9/11 and the JFK Assassination

[John Simkin]

I am gratified that so many people are still following the JFK assassination case. The truth is out there as we speak. But, if anyone is waiting for a formal government pronouncement of the truth, they are in for a long wait. I feel today we need to turn our investigative efforts to the 9/11 conspiracy. This is bigger than the JFK case because more than one man died and the evidence of conspiracy is emerging much faster than in the 1960s. Plus, we all know that 9/11 is the foundation of everything that has occurred since -- Patriot Act, Homeland Security, tighter government control, invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, even the 2004 elections.

Jim is of course right, 9/11 is more important than the assassination of JFK. However, I would justify this research with the claim that they are both part of the same conspiracy. By discovering what happened in 1963 will help us understand what is going on now. The only real reason for the study of history is that it is really about finding out about the present. The role of the historian is to show the connections between these events.

The start of this worldwide conspiracy began in the 17th century. It was at this time that people began demanding universal suffrage. They were only a small minority but they were highly dangerous people. Their ideas were based on something Aristotle said: “When quarrels and complaints arise, it is when people who are equal have not got equal shares.”

Inequality is the source of all conflict. It became clear to a few individuals that they only way you were going to obtain an harmonious society was to create one based on equal rights. The ruling elites were horrified by this idea. It posed a direct threat to the wealth and privileges they enjoyed. They knew that any truly egalitarian society would redistribute wealth and power. Therefore it was decided by ruling elites throughout the world that they would have to use this power to suppress this desire for equality. For hundreds of years they had distorted the teaching of Jesus Christ to justify inequality. Only occasionally had religious figures like John Ball and George Fox emerged to question this philosophy. However, it had not been too difficult to suppress the ideas of these people.

The 17th century caused particular problems for the ruling elites. The reason for this was the development of mass produced forms of communication. It was now possible for just a few to communicate with a very large number. Those few divergent thinkers who obtained an understanding of how the system worked, naturally became interested in communicating this to a wide audience. They became writers and publishers. Therefore, to maintain control, the ruling elite had to take control of all forms of mass communications. Those who refused to be censored (or bribed) had to be punished severely.

The desire for democracy became very closely linked to the struggle for freedom of expression. The radical journalist became a key figure in this struggle. One man who was involved in this battle was Henry Hetherington. His name has been airbrushed out of history but when he died thousands of people attended his funeral. In 1831 Hetherington began publishing a newspaper called The Poor Man’s Guardian. Above the title was the words: “Knowledge is Power”. It became the slogan adopted by all those fighting for democracy. People like Hetherington realised that for their dreams to be realised, they had to compete with the ruling elites for the minds of the people.

Those in favour of democracy and freedom of expression had many victories but the ruling elite always won the war. They were always had the power to adapt the reforms that took place to their own advantage.

Some countries even had revolutions. Most notably in France and Russia. These were only short-lived affairs and in essence involved one ruling elite replacing another ruling elite. These revolutions were then used to prevent the emergence of true democracy in other countries. Those seeking radical reform were accused of being followers of foreign revolutionaries. The examples of these revolutions inspired some but frightened a great deal more. Not surprisingly, most people questioned the wisdom of revolutionary action when they always resulted in a great deal of bloodshed followed by the betrayal of the ideas that had inspired the revolution. Understandably, the idea of gradual reform was considered to be a far better option.

The problem was that these reforms were always undermined by the unequal distribution of power and wealth that continued to exist in these societies. Money was therefore used to corrupt political leaders. This eventually became built into the system. To gain political power you had to raise a considerable amount of money. The people who provided this money wanted something back in return. This meant control of party policy. In some cases, this money was linked to government action that favoured a particular company or industry.

In 1937 a new development emerged. It all started with a meeting between Lyndon Johnson and two brothers, George and Herman Brown. As a result Brown & Root won the Marshall Ford Dam contract. This was worth $27,000,000. It is not known how much profit the company made from the deal. However, in a letter written to LBJ, George Brown, admitted the company was set to make a $2m profit out of just a small part of the deal worth only $5m.

During the Second World War this corrupt network made millions. In 1942 the Brown brothers established the Brown Shipbuilding Company. Over the next three years the company built 359 ships and employed 25,000 people. This was worth $27,000,000. This contract was eventually worth $357,000,000. Yet until they got the contract, Brown & Root had never built a single ship of any type.

Another key player in this was John McCone. He established the California Shipbuilding Company. This was a successful move and in 1946 it was recorded that the company made $44 million in wartime profits on an investment of $100,000.

McCone went on to serve in Eisenhower’s government (Deputy to the Secretary of Defense and Under Secretary of the Air Force. He was of course head of the CIA when JFK was assassinated.

After the Second World War this network became known as the Military Industrial Congressional Complex (MICC). Other countries had other names for this new phenomena. In some countries in the western world it never even acquired a name but it always took place.

The basic idea behind the MICC is that the country is threatened by an ideology. For most of the 20th century this ideology was communism. The actual ideology is not in itself important as long it can be associated with a foreign power. To defend yourself against this ideology you need to spend a great deal of money on armaments. This money should be given to particular companies in the form of government contracts. To ensure they got these contracts these companies paid large sums of money to the politicians and the political parties responsible for granting these contracts.

In a true democracy this corrupt system would never have survived. Although in theory every adult in the western world has the vote, that does not matter as long as the ruling elite kept control of the means of communication. In some countries they used crude methods such as the state control of the television industry. In the west more sophisticated methods of shaping the minds of electorate were used.

This system worked very well until the election of John F. Kennedy. Not that he was elected with a commitment to destroying the MICC. He might not have been aware of it in 1960 and was probably confused by Dwight Eisenhower’s last speech as president when the term Military Industrial Complex for the first time (Eisenhower dropped the word Congressional from the original speech written by Malcolm Moos).

In 1960 JFK was a Cold War warrior who was fully convinced by the need to spend a large sum of money defending the “free world” from communism. In fact, during his presidential campaign he criticised Eisenhower and the Republican Party for not spending enough on armaments.

No, JFK was a problem because he was independently wealthy. He had not been one of those drawn into the MICC network of corruption. Therefore there was the danger that JFK might want to dismantle this system once he found out about it. However, this was considered to be highly unlikely. Lyndon Johnson, the central figure in the MICC, was confident that JFK could be dissuaded from taking such action. It would not have been an issue if it had not been for Cuba. It was the conflict with this small island that revealed to JFK the problems of the MICC. The key event was the Cuban Missile Crisis. As far as the public was concerned this event had resulted in a diplomatic triumph for JFK. He had emerged from the crisis as a heroic cold war warrior. JFK knew differently. He was aware of just how close the world had come to nuclear war. JFK had come to the conclusion that the MICC and the Cold War had brought the world to the edge of extinction.

This in itself would not have changed most politicians. But JFK was not a typical politician. He was an intellectual (very unusual in an politician). He thought deeply about things. He decided it was his responsibility to bring an end to the Cold War. However, he could not do this openly. JFK knew he would be destroyed by the media if he made it clear what he was doing. He was also aware that the MICC would never allow him to openly enter into such negotiations. If he was going to do this, it would have to be in secret. During the summer of 1963 JFK began to use a few key figures such as William Attwood and Lisa Howard, to set up these secret negotiations. Unfortunately, JFK did not know about the key role played by the CIA in the MICC. It soon became clear that JFK would have to be removed from office.

The conspiracy was a great success. The MICC had virtually full control over all forms of mass communication in America. There were some brave people, mainly journalists, who tried to explain to the people what had taken place. However, it was not too difficult to portray them as communist agents or from suffering from some form of mental illness. When that failed, as in the case of Dorothy Kilgallen and Lisa Howard, these people had to be murdered.

The MICC emerged from the JFK crisis virtually unscathed. The next crisis for them came in 1989. The collapse of communism in Eastern Europe caused serious problems for the MICC. Surely the people would start demanding a reduction in military spending now that the main enemy had lost its power base. Most people would now realise that these obscene sums of money should be spent on improving the quality of life of the less fortunate members of society. Was it not to logically to spend most of this money on education, health care, pensions, etc.?

If the power of the MICC was to continue, a new enemy had to be discovered. However, this was a problem. The military power of the United States was such that no country would take them on. It took them some time before they realised who this new enemy would be. Eventually they came up with the idea of the Muslim Fundamentalists. This was ideal as they did not think in the same ways as previous enemies had. They were willing to die for the cause. They were the only ones who would be willing to physically attack America. This had to happen because otherwise people would have begun to question the need to spend so much on defending the country.

I am not saying that 9/11 was organized by the MICC. In fact, I believe this is highly unlikely. However, it was not in their interests to stop it happening. It is for this reason that the CIA missed all those clues. As with the JFK assassination, the intelligence services pleaded guilty to incompetence rather than complicity.

The main link between the assassination of JFK and 9/11 is that it was the MICC who benefited. That could be a coincidence. Or it could be evidence that they were both events in the same conspiracy. The conspiracy to prevent the world from achieving democracy.

[Tim Gratz]

I am gratified that so many people are still following the JFK assassination case. The truth is out there as we speak. But, if anyone is waiting for a formal government pronouncement of the truth, they are in for a long wait. I feel today we need to turn our investigative efforts to the 9/11 conspiracy. This is bigger than the JFK case because more than one man died and the evidence of conspiracy is emerging much faster than in the 1960s. Plus, we all know that 9/11 is the foundation of everything that has occurred since -- Patriot Act, Homeland Security, tighter government control, invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, even the 2004 elections.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jim is of course right, 9/11 is more important than the assassination of JFK. However, I would justify this research with the claim that they are both part of the same conspiracy. By discovering what happened in 1963 will help us understand what is going on now. The only real reason for the study of history is that it is really about finding out about the present. The role of the historian is to show the connections between these events.

The start of this worldwide conspiracy began in the 17th century. It was at this time that people began demanding universal suffrage. They were only a small minority but they were highly dangerous people. Their ideas were based on something Aristotle said: “When quarrels and complaints arise, it is when people who are equal have not got equal shares.”

Inequality is the source of all conflict. It became clear to a few individuals that they only way you were going to obtain an harmonious society was to create one based on equal rights. The ruling elites were horrified by this idea. It posed a direct threat to the wealth and privileges they enjoyed. They knew that any truly egalitarian society would redistribute wealth and power. Therefore it was decided by ruling elites throughout the world that they would have to use this power to suppress this desire for equality. For hundreds of years they had distorted the teaching of Jesus Christ to justify inequality. Only occasionally had religious figures like John Ball and George Fox emerged to question this philosophy. However, it had not been too difficult to suppress the ideas of these people.

The 17th century caused particular problems for the ruling elites. The reason for this was the development of mass produced forms of communication. It was now possible for just a few to communicate with a very large number. Those few divergent thinkers who obtained an understanding of how the system worked, naturally became interested in communicating this to a wide audience. They became writers and publishers. Therefore, to maintain control, the ruling elite had to take control of all forms of mass communications. Those who refused to be censored (or bribed) had to be punished severely.

The desire for democracy became very closely linked to the struggle for freedom of expression. The radical journalist became a key figure in this struggle. One man who was involved in this battle was Henry Hetherington. His name has been airbrushed out of history but when he died thousands of people attended his funeral. In 1831 Hetherington began publishing a newspaper called The Poor Man’s Guardian. Above the title was the words: “Knowledge is Power”. It became the slogan adopted by all those fighting for democracy. People like Hetherington realised that for their dreams to be realised, they had to compete with the ruling elites for the minds of the people.

Those in favour of democracy and freedom of expression had many victories but the ruling elite always won the war. They were always had the power to adapt the reforms that took place to their own advantage.

Some countries even had revolutions. Most notably in France and Russia. These were only short-lived affairs and in essence involved one ruling elite replacing another ruling elite. These revolutions were then used to prevent the emergence of true democracy in other countries. Those seeking radical reform were accused of being followers of foreign revolutionaries. The examples of these revolutions inspired some but frightened a great deal more. Not surprisingly, most people questioned the wisdom of revolutionary action when they always resulted in a great deal of bloodshed followed by the betrayal of the ideas that had inspired the revolution. Understandably, the idea of gradual reform was considered to be a far better option.

The problem was that these reforms were always undermined by the unequal distribution of power and wealth that continued to exist in these societies. Money was therefore used to corrupt political leaders. This eventually became built into the system. To gain political power you had to raise a considerable amount of money. The people who provided this money wanted something back in return. This meant control of party policy. In some cases, this money was linked to government action that favoured a particular company or industry.

During the 1930s a new development emerged. After the Second World War it became known as the Military Industrial Congressional Complex (MICC). Other countries had other names for this new phenomena. In some countries in the western world it never even acquired a name but it always took place.

The basic idea behind the MICC is that the country is threatened by an ideology. For most of the 20th century this ideology was communism. The actual ideology is not in itself important as long it can be associated with a foreign power. To defend yourself against this ideology you need to spend a great deal of money on armaments. This money should be given to particular companies in the form of government contracts. To ensure they got these contracts these companies paid large sums of money to the politicians and the political parties responsible for granting these contracts.

In a true democracy this corrupt system would never have survived. Although in theory every adult in the western world has the vote, that does not matter as long as the ruling elite kept control of the means of communication. In some countries they used crude methods such as the state control of the television industry. In the west more sophisticated methods of shaping the minds of electorate were used.

This system worked very well until the election of John F. Kennedy. Not that he was elected with a commitment to destroying the MICC. He might not have been aware of it in 1960 and was probably confused by Dwight Eisenhower’s last speech as president when the term Military Industrial Complex for the first time (Eisenhower dropped the word Congressional from the original speech written by Malcolm Moos).

In 1960 JFK was a Cold War warrior who was fully convinced by the need to spend a large sum of money defending the “free world” from communism. In fact, during his presidential campaign he criticised Eisenhower and the Republican Party for not spending enough on armaments.

No, JFK was a problem because he was independently wealthy. He had not been one of those drawn into the MICC network of corruption. Therefore there was the danger that JFK might want to dismantle this system once he found out about it. However, this was considered to be highly unlikely. Lyndon Johnson, the central figure in the MICC, was confident that JFK could be dissuaded from taking such action. It would not have been an issue if it had not been for Cuba. It was the conflict with this small island that revealed to JFK the problems of the MICC. The key event was the Cuban Missile Crisis. As far as the public was concerned this event had resulted in a diplomatic triumph for JFK. He had emerged from the crisis as a heroic cold war warrior. JFK knew differently. He was aware of just how close the world had come to nuclear war. JFK had come to the conclusion that the MICC and the Cold War had brought the world to the edge of extinction.

This in itself would not have changed most politicians. But JFK was not a typical politician. He was an intellectual. He thought deeply about things. He decided it was his responsibility to bring an end to the Cold War. However, he could not do this openly. JFK knew he would be destroyed by the media if he made it clear what he was doing. He was also aware that the MICC would never allow him to openly enter into such negotiations. If he was going to do this, it would have to be in secret. During the summer of 1963 JFK began to use a few key figures such as William Attwood and Lisa Howard, to set up these secret negotiations. Unfortunately, JFK did not know about the key role played by the CIA in the MICC. It soon became clear that JFK would have to be removed from office.

The conspiracy was a great success. The MICC had virtually full control over all forms of mass communication in America. There were some brave people, mainly journalists, who tried to explain to the people what had taken place. However, it was not too difficult to portray them as communist agents or from suffering from some form of mental illness. When that failed, as in the case of Dorothy Kilgallen and Lisa Howard, these people had to be murdered.

The MICC emerged from the JFK crisis virtually unscathed. The next crisis for them came in 1989. The collapse of communism in Eastern Europe caused serious problems for the MICC. Surely the people would start demanding a reduction in military spending now that the main enemy had lost its power base. Most people would now realise that these obscene sums of money should be spent on improving the quality of life of the less fortunate members of society. Was it not to logically to spend most of this money on education, health care, pensions, etc.?

If the power of the MICC was to continue, a new enemy had to be discovered. However, this was a problem. The military power of the United States was such that no country would take them on. It took them some time before they realised who this new enemy would be. Eventually they came up with the idea of the Muslim Fundamentalists. This was ideal as they did not think in the same ways as previous enemies had. They were willing to die for the cause. They were the only ones who would be willing to physically attack America. This had to happen because otherwise people would have begun to question the need to spend so much on defending the country.

I am not saying that 9/11 was organized by the MICC. In fact, I believe this is highly unlikely. However, it was not in their interests to stop it happening. It is for this reason that the CIA missed all those clues. As with the JFK assassination, the intelligence services pleaded guilty to incompetence rather than complicity.

The main link between the assassination of JFK and 9/11 is that it was the MICC who benefited. That could be a coincidence. Or it could be evidence that they were both events in the same conspiracy. The conspiracy to prevent the world from achieving democracy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Very interesting post, John. Deserves great reflection!

I cannot believe that the CIA, or our government, had knowledge of 9/11 and let it happen. However, I remarked on a different thread that I think the restrictions placed on the CIA as a result of the Church Committee revelations about theCIA assassination plots most likely impeded the CIA's ability to discover the 9/11 plot.

Kennedy was indeed an intellectual, I've discovered that reading some biographies of JFK (books not concentrating on the assassination). What comes to my mind (from memory only) is JFK's writings as a journalist regarding the founding of the UN. I am confident that you are correct that, as an intellectual, he learned a lot from the Cuban missile crisis when the world teetered on the brink of apocalypse. It is also true, I think, that the threat of nuclear war constrained leaders in both the US and the Soviet Union, which prevented the Cold War from becoming WWIII (and bought the time necessary for the collapse of Communism).

* * * *

I had this thought (again it is on another thread but I'd like to repeat it): I doubt that JFK could have achieved passage of the civil rights bills pending at the time of his death, but LBJ was able to get them passed in large part because of the "good will" engendered by JFK's assassination. The civil rights bills (of both 1964 and 1965) helped to transform American society for the better, although we certainly still have a long way to go. The enfranchisement of blacks by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 certainly was a significant step toward a more democratic America. So whether JFK's death was at the hands of a lone nut (well, a few people still cling to that) or a conspiracy guided by persons not yet identified, it was not in vain but, as tragic as it was, there was some good that flowed from it. That, I think, helps make him truly a martyr.

Edited December 9, 2004 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Carroll]

9/11 has precisely pretextualized the usurpation of concerns about civilian control of the military and individual civil rights that carry back to the founding fathers. Having visited Israel in July, 1975, as well as Beirut during that very moment of transitional history, I have always been a devoted supporter of Israel. But I cannot help but see Mossad's hidden hand in the performances of bin Laden, who has been the Bush administration's most effective supporter. I see Bush and bin Laden as co-dependents.

Tim

[Tim Gratz]

9/11 has precisely pretextualized the usurpation of concerns about civilian control of the military and individual civil rights that carry back to the founding fathers. Having visited Israel in July, 1975, as well as Beirut during that very moment of transitional history, I have always been a devoted supporter of Israel. But I cannot help but see Mossad's hidden hand in the performances of bin Laden, who has been the Bush administration's most effective supporter. I see Bush and bin Laden as co-dependents.

Tim

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Come on, now, Tim: one conspiracy at a time!

But: see

http://www.killtown.911review.org/lonegunmen.html

Had you seen this before? (Boy, I checked the link and it is not where I was trying to go, but for now, I'll leave it as it is. Try it!)

Edited December 9, 2004 by Tim Gratz

[Dawn Meredith]

9/11 has precisely pretextualized the usurpation of concerns about civilian control of the military and individual civil rights that carry back to the founding fathers. Having visited Israel in July, 1975, as well as Beirut during that very moment of transitional history, I have always been a devoted supporter of Israel. But I cannot help but see Mossad's hidden hand in the performances of bin Laden, who has been the Bush administration's most effective supporter. I see Bush and bin Laden as co-dependents.

Tim

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Come on, now, Tim: one conspiracy at a time!

But: see

http://www.killtown.911review.org/lonegunmen.html

Had you seen this before? (Boy, I checked the link and it is not where I was trying to go, but for now, I'll leave it as it is. Try it!)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

_______________________________

John:

Brilliant analysis. Every "Christian" who voted for W needs to read this and understand this. (Of course they will do neither).

Your piece was perfect timing for what I needed to read today.

Tim: I aso agree with you, but I recall when Pam pointed out something guite similar to what you wrote you dismissed her as an anti-Semite.

(At least I think that is what she was trying to say, thread being gone I can't go back and recheck).

Jim: 9-11 is very important, but as John and Tim so elequently pointed

it's all tied together. Always ask: "Who benefited?"

This forum is GREAT folks!!!

Dawn

("Starting Over", in more ways than one.)

[Ian A. Kerr]

I am gratified that so many people are still following the JFK assassination case. The truth is out there as we speak. But, if anyone is waiting for a formal government pronouncement of the truth, they are in for a long wait. I feel today we need to turn our investigative efforts to the 9/11 conspiracy. This is bigger than the JFK case because more than one man died and the evidence of conspiracy is emerging much faster than in the 1960s. Plus, we all know that 9/11 is the foundation of everything that has occurred since -- Patriot Act, Homeland Security, tighter government control, invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, even the 2004 elections.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jim is of course right, 9/11 is more important than the assassination of JFK. However, I would justify this research with the claim that they are both part of the same conspiracy. By discovering what happened in 1963 will help us understand what is going on now. The only real reason for the study of history is that it is really about finding out about the present. The role of the historian is to show the connections between these events.

The start of this worldwide conspiracy began in the 17th century. It was at this time that people began demanding universal suffrage. They were only a small minority but they were highly dangerous people. Their ideas were based on something Aristotle said: “When quarrels and complaints arise, it is when people who are equal have not got equal shares.”

Inequality is the source of all conflict. It became clear to a few individuals that they only way you were going to obtain an harmonious society was to create one based on equal rights. The ruling elites were horrified by this idea. It posed a direct threat to the wealth and privileges they enjoyed. They knew that any truly egalitarian society would redistribute wealth and power. Therefore it was decided by ruling elites throughout the world that they would have to use this power to suppress this desire for equality. For hundreds of years they had distorted the teaching of Jesus Christ to justify inequality. Only occasionally had religious figures like John Ball and George Fox emerged to question this philosophy. However, it had not been too difficult to suppress the ideas of these people.

The 17th century caused particular problems for the ruling elites. The reason for this was the development of mass produced forms of communication. It was now possible for just a few to communicate with a very large number. Those few divergent thinkers who obtained an understanding of how the system worked, naturally became interested in communicating this to a wide audience. They became writers and publishers. Therefore, to maintain control, the ruling elite had to take control of all forms of mass communications. Those who refused to be censored (or bribed) had to be punished severely.

The desire for democracy became very closely linked to the struggle for freedom of expression. The radical journalist became a key figure in this struggle. One man who was involved in this battle was Henry Hetherington. His name has been airbrushed out of history but when he died thousands of people attended his funeral. In 1831 Hetherington began publishing a newspaper called The Poor Man’s Guardian. Above the title was the words: “Knowledge is Power”. It became the slogan adopted by all those fighting for democracy. People like Hetherington realised that for their dreams to be realised, they had to compete with the ruling elites for the minds of the people.

Those in favour of democracy and freedom of expression had many victories but the ruling elite always won the war. They were always had the power to adapt the reforms that took place to their own advantage.

Some countries even had revolutions. Most notably in France and Russia. These were only short-lived affairs and in essence involved one ruling elite replacing another ruling elite. These revolutions were then used to prevent the emergence of true democracy in other countries. Those seeking radical reform were accused of being followers of foreign revolutionaries. The examples of these revolutions inspired some but frightened a great deal more. Not surprisingly, most people questioned the wisdom of revolutionary action when they always resulted in a great deal of bloodshed followed by the betrayal of the ideas that had inspired the revolution. Understandably, the idea of gradual reform was considered to be a far better option.

The problem was that these reforms were always undermined by the unequal distribution of power and wealth that continued to exist in these societies. Money was therefore used to corrupt political leaders. This eventually became built into the system. To gain political power you had to raise a considerable amount of money. The people who provided this money wanted something back in return. This meant control of party policy. In some cases, this money was linked to government action that favoured a particular company or industry.

In 1937 a new development emerged. It all started with a meeting between Lyndon Johnson and two brothers, George and Herman Brown. As a result Brown & Root won the Marshall Ford Dam contract. This was worth $27,000,000. It is not known how much profit the company made from the deal. However, in a letter written to LBJ, George Brown, admitted the company was set to make a $2m profit out of just a small part of the deal worth only $5m.

During the Second World War this corrupt network made millions. In 1942 the Brown brothers established the Brown Shipbuilding Company. Over the next three years the company built 359 ships and employed 25,000 people. This was worth $27,000,000. This contract was eventually worth $357,000,000. Yet until they got the contract, Brown & Root had never built a single ship of any type.

Another key player in this was John McCone. He established the California Shipbuilding Company. This was a successful move and in 1946 it was recorded that the company made $44 million in wartime profits on an investment of $100,000.

McCone went on to serve in Eisenhower’s government (Deputy to the Secretary of Defense and Under Secretary of the Air Force. He was of course head of the CIA when JFK was assassinated.

After the Second World War this network became known as the Military Industrial Congressional Complex (MICC). Other countries had other names for this new phenomena. In some countries in the western world it never even acquired a name but it always took place.

The basic idea behind the MICC is that the country is threatened by an ideology. For most of the 20th century this ideology was communism. The actual ideology is not in itself important as long it can be associated with a foreign power. To defend yourself against this ideology you need to spend a great deal of money on armaments. This money should be given to particular companies in the form of government contracts. To ensure they got these contracts these companies paid large sums of money to the politicians and the political parties responsible for granting these contracts.

In a true democracy this corrupt system would never have survived. Although in theory every adult in the western world has the vote, that does not matter as long as the ruling elite kept control of the means of communication. In some countries they used crude methods such as the state control of the television industry. In the west more sophisticated methods of shaping the minds of electorate were used.

This system worked very well until the election of John F. Kennedy. Not that he was elected with a commitment to destroying the MICC. He might not have been aware of it in 1960 and was probably confused by Dwight Eisenhower’s last speech as president when the term Military Industrial Complex for the first time (Eisenhower dropped the word Congressional from the original speech written by Malcolm Moos).

In 1960 JFK was a Cold War warrior who was fully convinced by the need to spend a large sum of money defending the “free world” from communism. In fact, during his presidential campaign he criticised Eisenhower and the Republican Party for not spending enough on armaments.

No, JFK was a problem because he was independently wealthy. He had not been one of those drawn into the MICC network of corruption. Therefore there was the danger that JFK might want to dismantle this system once he found out about it. However, this was considered to be highly unlikely. Lyndon Johnson, the central figure in the MICC, was confident that JFK could be dissuaded from taking such action. It would not have been an issue if it had not been for Cuba. It was the conflict with this small island that revealed to JFK the problems of the MICC. The key event was the Cuban Missile Crisis. As far as the public was concerned this event had resulted in a diplomatic triumph for JFK. He had emerged from the crisis as a heroic cold war warrior. JFK knew differently. He was aware of just how close the world had come to nuclear war. JFK had come to the conclusion that the MICC and the Cold War had brought the world to the edge of extinction.

This in itself would not have changed most politicians. But JFK was not a typical politician. He was an intellectual (very unusual in an politician). He thought deeply about things. He decided it was his responsibility to bring an end to the Cold War. However, he could not do this openly. JFK knew he would be destroyed by the media if he made it clear what he was doing. He was also aware that the MICC would never allow him to openly enter into such negotiations. If he was going to do this, it would have to be in secret. During the summer of 1963 JFK began to use a few key figures such as William Attwood and Lisa Howard, to set up these secret negotiations. Unfortunately, JFK did not know about the key role played by the CIA in the MICC. It soon became clear that JFK would have to be removed from office.

The conspiracy was a great success. The MICC had virtually full control over all forms of mass communication in America. There were some brave people, mainly journalists, who tried to explain to the people what had taken place. However, it was not too difficult to portray them as communist agents or from suffering from some form of mental illness. When that failed, as in the case of Dorothy Kilgallen and Lisa Howard, these people had to be murdered.

The MICC emerged from the JFK crisis virtually unscathed. The next crisis for them came in 1989. The collapse of communism in Eastern Europe caused serious problems for the MICC. Surely the people would start demanding a reduction in military spending now that the main enemy had lost its power base. Most people would now realise that these obscene sums of money should be spent on improving the quality of life of the less fortunate members of society. Was it not to logically to spend most of this money on education, health care, pensions, etc.?

If the power of the MICC was to continue, a new enemy had to be discovered. However, this was a problem. The military power of the United States was such that no country would take them on. It took them some time before they realised who this new enemy would be. Eventually they came up with the idea of the Muslim Fundamentalists. This was ideal as they did not think in the same ways as previous enemies had. They were willing to die for the cause. They were the only ones who would be willing to physically attack America. This had to happen because otherwise people would have begun to question the need to spend so much on defending the country.

I am not saying that 9/11 was organized by the MICC. In fact, I believe this is highly unlikely. However, it was not in their interests to stop it happening. It is for this reason that the CIA missed all those clues. As with the JFK assassination, the intelligence services pleaded guilty to incompetence rather than complicity.

The main link between the assassination of JFK and 9/11 is that it was the MICC who benefited. That could be a coincidence. Or it could be evidence that they were both events in the same conspiracy. The conspiracy to prevent the world from achieving democracy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

John,

Warning, you probably won't like this post...

With all due respect, your post reads like the leftist manifesto.

I believe that JFK was assassinated as a result of a conspiracy, but I stop well short of tying all world history to the same source. I do this because of the not so smalll encumberance called proof (as opposed to supposition). I also believe that theories like this, especially in the abscence of proof , are very damaging to efforts to engage officialdom/public opinion in any further quest for the truth.

I'll go further to suggest that it is this very type of thinking (or the propagation of it) that leads to the strong, worldwide anti-American sentiment which seems to prevail presently. IMO, it is at the heart of the " they had it ( 911) coming "attitude, when in reality, there really was/is no moral equivalent to the motivations behind, or the actions that culminated in 911.

I sincerely hope that educators (of all political stripes), with the unique power inherent in their positions, conduct themselves responsibly by limiting their teaching of history to that which is known to be true ie.) has a proven basis in fact.

As I look at this generation; hear their opinions ;and watch them put their ideas into actions, I am more inclined to believe that as opposed to having benefitted from the great potential for enlightenment that this age of information posesses, they are more, and more the victims of (well?) disguised misinformation. Small wonder, when news now exists as an editorial (opinion), and cyberspace is mired in a mass of blogs (still more opinion).

Ian

[John Simkin]

Warning, you probably won't like this post... With all due respect, your post reads like the leftist manifesto.

That is not true. I always enjoy a debate. However, you do seem a bit confused by my position. According to my dictionary a manifesto is a “public declaration of intensions by a political party before an election”. My posting was an attempt to show the links between the JFK assassination and 9/11. I put this in the context of the long struggle to obtain democracy and freedom of expression. I suppose that might make me a “leftist” (whatever this is). However, I would have thought you would have been able to grasp that I am hostile to both left and right wing governments who have undermined these two basic values.

I'll go further to suggest that it is this very type of thinking (or the propagation of it) that leads to the strong, worldwide anti-American sentiment which seems to prevail presently. IMO, it is at the heart of the " they had it ( 911) coming "attitude, when in reality, there really was/is no moral equivalent to the motivations behind, or the actions that culminated in 911.

Why do people on the right always insist on calling critics of George Bush as anti-American? As this forum proves, America is full of decent people committed to democracy and freedom of speech. Jim Marrs, whose quotation started this thread is a good example of this great tradition. I don’t know if Jim is a “leftist” or “rightist”. I don’t particularly care. What I do know is that he is fully committed to democracy and freedom of speech. What is more, he is willing to spend considerable time doing something about it. No doubt at great personal risk to himself. That is why people like Jim Marrs and Henry Hetherington are my heroes. When we eventually get our democratic society, it is these brave journalists who we will be able to thank for it. There will be few politicians on that list.

I sincerely hope that educators (of all political stripes), with the unique power inherent in their positions, conduct themselves responsibly by limiting their teaching of history to that which is known to be true ie.) has a proven basis in fact.

As I look at this generation; hear their opinions; and watch them put their ideas into actions, I am more inclined to believe that as opposed to having benefitted from the great potential for enlightenment that this age of information posesses, they are more, and more the victims of (well?) disguised misinformation. Small wonder, when news now exists as an editorial (opinion), and cyberspace is mired in a mass of blogs (still more opinion). 

You sound like Bob Vernon in this passage. Am I really an irresponsible educator for expressing such opinions? Do you think that any student (or adult for that matter) will be brainwashed by these comments? It is of course impossible for a lone individual, especially someone with the sort of divergent views that I have, to brainwash anyone. That is what governments and media corporations do. All I can do is to ask awkward questions. To encourage people to think the unthinkable. That is of course what a lot of people do on this forum. I am proud to be a member of that group.

Anyway, don’t blame my views on the younger generation. I am close to reaching 60. However, I still think like I did when I was 20. I have never allowed the system to crush my belief in a better future. Nor have I allowed myself to be bought off. The struggle continues.

I believe that JFK was assassinated as a result of a conspiracy, but I stop well short of tying all world history to the same source. I do this because of the not so small encumberance called proof (as opposed to supposition). I also believe that theories like this, especially in the abscence of proof, are very damaging to efforts to engage officialdom/public opinion in any further quest for the truth.

I am afraid this view is too common amongst JFK researchers. This is an attempt to take the politics out of the assassination. If the JFK assassination was just a case of murder I would not be interested in the subject. There are plenty of unsolved crimes. The JFK assassination was not an ordinary murder, it was a coup d’etat. A democratically elected government was removed from office. That is something all of the world’s citizens have to be concerned about.

[Tim Carroll]

9/11 has precisely pretextualized the usurpation of concerns about civilian control of the military and individual civil rights that carry back to the founding fathers. Having visited Israel in July, 1975, as well as Beirut during that very moment of transitional history, I have always been a devoted supporter of Israel. But I cannot help but see Mossad's hidden hand in the performances of bin Laden, who has been the Bush administration's most effective supporter. I see Bush and bin Laden as co-dependents.

Tim

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Come on, now, Tim: one conspiracy at a time!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim: I aso agree with you, but I recall when Pam pointed out something guite similar to what you wrote you dismissed her as an anti-Semite.

(At least I think that is what she was trying to say, thread being gone I can't go back and recheck).

Dawn

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have been very hesitant to say anything about this 9/11 business, and I defensively prefaced my comment by citing my quarter century as an unreservedly staunch supporter of Israel, but I could no longer restrain myself when I read Jim Marrs' post on the timely relevance of this inquiry. You are correct about my having slammed Pam's constant blame of the Israelis, including recitation of James Files' assertion of the Mossad possessing an aerial film of the JFK assassination. That is nutsville, and the constant repetition of the Jews did it mentality did/does not sit well with me. I'm still a supporter of Israel as I am of America, but the countries are not the same thing as their leaders. I don't hold the average Israeli to blame for that country's Nazi-like prime minister's policies any more than I would want to be blamed for Bush and Co.'s.

Tim

[Ron Ecker]

I cannot believe that the CIA, or our government, had knowledge of 9/11 and let it happen.

Have you read Jim Marrs's book Inside Job? Or David Ray Griffin's The New Pearl Harbor?

I think it is fairly clear from the evidence that 9/11 was a covert military/intelligence operation. This evidence includes the complete inaction of the Defense Command Authority (officially the president and secretary of defense) during the attacks, with the spectacle of Rumsfeld hiding in his office, the Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs hiding in Max Cleland's office on Capitol Hill, and the president continuing to listen to a goat story in a Florida schoolhouse. Some would call the total inaction of the DCA during an attack on the nation acts of treason, but instead those who attack these "leaders" are looked upon as treasonous (un-American).

Anyway, "Who benefited?" The military industrial complex, which had the added advantage of a virtual coup in the form of the neocon Project for the New American Century (PNAC, of which Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and several others now running the Bush regime were members) assuming key positions in government to further the PNAC agenda of democratic imperialism through "transformation of warfare" which would be hastened, as the PNAC wrote in 2000 in what amounted to wishful thinking, if there were some catastrophe like "a new Pearl Harbor." This was a coup in that hardly anyone had heard of PNAC and its agenda until after the 2000 election. Bush was elected, and the PNAC simply moved in. A few months later, they had their new Pearl Harbor.

For simplicity, this combination of the MIC and PNAC may be simply called the "warlovers," with plans on the table for invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq even before 9/11, the spoils of war in this case being, aside from all the money for Halliburton etc., control of Middle East energy resources. But 9/11, i.e. a casus belli, was first needed, just as Roosevelt needed one in 1941 to take an isolationist America to war.

The evidence in the JFK assassination also points to a covert military/intelligence operation, with the intelligence component most apparent in the murder itself, and the military component most apparent in the cover-up (sham autopsy etc.). Again those who benefited were the warlovers, in this case war in Vietnam, along with all the money therein for Halliburton (which had bought Brown & Root) etc., control of the Southeast Asian drug trade, and whatever else could be gained out of those two old standbys, death and destruction.

Edited December 9, 2004 by Ron Ecker

[John Simkin]

In a lawsuit filed in a US district court, an unnamed CIA agent, described as a 22-year veteran of the agency's counter-proliferation department, accuses his former supervisors of demanding that he alter his intelligence reporting to conform to the views of CIA management in the run-up to the war on Iraq.

The action marks the first time the CIA, which proclaimed that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of WMD, has been publicly accused by one of its employees of exerting pressure to produce reports that would help the Bush administration make its case to go to war on Saddam.

One former CIA employee said the process described by the analyst - pressure and retaliation - was a familiar bureaucratic response to agents who did not conform.

The agent's refusal to tailor his reports had, he claims, a disastrous effect on a career that had previously been marked by regular promotions and a CIA medal for the operative's recruitment of moles who penetrated a nuclear weapons programme in another Middle Eastern country.

"The complaint alleges that there was a pre-war dogma at the CIA concerning weapons of mass destruction, and my client's reports were contrary to the dogma," said Roy Krieger, who represents the agent. "My client was told to conform to the dogma. He refused and retribution followed."

Court papers describe how the "plaintiff was subsequently advised by CIA management that his report did not support the earlier assessment... and instructed that if he did not alter his report to support this assessment, it would not be received well by the intelligence community".

A year later, the agent obtained intelligence from a "highly respected human asset", which he tried to pass on to his superiors, the complaint says. "Plaintiff was later instructed that he should prepare no written report of the matter", and received assurances that the CIA chief would personally brief the president.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/st...1370577,00.html

I wonder if the same thing happened to CIA agents following the JFK assassination. Several would have been aware that Oswald was a CIA agent. Others would have known of the links between David Morales, William Harvey and David Phillips with the assassination. Did any of them suffer from “pressure and retaliation”?

[Jack White]

In a lawsuit filed in a US district court, an unnamed CIA agent, described as a 22-year veteran of the agency's counter-proliferation department, accuses his former supervisors of demanding that he alter his intelligence reporting to conform to the views of CIA management in the run-up to the war on Iraq.

The action marks the first time the CIA, which proclaimed that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of WMD, has been publicly accused by one of its employees of exerting pressure to produce reports that would help the Bush administration make its case to go to war on Saddam.

One former CIA employee said the process described by the analyst - pressure and retaliation - was a familiar bureaucratic response to agents who did not conform.

The agent's refusal to tailor his reports had, he claims, a disastrous effect on a career that had previously been marked by regular promotions and a CIA medal for the operative's recruitment of moles who penetrated a nuclear weapons programme in another Middle Eastern country.

"The complaint alleges that there was a pre-war dogma at the CIA concerning weapons of mass destruction, and my client's reports were contrary to the dogma," said Roy Krieger, who represents the agent. "My client was told to conform to the dogma. He refused and retribution followed."

Court papers describe how the "plaintiff was subsequently advised by CIA management that his report did not support the earlier assessment... and instructed that if he did not alter his report to support this assessment, it would not be received well by the intelligence community".

A year later, the agent obtained intelligence from a "highly respected human asset", which he tried to pass on to his superiors, the complaint says. "Plaintiff was later instructed that he should prepare no written report of the matter", and received assurances that the CIA chief would personally brief the president.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/st...1370577,00.html

I wonder if the same thing happened to CIA agents following the JFK assassination. Several would have been aware that Oswald was a CIA agent. Others would have known of the links between David Morales, William Harvey and David Phillips with the assassination. Did any of them suffer from “pressure and retaliation”?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree 100% with Jim Marrs that 911 is 3000 times more important than the JFK assassination. I have studied the alleged events of 9-11-01 for three years and it is clearly a US government operation.

If Mr. Simkin would start a separate 911 research category, I would be an eager contributor.

Attached is Dan Rather describing the CONTROLLED DEMOLITION of Building Seven, which had not been hit by planes nor suffered any significant damage...and suspiciously housed important government offices.

Jack White

[Tim Carroll]

I agree 100% with Jim Marrs that 911 is 3000 times more important

than the JFK assassination. I have studied the alleged events of 9-11-01

for three years and it is clearly a US government operation.

If Mr. Simkin would start a separate 911 research category, I would

be an eager contributor.

Attached is Dan Rather describing the CONTROLLED DEMOLITION

of Building Seven, which had not been hit by planes nor suffered

any significant damage...and suspiciously housed important government

offices.

Jack White

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jack,

I agree that 9/11 was a "US government operation," but the influence and interests of the Mossad lead me to ask the question: to whom does the U.S. government belong? As for the "CONTROLLED DEMOLITION of Building Seven," I would say that the perfectly vertical demolition of the towers themselves constitutes the greatest, and most competent skyscraper demolition in history. The best in the business could not have brought those towers down as perfectly with months of work. Random jet fuel heat would surely have toppled one corner faster than others, leading to a toppling effect. Those suckers came straight down - it defies all physical probability, perhaps even possibility. 9/11 was the ultimate counter-intelligence operation - a contemporary reflection of the Operation Northwoods mindset.

Tim

[Jack White]

I agree 100% with Jim Marrs that 911 is 3000 times more important

than the JFK assassination. I have studied the alleged events of 9-11-01

for three years and it is clearly a US government operation.

If Mr. Simkin would start a separate 911 research category, I would

be an eager contributor.

Attached is Dan Rather describing the CONTROLLED DEMOLITION

of Building Seven, which had not been hit by planes nor suffered

any significant damage...and suspiciously housed important government

offices.

Jack White

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jack,

I agree that 9/11 was a "US government operation," but the influence and interests of the Mossad lead me to ask the question: to whom does the U.S. government belong? As for the "CONTROLLED DEMOLITION of Building Seven," I would say that the perfectly vertical demolition of the towers themselves constitutes the greatest, and most competent skyscraper demolition in history. The best in the business could not have brought those towers down as perfectly with months of work. Random jet fuel heat would surely have toppled one corner faster than others, leading to a toppling effect. Those suckers came straight down - it defies all physical probability, perhaps even possibility. 9/11 was the ultimate counter-intelligence operation - a contemporary reflection of the Operation Northwoods mindset.

Tim

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The controlled demolition of the twin towers at least had an alleged excuse (hijacked airliner impacts).

Building Seven was a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, ordered by owner Larry Silverstein. Building Seven had a tiny fire on a lower floor, and was not damaged by airplanes or falling debris. Below, watch it fall.

Thanks for your reply.

Jack

[Tim Carroll]

I agree that 9/11 was a "US government operation," but the influence and interests of the Mossad lead me to ask the question: to whom does the U.S. government belong? As for the "CONTROLLED DEMOLITION of Building Seven," I would say that the perfectly vertical demolition of the towers themselves constitutes the greatest, and most competent skyscraper demolition in history.  The best in the business could not have brought those towers down as perfectly with months of work.  Random jet fuel heat would surely have toppled one corner faster than others, leading to a toppling effect.  Those suckers came straight down - it defies all physical probability, perhaps even possibility.  9/11 was the ultimate counter-intelligence operation - a contemporary reflection of the Operation Northwoods mindset.

Tim

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The controlled demolition of the twin towers at least had an alleged excuse

(hijacked airliner impacts).

Building Seven was a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, ordered by owner Larry Silverstein.

Building Seven had a tiny fire on a lower floor, and was not damaged by

airplanes or falling debris. Below, watch it fall.

Thanks for your reply.

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The airliner impacts were nothing but a stagecrafted "excuse;" all of the buildings collapsed as a result of remarkably competent controlled demolitions.

Tim

[Ian A. Kerr]

I agree that 9/11 was a "US government operation," but the influence and interests of the Mossad lead me to ask the question: to whom does the U.S. government belong? As for the "CONTROLLED DEMOLITION of Building Seven," I would say that the perfectly vertical demolition of the towers themselves constitutes the greatest, and most competent skyscraper demolition in history.  The best in the business could not have brought those towers down as perfectly with months of work.  Random jet fuel heat would surely have toppled one corner faster than others, leading to a toppling effect.  Those suckers came straight down - it defies all physical probability, perhaps even possibility.  9/11 was the ultimate counter-intelligence operation - a contemporary reflection of the Operation Northwoods mindset.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim,

According to an architechtural engineer interviewed on a recent episode of " Frontiers of Construction " aired on the Dicovery Channel, the toppling effect , under the circumstances, given the design characteristics of large buildings like the Trade tower, is itself, a physical impossibility. The jet fuel that wasn't dissipated in the giant fireball immediately post impact, spilled onto floors immediately above and below the area of impact, igniting fires that burned sufficiently hot to weaken the structure components of the building. Some of that fuel also ran down elevator shafts which caused fires and a similar structural comprimise on lower floors. The program showed a computer animation of the theorized effect that theses fires had on the building, onto which the actual footage of impact and aftermath were superimposed. The reason that the building came straight down was gravity. Once the structural components on or near the point of impact were sufficiently weakened, the weight of the upper floors caused a gravity induced pancaking effect to take place.

The tremendous, and overwhelming weight of the upper portion of the building caused the irresistable force of gravity, to act on the structure and it's components in a vertical vector. In order to achieve a toppling effect, some other force greater than the force exerted by the weight of the upper floors would have had to have acted in a different direction. The structural components simply couldn't bear the weight from above, and crumpled in a chain reaction in the direction of the force. To expect the building to fall in any other way would require an active imagination and a total disregard for simple physics.

So far as I know, the laws of physics aren't under any immediate threat by conspiracy, or otherwise ie.) unless oneis also willing to accept ideas like the SBT...

Ian

Edited December 11, 2004 by Ian A. Kerr