9/11 and the JFK Assassination

[Ian A. Kerr]

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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). 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

John,

Thanks for the reply. I've read it and accept it as your position - for me, no further comment is necessary.

I look forward to working with you (and others on the forum ) to achieve our common objective.

regards,

Ian

[John Simkin]

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.

Ron is right to point out the link between Brown & Root and Halliburton. As I have argued earlier, the Military Industrial Congressional Complex network began in 1937 when Lyndon Johnson joined up with the Brown brothers. Herman Brown (1) died in 1962. George Brown (2) decided to sell the business to Halliburton. As well as joining Halliburton, he also served on the board of other companies involved in the MICC.

During the Vietnam War Brown & Root won a $380 million contract to build airports, bases, hospitals and other facilities for the U.S. Navy in South Vietnam. By 1967, the General Accounting Office had condemned Brown and Root “for massive accounting lapses”. Brown & Root became a target for anti-war protesters who called the firm the embodiment of the "military-industrial complex" (3).

Current criticism over Halliburton's lucrative Iraq contracts has some historians drawing parallels to a similar controversy involving the company during Lyndon B. Johnson's administration. Nearly 40 years ago, Halliburton faced almost identical charges over its work for the U.S. government in Vietnam - allegations of overcharging, sweetheart contracts from the White House and war profiteering. Back then, the company's close ties to President Johnson became a liability.

In his book, Cronies: Oil, the Bushes, and the Rise of Texas, America's Superstate, Robert Bryce argues that Texas’ powerful crony network, centered around the energy industry, has come to dominate national politics. Bryce traces how Texas energy companies and law firms have propelled politicians from Lyndon B. Johnson to George W. Bush to power and how the candidates rewarded their backing once in office. (4)

Dan Briody’s book, The Halliburton Agenda, explains the workings of the MICC works in America today. (5) In 1992 Dick Cheney, head of the US Department of Defence, gave a $3.9m contract (a further $5m was added later) to Kellog Brown & Root (KBR), a subsidiary of Halliburton. The contract involved writing a report about how private contractors could help the Pentagon deal with 13 different “hot spots” around the world.

The KBR report remains a classified document. However, the report convinced Cheney to award a umbrella contract to one company to deal with these problems. This contract, which became known as the Logistics Civil Augmentation Programme (Logcap), was of course awarded to KBR. It is an unique contract and is effectively a blank cheque from the government. KBR makes it money from a built in profit percentage. When your profit is a percentage of the cost, the more you spend, the more you make.

KBR’s first task was to go to Somalia as part of Operation Restore Hope. KBR arrived before the US Army. Over the next few months KBR made a profit of $109.7m. In August 1994 KBR made $6.3m in Rwanda. Later that year they received $150m profit from its work in Haiti. KBR made its money from building base camps, supplying troops with food and water, fuel and munitions, cleaning latrines and washing clothes.

The contract came up for renewal in 1997. By this time Cheney had been appointed as CEO of Halliburton. The Clinton administration gave the contract to Dyncorp. The contract came to an end in 2001. Cheney was now back in power and KBR won back the Logcap contract. This time it was granted for ten years. The beauty of this contract is that it does not matter where the US armed forces are in action, the KBR makes money from its activities. However, the longer the troops stay, the more money it makes.

KBR is now busy in Iraq (it also built the detention cells in Guantanamo Bay). What is more Halliburton was given the contract for restoring the Iraqi oil infrastructure (no competitive bid took place).

Cheney sold his stock options in Halliburton for $30m when he became vice president. He claimed he had got rid of all his financial interests in Halliburton. However, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) discovered that he has been receiving yearly sums from Halliburton: $205,298 (2001), $162,392 (2002), etc. They also found he still holds 433,333 unexercised stock options in Halliburton.

Notes and References

1. Herman Brown: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbrownH.htm

2. George Brown: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbrownG.htm

3. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1569483

4. Robert Bryce, Cronies: Oil, the Bushes, and the Rise of Texas, America's Superstate (2004)

5. Dan Briody, The Halliburton Agenda (2004)

[Richard J. Smith]

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ian,

I agree with your position. As far as you other guys, my God, you need to take a break from the conspiracy business. Controlled explosions took down the two towers? It was a US government operation? Someone blew the dust off Operation Northwoods and put it into effect? There are some pretty simple answers to the oblivious attitudes in the government prior to 9/11. The Clinton administration warned the Bush camp during the transition period after Bush was elected. They were briefed about terrorism and bin Laden. The Bush league chose to ignore it, choosing instead to play the "bring me the head of Saddam Hussein" game. Ian is correct in the assessment of how those towers fell. I despise Bush, Chaney, and their cohorts. But to say they would allow the deaths of 3000 people(it could have been over 10,000) is ludicrous at best. I suppose the next thing said will be that former New York City police commissioner Bernie Kerik withdrew himself from consideration as Homeland Security Secretary because he found out that 9/11 was a government plot. Two airliners and complete ignorance on the part of the Bush administration brought down those towers. Do you actually think that if Bush, Cheney and gang were plotting the demise of Iraq, and anticipating raking in billions in profit for certain US companies, they would want a major interruption like 9/11?

I consider myself to be rather open minded, but I also buy into Occam's razor. All things considered, the simplest explanation is probably correct. I don't believe a world wide conspiracy that involved thousands killed JFK, just as I don't believe the Larouche puppet at Lancer who claimed the British monarchy was behind it, no matter how much "evidence" he spewed. And to get into someone's face for not reading a particular book, give me a break. Sorry, I don't find Pam Ray's take on world events as "interesting", and if Jim "Lyndon Larouche Jr" Harwood was to write a book I wouldn't run out and buy it. On second thought, maybe I do have a closed mind when it comes to over the edge speculation, fringe opinions and untenable positions.

RJS

Edited December 11, 2004 by Richard J. Smith

[Tim Carroll]

I consider myself to be rather open minded, but I also buy into Occam's razor. All things considered, the simplest explanation is probably correct. RJS

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

Richard:

Your concept of Occam's Razor re 9/11 is not unlike the SBT. According to your rationale, the entire science of building demolition can be rewritten to something far simpler: douse a tall building with jet fuel part way down from the top and set it ablaze. The four corners will melt uniformly, regardless of the random application of said jet fuel. The simple and inexplicably uniform melting of the corners will cause the top part of the building to demolish the entire building perfectly vertically, with no toppling effect. Who woulda thunk it?

Tim

Edited December 12, 2004 by Tim Carroll

[Richard Pullen]

Hello Mr. White,

The universe's Greatest known fact; (Einstein)

e... IS ...m

or it's perfectly correct to say;

m... IS ...e

I believe it's fact;

11/22/63... IS ...911

or

911... IS ...11/22/63

Both equations sound scary, but their simplicities can be Very Easily understood by the average person. (i understand.) Lets plan to ILLUSTRATE to the people the situations and answers. They will understand and know what do to.

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

I agree 100%. But my fear is;

42 years later in 2042, thanks to (our) 911 research, 82% of the people may well think 911 was a gov operation, but just like 11/22/63 research, it will equal practically NOTHING in accomplishing righting the wrong.

So I vote, COMBINE JFK and 911.

Reasons:

1. The two WILL connect. 911 IS 11/22/63. (say bye-bye to anyone who may have been involved with 11/22/63, but escaped the (our) 911 investigation. Clean house of JFK perpetrators in our gov, or riding the 911 criminals will be small stuff. They will still own us--and just do it again, plus protect their 911 buddies.)

2. JFK public awareness comes first because, …you (we) easily have enough evidence for a verdict Now! 82% of the public already know there’s a JFK problem. Show your JFK evidence on TV! TEE VEE- is the mass educator. We best like pictures on TV or Oliver Stone movies, and then we act in mass. Remember? People power is a must in a REAL 911 investigation. It’s an unheard of power for over 30 years. "THE PEOPLE" will enjoy their part in cleaning out the dirt. Reach them! They are the ONLY power we have to force cooperation from gov types. PEOPLE will be upset when they see on TV, the hindrances given to JFK researchers by the gov. They will react if the gov is disobedient to a request for some small 911 information request from them. We need people as much as researchers at this time.

Residents geo and jeb bush, will Never help us. We know that!

11/22/63 facts came in piecemeal, in books, with no coalition. Was that the mistake?

Let’s not make mistakes this time. THE PEOPLE are numerous and Hot to hear what really happened. Plan to show them.

Unite and involve People, JFK, and 911, on a TV show that is entertaining, educational, and fun.

(Yes, there is a plan that allows Egos to unite.)

I would prefer to submit to Mr. Simkin that along with a separate 911 research category that he also start another new category entitled, maybe, ... "101 marketing plans desperately needed from 101 people that show how best to excite and concern 280m Americans into gaining and involving their attention into 11/22/63--911 so they can even help researchers regarding gathering info and facts, and Mainly lending their essential People Power to the acquiring of the info and facts from the Sources who Own, Protect, and even hide those facts." (....Mr. Simkin, ok to shorten title.

We must have "A PLAN" now.

Put in motion Now. Right now. As you research.

A plan saying, a "Peoples 911 coalition” is working and researching now. And will report. The People must know its coming, follow its progress, respect it, and read and understand it. They, with advice, will know what to do with it.

Do you have "A PLAN" that explains how to get the 'People' into Wanting to see your report Mr. White or Mr. Marrs, so that it will have maximum impact? Okay if you don’t! Leave it to us 101 little marketing people to come up with a plan for you. You just research and write it. We've been waiting for three years for you and your community, you know? You have a good team here. We've lost a lot. We're available to you now, unlike 1963. Use us well.

While you work, do you want us to work on 'a plan', to interest 'the people' of your research communities future findings, release dates, ETC?

Richard Pullen

Ps. Mr. White, I've read you for years. Wanted to say hello in other forums- but those weren't --really forums IMO. So I just watched. And waited. This is my second post ever to any JFK discussion, and I thank John Simkin.

Courage is a quality all CT'ers have. I envy you courageous Mark Lane types. You’re wonderful.

I must, in public, add my opinion of an extra adjetive to you, Jack White;

Your just plain, "Unafraid" from what I've seen! Unafraid to hit, or be hit. Unafraid to be wrong. Unafraid to try, or to go first into unknowns. That’s Special! Hope I didn't embarrass. Thanks!

[James Richards]

I would like to join Richard in his praise for Jack who has shone a very bright light into the conspiracy darkness for decades. It was his photographic work that got me interested all those years ago. To share ideas with the likes of Jack White in forums like this in invaluable and indeed a very great pleasure.

James

[Shanet Clark]

That may all be true, but I believe it is James Richards from Australia who brings the most to the evidence table. Thanks for the posts.

Jim, do you know who that is in Wim's site in the film with Frank Sturgis? Wim Dankbaar offers one thousand dollars if you can identify who is getting an arms lesson on film with Sturgis and some commandos. DO you know what I'm talking about? Why is it so important?

[James Richards]

Thank you for the nice words, Shanet.

According to Gerry Hemming and some other guys who were there at the time and wish to remain nameless, the guy was a UPI reporter out of Knoxsville, Tennessee; name unknown.

The film the still image was taken from was shot at an airfield run by Paul Poppenhager in 1961.

I know Wim doubts this but I have heard it from several sources and I have no reason at this time to doubt them.

FWIW.

James

[Richard J. Smith]

"According to your rationale, the entire science of building demolition can be rewritten to something far simpler: douse a tall building with jet fuel part way down from the top and set it ablaze. The four corners will melt uniformly, regardless of the random application of said jet fuel. The simple and inexplicably uniform melting of the corners will cause the top part of the building to demolish the entire building perfectly vertically, with no toppling effect."

Let's be real Tim. That's not what happened. The design of the building, the crashed airliners, and the burning jet fuel were all contributing factors. The building fell exactly as would be anticipated under the circumstances.

"Your concept of Occam's Razor re 9/11 is not unlike the SBT"

The SBT was and is not the simplest explanation, all things considered, although the WC tried to make it so. IMO you cannot compare 9/11 to the SBT or the JFK assassination for that matter, with the possible exception of the moronic attempts at covering up by the Bush administration(and unfortunately, the American public's wearing of blinders). And not that there was an American conspiracy to bring down the World Trade Center, but that the Bush's Iraq policy superceded the Clinton, CIA, and high ranking dissenter projections that terrorists such as bin Laden would attack us and were ignored. More can be tied to the assassination regarding current Bush policy against Cuba and for Cuban exiles than 9/11.

RJS

[Wim Dankbaar]

Hi Peter,

How is life treating you lately? Everything okay in Prague?

Wim

[Shanet Clark]

James

I watched the film thru Wim's site.

(I thought it was the Band, with Bob Dylan in the black sweater).

NO Seriously, it shows Frank Sturgis on a hill top out of doors with about ten others showing a gentleman how to take the safety off of a loaded handgun.

It has the cheesy feel of a paramilitary guy giving a press demonstration.

Do you think Wim is suggesting the tentative Knoxville press member is an Oswald lookalike? Its worth watching, for Sturgis...Fiorini.

Lot of material recently, thanks for everything/

Thank you for the nice words, Shanet.

According to Gerry Hemming and some other guys who were there at the time and wish to remain nameless, the guy was a UPI reporter out of Knoxsville, Tennessee; name unknown.

The film the still image was taken from was shot at an airfield run by Paul Poppenhager in 1961.

I know Wim doubts this but I have heard it from several sources and I have no reason at this time to doubt them.

FWIW.

James

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Jack White]

Let's be real Tim. That's not what happened. The design of the building, the crashed airliners, and the burning jet fuel were all contributing factors. The building fell exactly as would be anticipated under the circumstances.

RJS

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

RJS appears to be totally ignorant of the issues of 9-11-01.

Jack

[Jack White]

Hello Mr. White,

......................

Richard Pullen

Ps. Mr. White, I've read you for years. Wanted to say hello in other forums- but those weren't --really forums IMO. So I just watched. And waited. This is my second post ever to any JFK discussion, and I thank John Simkin.

Courage is a quality all CT'ers have. I envy you courageous Mark Lane types. You’re wonderful.

I must, in public, add my opinion of an extra adjetive to you, Jack White;

Your just plain, "Unafraid" from what I've seen! Unafraid to hit, or be hit. Unafraid to be wrong. Unafraid to try, or to go first into unknowns. That’s Special! Hope I didn't embarrass. Thanks!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for the kind words, Richard. I just try to do my part to expose

lies and wrongdoing in our "official" history.

Jack

Edited December 12, 2004 by Jack White

[James Richards]

NO Seriously, it shows Frank Sturgis on a hill top out of doors with about ten others showing a gentleman how to take the safety off of a loaded handgun.

It has the cheesy feel of a paramilitary guy giving a press demonstration.

Do you think Wim is suggesting the tentative Knoxville press member is an Oswald lookalike? Its worth watching, for Sturgis...Fiorini.

Lot of material recently, thanks for everything/ (Shanet Clark)

Hi Shanet,

The piece of film in question was originally shown on an Italian documentary titled 'The Two Kennedys'. I do believe in some quarters that the suggestion is the UPI guy is Oswald; I do not believe it is.

What is interesting though is in that gathering of people is Marita Lorenz (see below). That is Sturgis on the far right and Lorenz in the black.

FWIW.

James

[Wim Dankbaar]

That film is on my website:

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/reward.htm

FWIW, I DO believe it is Lee Oswald (with Frank Sturgis)

Wim