build, the WWIII virus and of course the consequences tops anything he wrote. 

But of course, I would happier with a real-world serious full-on re-investigation of the whole JFKA. 

10 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

Wouldn't believing that the rifle first found and mistakenly identified not just as a German Mauser but one of a specific caliber also mean believing that the Dallas Police couldn't read?

 

Danny Z-

You raise interesting points. 

There is the possibility that Weitzman and others did not want to handle the weapon, and so could not hold it in their hands and read the small print on the barrel. So Weitzman identified the rifle by its general look, and others deferred. 

However, Craig always insisted he saw the word "Mauser" stamped on the barrel. 

For me, Weitzman's most important testimony is that the final two shots were fired "simultaneously." Obviously, two shots fired simultaneously are heard as one, so Weitzman meant "nearly simultaneously." 

And how does one fire nearly simultaneous shots with a single-shot bolt-action rifle? 

Well, that and the "Secret Service man" Weitzman (and DPD'er Joe Smith) ran across near the Grassy Knoll...

6 minutes ago, Tony Krome said:

No-one saw strangers, except for one old man that entered the ground floor for a leak. What stranger would risk shooting from the 6th floor and hope to escape unnoticed? That plan, IMO, would never be considered in the first place. Until you find evidence of a stranger, you must consider that there were none.

Well..maybe. Suppose they entered the night before, but after the building had closed up for the night. 

If there were no strangers...then who did the shooting? LHO? But he could not have fired a single-shot rifle as rapidly as required to do all the shooting. 

55 minutes ago, Tony Krome said:

If that's you're train of thought, it's possible, but there are obstacles to overcome.

Descending stairs in hard sole shoes generates noise. There was a man who testified he was at the 5th level north/west corner staircase area at the time of the shooting. This man testified he did not use the stairs after the shooting, he used the elevator. The elevators were both on level 5 according to Truly when he peered up the elevator shaft in company with Baker.

 

My best guess is LHO fired at JFK once and intentionally missed, and ran down the stairs to the second floor where he met Marion Baker and Truly. Others did the real shooting, and may have been in the TSBD, or the roof of Dal-Tex building, and of course by the Grassy Knoll area.  

But if the offices on the second and fourth floors were not searched after the JFKA...that opens up all sorts of questions, about places to hide people and weapons. Just a possibility. 

If LHO fired no shots that day, then someone else did on floor 6 of the TSBD, and no one ever saw them. Where did the actual shooter(s), who would be strangers, go? 

1 hour ago, Tony Krome said:

Geneva Hine, Credit desk, 2nd floor. 

Thanks...here is one for you, from Victoria Elizabeth Adams, statement: 

"I am a Caucasian female, born February 8, 1941 at San Francisco, California. I presently reside at 4906 Wenonah, Dallas, Texas. I am employed as an Office Service Representative by Scott, Foreman and Cannery, Room 401, Texas School Book Depository...411 Elm Street, Dallas....and was employed employed on Nov. 22, 1963, the day President John Kennedy was assassinated...."

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pdf/WH22_CE_1381.pdf

So...there also non-TSBD offices on the fourth floor, as indicated by Room 401 for Scott, Foreman. Also see statement by Yola D. Hopson, who also worked for Scott, Foreman on the fourth floor.  

So....it is possible that someone fired at JFK, then only descended two flights of stairs, and went into a non-TSBD office.