John Geraghty

Now that is very interesting! Now, he thinks one was a controlled demolition and another not. Where does this leave your conclusions Brian? I am just wondering whether you accept his WT7 explanation and not his WT1,2. Let me just say that what I wrote above could be read as sarcasm, but it is not . That is a very interesting account. John

Retracted due to change of heart. John

Personally, I prefer this video from an actual demolition expert. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlOG3g-mOXU I also listen to my brother, who is a civil engineer with a phd. I place a lot more credibility in their level of study. John

As a show of solidarity with the students in Toulouse and Richard Jones Nerzic, I am going to write a piece for my College newspaper (I'm also the editor) on this matter. I will also bring it to the attention of my students union and try to coerce them into writing a message of solidarity and protest at the sacking of Mr.Jones Nerzic. This, afterall, is what unions are there to do, to show solidarity. The newspaper publishes online at http://www.maynoothadvocate.com and the article will appear there by the Monday the 12th of March. I will see if the various indymedia sites would be willing to use my article so that it can be brought to a wider audience. John Geraghty

Here is an article that I wrote for our newly founded College newspaper 'The Advocate'. It centres around former Russian Prime minister Yegor Gaidar's visit to my college, Maynooth. http://www.maynoothadvocate.com Sorry about the disfunctional copy and paste job, I don't know what went wrong. Yes, Yegor Gaidar was poisoned in Maynooth Four months after the murder of former KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko, a group of suspects has been assembled, evidence has been compiled and fingers have been pointed. We are, however, as far away from any real resolution of this case, as we were when it happened. Blame falls at the doors of two people, Russian Premier Vladimir Putin and exiled oligarch Boris Berezovsky. The debate surrounding the case is due to see an increased amount of media attention in the coming months when a book, authored by Litvinenko’s wife, is due to come into circulation. The death of Alexander Litvinenko can not be treated as a case in isolation, there have been several similar deaths in recent years, most notably that of outspoken journalist, Anna Politkovskaya. One poisoning does not fall into the category of political assassinations as neatly as that of Litvinenko or Politkovskaya. Yegor Gaidar’s illness at NUI Maynooth has now been verified (by Gaidar and not his doctors) as a case of intentional poisoning. Gaidar penned an op-ed piece tellingly entitled ‘How I was poisoned and why Russia’s political enemies were surely behind it’. Gaidar believes that his poison lay in an odd tasting cup of tea which he drank in the University canteen on the old campus. The poison given to Litvinenko, though radioactive in nature, was also believed to have been administered via a cup of tea. Culinary similarities aside, the poisoning of these two prominent Russian figures within two days of each other was, naturally, treated with a great deal of suspicion. Allegations as to who was responsible for Mr.Gaidar’s poisoning were slow in coming, due to the incomprehensibility of an attack on a man now as politically inconsequential as Mr.Gaidar. Anatoly Chubais, a Gaidar associate, himself the target of an assassination attempt in 2005, is quoted as saying that an “unconstitutional and forceful change of power in Russia” is what links the deaths and attempt on the life of Mr.Litvineko, Anna Politskovaya and Yegor Gaidar. In this scenario, it would be Vladimir Putin and his colleagues in the FSB (Russian intelligence service) that committed or at least sanctioned the crimes. One factor, and the only one of note, that links these three characters is their committal to print their deep mistrust of President Vladimir Putin. Litvinenko authored ‘Blowing up Russia’, which alleged that Putin and others planned a series of bombings in Moscow to legitimise a re-entry in Chechnya, Politkovskaya wrote a scathing attack on the president in her book ‘Putin’s Russia’ and Gaidar has been highly critical of Putin’s rule, commenting that ‘Today’s Kremlin thinks that democracy was being built too quickly in Russia. TheGovernment does not say that it is against democracy, only that it is untimely and needs to be delayed-a logic that manifests itself in most official decisions’. Litvinenko’s account of the apartment bombings is important not only because it implicates Putin in state sponsored terror, but also because it implicates Putin and the FSB in a coup d’etat, removing Boris Yeltsin and installing Putin. All three were worrisome over the course down which Putin was leading Russia; all three were attempting to counter the myth of Putin as a stern yet fair leader. . To this list of mysterious deaths we must add a man by the name of Yuri Schekochikhin, a journalist at Novaya gazetta, the same magazine that Anna Politkovskaya worked for. He also authored ‘Slaves of KGB: 20th Century, The religion of betrayal’. Tests showed that he was poisoned with Thallium, the same poison first believed to have been used on Litvinenko. It was not only the close proximity to the poisoning of Litvinenko that set alarm bells ringing in the case of Gaidar, but also shared cast members. The man named by Scotland Yard as the chief suspect in the Litvinenko murder, Andrei Lugovoi, was at one time the bodyguard of Yegor Gaidar and Boris Berizovsky. Lugovoi was also a former agent of the KGB, now FSB, the service at which Vladimir Putin sat at the helm for many years. A trail of polonium 210 followed Lugovoi on planes around Europe, including his meeting point with Alexander Litvinenko on the day he was taken ill. Lugovoi was reported to have been in London to watch CSKA Moscow play Arsenal in the champion’s league. This story has become less credible with the revelation that Lugovoi and his travelling companion Dmitry Kovtun held no tickets for the game upon their arrival in London. Boris Berezovsky broke his silence recently and spoke candidly of his impression of Andrei Lugovoi and the Litvinenko poisoning. While in hospital Litvinenko allegedly confided to Mr.Berezovsky that he thought that Lugovoi was the one who poisoned him, furthermore, he added that there was no such thing as a ‘former’ KGB agent and that Lugovoi was still on the same payroll as he was during his intelligence career, though now it was unofficial. Berezovksy claims that Litvinenko was in the process of compiling very damaging evidence implicating unnamed figures in criminal dealings. In perhaps the most open accusation to date, Berizovsky declared that ‘they (The Russian Prosecutor general’s office) know who actually contracted and carried out this crime’. It would be disingenuous to place Gaidar in the same category as Litvinenko or Politkovskaya, Litvinenko having refused to murder oligarch Boris Berezovsky and Politkovskaya having sided with Chechnya in their conflict with Russia. Motives for Putin to have the two murdered are numerous, an explanation for an attempt on Gaidar’s life is more difficult to envisage. One explanation for this spate of plots is that a power struggle is ensuing in the Kremlin. Putin has not named his preferred successor, thus different factions are vying for power as the 2008 elections approach. The involvement of the FSB or any other arm of the Russian Government in the attempt on the life of Yegor Gaidar is very much open to debate, Gaidar himself dismissing the claims, whereas close associates of his are more cautious to absolve guilt. The initial reaction of the Russian embassy in Dublin to Mr.Gaidar’s illness was to say that he was diagnosed as suffering from gastroenteritis, when no such diagnosis was made. Such an account is at odds with the report from James Connolly memorial hospital and Gaidar’s personal physicians. Mr.Gaidar’s doctors in Russia could not use the term ‘Poisoned’ due to the fact that they could not determine the cause of his illness, they could, however, confirm that the illness was not a natural occurrence. Gaidar checked himself out of Connolly hospital a day after he was committed, against the advice of doctors. Gaidar’s quick flight would indicate that he was not so much returning to the safety of home as escaping from possible danger. One possible reason for the lack of any firm diagnosis is the fact that traces of some poisons are not apparent 48 hours after their administration. What makes the cases of Litvinenko and Gaidar so extraordinary is the fact that they are both prominent critics of the Putin administration, they were both poisoned within two days of each other and both poisonings occurred outside of Russian territory. The likelihood that two high profile poisonings would happen in such close proximity to other and not be somehow related is slim. One must wonder if the Gardai have acted on the new information that Yegor Gaidar was indeed poisoned and whether they have set about trying to ascertain who prepared his tea that morning. This tale of intrigue has not yet seen its end and it is quite possible that it is in Maynooth that some vital evidence may be found.

Sid, The name I was trying to think of was indeed 'SONDERKOMMANDO'. I have a few names of survivng sonderkommando, most of them being killed every so often so that the reality of what was going on was not too widely known. I am compiling some information. I don't have too muc time at the moment, so I can't post with the immediacy of yourself or other members, I'm afriad that you will just have to wait. This thread comes somewhere down my list on things to do, behind editing a newspaper, doing course reading and researching and writing an essay of Ireland's 1933 elections. I will get back to you. John

I have been unable to remember the title of these forced collaborators. I have asked one of my lecturers what the german title for these people was. When I get that I can find the accounts that I watched on the history channel. All the best, John

Bill, That indeed is something I could support, but he doesn't seem to want to withdraw from Iraq any time soon. That would lose him a lot of Dem votes, but perhaps pick him up some republican ones if Giuiliani was to get the nom. On the other hand, you won't get a statement of support on something as specific as this from either Clinton or Obama, so he seems to be the best thing to go on in presidential terms.. John

This seems very interesting Evan. Jack, Duane, I too would be interested for you to take part in this experiment of sorts. Please, humour me! All the best, John

Hi Sid, I ask because I watched a lengthy documentary that interviewed several of these jews who were forced to tend to the gas chambers. There quite a few of them. I'm trying to remember the name of their position in german (einsatzgruppen keeps going through my head, but I know thats not it). Let me try to find the documentary again, oissibly on IMDB and get the names of the people whom I watched speak at length about their experiences. I understand that you want sourced material and I will try to get it. If I can remember the German name that I am thinking of, I will be able to get it quite easily. I will have a look now. John

I must ask Sid one question, seeing as he is the only proponent of the non-use of gas chambers on this forum. Do you consider the jews that were forced to tend to the gas chambers and assist in the genocide to be liars? Do they play a role in a cover-up of sorts? I am interested to hear how Irving and others account for the personal accounts of the jews who were forced to assist the nazis in concentration camps in return for their lives. It may be quite easy to deate the forensice evidence, but the personal accounts present a significantly more difficult story to the holocaust deniers. John

I posted this on a group called Barack Obama (one million strong for Barack Obama), which appears on the facebook network. Facebook is a network of college and high school students that enables people to keep in touch with each other and to set up and join groups of all sorts. It has become very popular for political campaigns. Hello all, I am wondering what peoples reactions are to the remarks made by Mr.Obama regarding the need to bomb Pakistan and Iran. Here are the comments made in the Chicago Tribune , On September 24, Barack Obama suggested "surgical missile strikes" on Iran may become necessary. "[L]aunching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in" given the ongoing war in Iraq, Obama told the Chicago Tribune. "On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse," he said. Obama went on to argue that military strikes on Pakistan should not be ruled out if "violent Islamic extremists" were to "take over." I would wonder whether this is the reason that Clinton has been outpolling Obama in the polling of black voters. Any black muslims that I have talked to recently seem to be aware of this remark, this would suggest that they are unhappy with this hawkish rhetoric. I know that Sen.Obama plans to pull the military out of Iraq, but does he plan to redeploy these troops, or at least a part of the military into Iran should the need arise. I use the term need, though it is at the discretion of the president to deem what constitutes a 'need' for surgical air strikes. It must be noted that contingency plans for bombing Iranian nuclear facilities include the need to use small nuclear weapons, as conventional weapons would not destroy the sites. This was stated at a discussion group seminar initiated by the progressive Caucus in the summer of 2006. What do people think Sen.Obama's stance is on this issue. To my knowledge, the Chicago tribune article is the only one that mentions this type of statement. Let me make it clear that I am not a US citizen and therefore have no stake in the elections. I am an outside observer and am interested in getting past the rhetoric. All the best, John Geraghty

I posted this on a group called Barack Obama (one million strong for Barack Obama), which appears on the facebook network. Facebook is a network of college and high school students that enables people to keep in touch with each other and to set up and join groups of all sorts. It has become very popular for political campaigns. Here is the question that I posed, Do members think that it is possible that Obama is making a strong campaign at the moment, much the same as Kennedy did in 56, to stake a stronger claim to the candidacy the next time it becomes available. Obama is a relative newcomer to the senate, just as Kennedy was in 56. Kennedy did not wish to go on the vice-presidential ballot with Adlai Stevenson because he thought that he would lose and knew that he would have a better chance in 60, being a more experienced senator. Is it possible for Obama to ascend so quickly through the ranks? Is Obama simply making a strong push this time around, thus sowing his pedigree as a leader in future years. This could be seen as displaying his strength even as a young senator, thus making his campaign next time around much stronger. This tactic worked for Kennedy, as he beat of Lyndon Johnson for the nomination in 1960. LBJ was known as the best back room negotiator, yet Kennedy managed to beat him due to the image that he had built up around himself. I would appreciate feedback. John A person by the name of Scott replied, No.... because a Democrat is going to win... which means it would be 2016 b4 he had a CHANCE! ...to which I replied, Scott, I think it is early days yet before we can start predicting the result! It really does depend on whether the republican candidate distances himself from Bush. A number of factors have to be taken into account such as, who will run the republican campaign, if the candidate can mobilise the religioug aspect of politics as Bush did, if Giuiliani runs, whether his stance ongay marriage will influence republican voters, what happens with regard to Iran in the next few months. A lot of factors that we perceive today will change in the coming months. We are still awaiting a new heavy hitting democrat to enter the race and it will only become apparent in a few months whether a new candidate along the lines of Howard Dean comes along to motivate the internet progressive community. There is a long way to go, but it bodes well that you are optimistic. John What do members of this forum think?

John, I would agree with your sentiments re: Malcolm following his return from Mecca. Spike Lee's film 'Malcolm X' portrayed this excellently. I would reccommend the film. I will be reading and writing a review of 'The autobiography of Malcolm X' in the next few weeks for my American History course. COPA are planning on holding a conference to commemorate Malcolm X's death in New York. One of my principal arguments (though I don't necessarily fully agree with it) during our in-class discussion was that MLK was shot by the establishment while using peaceful means, as was Gandhi. I used these examples to show that although MLK's tactics were stronger as long as he was alive, Malcolm X's idea of black nationalism had a greater chance of living on. Calling brothers to arms could best be achieved by creating a martyr for the cause. Malcolm and the black nationalists would have the means to retaliate against assassinations and attempts, whereas the civil rights movement would have no immediate recourse. John Geraghty

Mr.Rodriguez will be giving a talk in Dublin on the 28th of February, I might go along to have a look. I would hope that there is no fee for admission. He is currently in the UK as far as I know. John

It was noted in my American History lecture yesterday that Malcolm X had been murdered on that day. I had forgotten to post on the forum acknowledging the fact, so I shall do so now. In todays lecture we debated whether Martin Luther King's non-violent protesting was better than Malcolm X and the black panthers advocation of violent means of resistance. We seperated into groups to discuss the matters. I was in a group that was designated to advocate the stance of the Black Panthers. A quick show of hands showed that all but four of my 28 person class believed that non-violent means were the most viable. I think that I was one of the only students that made the case for use of force in gaining civil rights or a black nation. I think the reason that such a majority of the group sided with peaceful means is because they were all white, and do not know what it is to be oppressed because of their race. Whether you advocate Malcolm X's means or motives, you must acknowledge the fact that his was a growing movement. Before anyone condemns some of the things that Malcolm said or did, they should take the time to assess what they would do had they been in the same position. Would you advocate love for your neighbour, though he did not for you, or would you feel anger towards your oppressors. As Malcolm X said, "Don't sit in, stand up". John

I would agree with Bill in saying that a simple letter to your congressman/woman can have a lot of effect. I know this because I sorted the mail for the legislative staff in D.C. last year. A letter regarding the JFK assassination, if phrased eloquently, is always going to attract attention. Multiple letters will let the letter sorter know that there is more support for this in their constituency than previously thought. The legislative aid on foreign policy and military affaris is the one most likely to be given any letters of this kind. Usually a phone call to follow up on the letter always helps. It is usually the interns or the secretary that answer the phones, if they notice a significant amount of calls and letters on one topic, they will bring it to the attention of the legislative assistant. It is important to keep the calls relatively short and not stray too far from the poit that all you want is a review of the records, do not cite evidence. Offices do not like long winded phone calls of this nature. In short the best course of action for an individual is to write a short, well phrased and sussinct letter. Follow up the letter with a short phone call to make it known that you sent the letter and ask that it be given to the relevant legislative assistant. I think it may help if we get some kind of structure together whereby people can sign a petition online that allows organisers to print off individual messages and hand deliver them to congress. I would be in a position to do this during the summer. I can't put too much emphasis on the need not to overload people with assassination factoids, all you need to do is to let them know of your interest. Perhaps sending a book might be a good idea. Although the representatives don't necessarily always read them, assistants sometimes do, and it is they that shape a lot of policy. I hope this helps and perhaps we can get a bit of momentum going. All the best, John Geraghty

Also, Here is a more complete listing of songs relevant to the assassination. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...c+assassination John

Sid, I would assume that this is a version of Phil Ochs''Talking Vietnam Blues'? John

Kathleen, Can you answer my question, what purpose does it serve to show the roof of a house? You have made clear that this info is easily accessible and that contact details are public. I'm not disputing that these things are available. I will say it again, what purpose does it serve to the roof of a house? John

Kathleen, I know that it is available, but what purpose does it serve to post this information. I don't think that we will learn very much about Robert Oswald's character from the roofing of his house. It is completely irrelevant. I am listed in the phone book, but that does not mean that I would wish for anyone to post all of my details on the internet. Many are not frequent users of the internet and are not aware of google earth. Most people would assume that people that did not know them would look up their house and accompany a photo of it with their phone number. If you can give me a good explanation as to why an aerial picture of the house is relevant, I'm all ears. John

May I interject with a brief statement? Jim Fetzer has alleged that researcher John Judge is an agent of the government due to the fact that he does believe a plane hit the pentagon and that it was the two planes that hit the twin towers. This is similar to the attacks levelled against George Monbiot and other critics of the methods of elements of the 9/11 truth movement. Jack White feels that John was duped by an elaborate planted story. I wonder if Mr.Fetzer would like to comment on why he feels that John Judge is an agent of the government and if has any proof to back up his assertions. All my best and happy debating, John Geraghty

One question, What is achieved from knowing what the roof of his or anyone else's house look like? I would consider it an invasion of privacy to have my address, phone number and a photo of my house placed on the internet for all to see. Frankly, I find it quite improper to do this. Whatever your opinion of Robert oswald, I find it in poor taste to publicise his details. John geraghty

The film was shown on the RTE news tonight (Ireland's national telvision network), as was the story of the selling of the window frame. We're on a bit of a roll publicity wise. John

I am unsure whether this has been covered on the forum, so if it has I will delete this thread. The window of the supposed snipers nest was recently sold on ebay for $3 million to a Dutch bidder. The window was sold by the Byrd family, who owned the TSBD and established the civil air patrol. Did Wim manage to get $3mil together to buy it? John