Why Col. L. Fletcher Prouty's Critics Are Wrong

[Michael Griffith]

3 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

All right, administrators, let's have a ruling on this repetitious Michael Griffith slander.

This is now the fourth post during the past week in which Michael Griffith has falsely referred to the professors, engineers, and scientists who have debunked the Bush/Cheney/Zelikow 9/11 narrative with terms like, "nutjob," "nutcase," "deranged," and "nutty."

In response, I have asked Michael Griffith to kindly specify which academicians, scientists, and engineers involved in the 9/11 Truth research community he is referring to as "nutjobs."

Griffith has failed to respond to my request, while repeating his false, defamatory claims.

Is Griffith referring to the excellent, cogent analyses of the 9/11 data by Professor David Ray Griffin?

Is he referring to the scientific analyses of the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth?

This kind of non-specific defamation of the 9/11 research community is identical to the CIA propaganda ops that were used against Jim Garrison, Mark Lane, Sylvia Meagher, Fletcher Prouty, and other JFKA witnesses and researchers who debunked the Warren Commission Report.

Are Griffith's non-specific, false, defamatory slurs really acceptable on the Education Forum?

I haven't responded because I don't waste my time responding to such stuff. The "professors, engineers, and scientists" you're talking about constitute a tiny, tiny minority of the educated world. Do a survey among any group of engineers and other scientists, and you will find that 99.9% of those folks reject the 9/11 Truther nutcase stuff as nutcase stuff. 

And we're not just talking about the Twin Towers, by the way, but also about the absurd, obscene theory that a missile hit the Pentagon, not an airliner, never mind the hundreds of people in DC who saw the airliner flying low and straight toward the Pentagon. I know a few such people. 

I used to work with a guy who worked on the Pentagon police force and who was there on 9/11 and saw part of the airliner's fuselage inside the giant cavity that the plane created.

9/11 Truther conspiracy claims are idiotic, paranoid, unscientific, and embarrassing. 

Edited April 21, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Bob Ness]

On 4/20/2023 at 10:11 AM, Joe Bauer said:

Obviously JFK was holding off many major foreign policy actions until he was re-elected.

 

To me that's a no-brainer. Especially at that time when the Hawks were everywhere, including the Dems (Jackson, Mansfield, Fulbright). Enough of the voting public was hawkish enough to turn an election and JFK would have a hard time winning reelection (at least he could be challenged) if he was seen as too weak on communism.

[W. Niederhut]

On 4/21/2023 at 4:50 PM, Michael Griffith said:

I haven't responded because I don't waste my time responding to such stuff. The "professors, engineers, and scientists" you're talking about constitute a tiny, tiny minority of the educated world. Do a survey among any group of engineers and other scientists, and you will find that 99.9% of those folks reject the 9/11 Truther nutcase stuff as nutcase stuff. 

And we're not just talking about the Twin Towers, by the way, but also about the absurd, obscene theory that a missile hit the Pentagon, not an airliner, never mind the hundreds of people in DC who saw the airliner flying low and straight toward the Pentagon. I know a few such people. 

I used to work with a guy who worked on the Pentagon police force and who was there on 9/11 and saw part of the airliner's fuselage inside the giant cavity that the plane created.

9/11 Truther conspiracy claims are idiotic, paranoid, unscientific, and embarrassing. 

Michael,

Your statements are categorically false and defamatory, and they echo the pervasive M$M propaganda promoting the false U.S. government narrative about 9/11.

Have you studied physics or chemistry on a collegiate or post-graduate level, which would qualify you to accurately assess the research of the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth?

The only scientists and engineers who haven't accepted the empirical/scientific evidence of explosive WTC demolitions are those who haven't taken the time to study the scientific data, and/or those who are working for the U.S. government to cover up the fact that the buildings were demolished by explosives.

Look at the video (below.)  You can clearly see the serial explosions that demolished and ejected the steel girders of the Twin Towers at high velocity, while explosively pulverizing the concrete into fine ash, dispersed in high pressure pyroclastic flows over the atmosphere of lower Manhattan.  The thermitic explosives also completely liquified steel, which was "flowing like a foundry" at Ground Zero, and can be seen cascading from the towers as they imploded.

You can also measure the near free fall acceleration of the WTC1, WYC2, and WTC7 demolitions-- indicating the steel substructures were abruptly, symmetrically demolished by steel cutting explosives.

I'm glad that you finally mentioned some specifics about the Pentagon damage, because the "missile" narrative is unrelated to the scientific proof of explosive WTC demolitions.  It was a theory of French journalist, Theirry Meyssan.

The "witness" testimony about the Pentagon on 9/11 is highly irregular and inconsistent, and includes statements by a number of Bush/Cheney administration officials that was directly contradicted by other witnesses.

As for your friend, allegedly, seeing a fuselage in the Pentagon, perhaps you are unaware that the official U.S. government narrative about the Pentagon on 9/11 is that the AA77 Boeing was completely vaporized on impact with the Pentagon wall-- explaining why there were no chairs, luggage, or fuselage seen at the site.  There was a single titanium jet engine rotor photographed in the Pentagon wreckage.

 

 

Edited April 26, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[James DiEugenio]

There were no troops in Vietnam  at the time of Kennedy's death.

They were classified as advisors.  And Kennedy was always asking questions about this. 

Now, two very important points about this which Selverstone missed.

After the debates of November 1961 which culminated in NSAM 111, Kennedy called a meeting of his most important advisors on the subject: Bundy, McNamara, Rusk and about five others.  Although he called the meeting, he was the last one to arrive, which tells you something about it since he was usually the first one there.  

Kennedy made it very clear this was not about small talk.  And he immediately took over the meeting, he was very upset that he had to fight so hard to thwart the Hawks .  He said quite forcefully words to the effect: Once policy is decided, those involved stand but or they get out!

He then waited for that to impact.  He then followed that with this:

Now who is going to be the man who implements my VIetnam policy.

McNamara said he would do it.

To leave that out of a book on Kennedy and Vietnam is simply inexcusable in every respect for any responsible historian.

Now, if that is not strong enough for you, there is this.

At the same time this was happening, Kennedy had sent Galbraith to Saigon. He said he wanted a report and it was directly to him. As JKG told his son: "Kennedy knew what he wanted and he knew I would deliver."

When JKG was in Washington in April Kennedy told him to deliver his report to McNamara. He did so.  Before he left he told Kennedy that McNamara got the message.

One month later McNamara told Harkins to stay after at a Sec Def Meeting.  With almost everyone one gone he said how long would it take to dismantle the American effort and turn it over to the ARVN.  

Harkins jaw about hit the table. He understood we were getting out and he was shocked.

PS JFK did not have a fling with Rometsch.  Peter Vea found the original FBI reports buried in piles at Jim Lesar's garage. Hoover could not find anything.  But he bluffed and gaslit the issue. Peter Vea was Malcolm Blunt before Malcolm.

PPSS Kennedy did not want the contents of NSAM 263 made public. So the idea it was for media effect is false. The guys who made it public were his enemies, the MAAG in Saigon.  

[Michael Griffith]

17 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

All right, administrators, let's have a ruling on this repetitious Michael Griffith slander.

This is now the fourth post during the past week in which Michael Griffith has falsely referred to the professors, engineers, and scientists who have debunked the Bush/Cheney/Zelikow 9/11 narrative with terms like, "nutjob," "nutcase," "deranged," and "nutty."

In response, I have asked Michael Griffith to kindly specify which academicians, scientists, and engineers involved in the 9/11 Truth research community he is referring to as "nutjobs."

Griffith has failed to respond to my request, while repeating his false, defamatory claims.

Is Griffith referring to the excellent, cogent analyses of the 9/11 data by Professor David Ray Griffin?

Is he referring to the scientific analyses of the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth?

This kind of non-specific defamation of the 9/11 research community is identical to the CIA propaganda ops that were used against Jim Garrison, Mark Lane, Sylvia Meagher, Fletcher Prouty, and other JFKA witnesses and researchers who debunked the Warren Commission Report.

Are Griffith's non-specific, false, defamatory slurs really acceptable on the Education Forum?

The 9/11 Truther "scientific evidence" you keep citing is rejected as spurious, bogus, idiotic, embarrassing, and ridiculous by 99.9% of the scientists and other experts who have examined it. 

Truth matters. Facts matter. Some theories are obviously, clearly bogus, absurd, and embarrassing, and do not deserve further discussion. The 9/11 Truther nuttiness is one of those theories. 

Edited April 22, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Jonathan Cohen]

Just now, Michael Griffith said:

The 9/11 Truther "scientific evidence" you keep citing is rejected as spurious, bogus, embarrassing, and ridiculous by 99.9% of the scientists and other experts who have examined it. 

Truth matters. Facts matter. Some theories are obviously, clearly bogus, absurd, and embarrassing, and do not deserve further discussion. The 9/11 Truther nuttiness is one of those theories. 

I couldn't agree more, and anyway, this subject should be debated somewhere other than a JFK assassination forum (moderators, I'm looking in your direction ...). It's a sad throwback to the absolutely preposterous 9/11 theories espoused here in the past by James Fetzer and Jack White.

[Joe Bauer]

How much clearer can JFK's policy in Vietnam be stated than in this famous 1963 interview of JFK by Walter Cronkite?

The discussion about Viet Nam starts at the 12 minute mark.

JFK says famously..."in the final analysis...it's their war ... they're the ones who have to win it or lose it."

Kennedy does strongly assert however, that we need to stay committed militarily in South East Asia as the only serious deterrent to the Communist threat of expansion into the entire area.

Kennedy mentions India's population as 500 million at the time of the interview. Today it's double that...1 billion!

 

September 2, 1963 - President John F. Kennedy's interview with Walter Cronkite

 

President John F. Kennedy's interview with CBS Evening News Anchor Walter Cronkite. 

 

 

Notice a strange "Outer Limits" TV show type screeching interruption on the video feed not long after JFK begins answering Cronkite's question about Viet Nam.

 

It starts just after JFK is making reference to the Japanese...something or other.

 

Looks like something was edited out there.

Edited April 24, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

The 9/11 Truther "scientific evidence" you keep citing is rejected as spurious, bogus, idiotic, embarrassing, and ridiculous by 99.9% of the scientists and other experts who have examined it. 

Truth matters. Facts matter. Some theories are obviously, clearly bogus, absurd, and embarrassing, and do not deserve further discussion. The 9/11 Truther nuttiness is one of those theories. 

Michael,

    I could take you to the cleaners in a debate about the scientific and forensic 9/11 data.

    However;

1)  This thread on the JFKA board about Col. L. Fletcher Prouty is not the right place for that debate, and

2)  I never wanted to take on the role of explaining to the duped American public what really happened on 9/11, as I told Mark Stephens on this forum a year or two ago.

     In fact, I feel about taking on the role of explaining 9/11 the same way that Fletcher Prouty felt about telling America that Allen Dulles's favorite black ops expert, Ed Lansdale, was in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.

     I can point out some decisive clues, but I'd prefer that people solve the puzzle themselves.

   

 

[Joe Bauer]

I think WN's posting drawback on the 911 affair on this thread right now is adequate.

Sometimes it's very tempting to want to do some comparative postulating of major impacting events in American history that have taken place since JFK's death in 1963.

This is reasonable to do when you acknowledge the fact that there is an inherent continuum and connection from every part of our history to the current times.

Especially the JFK, RFK and MLK assassinations.

They have greatly effected future American society events since their occurrences. They are logically tied together.

In the least, by the structure of highest level American power and control and the directions they have taken us since the assassinations.

I haven't read a lot regards 911. More than 80% to 85% of America I would guess, but still not a lot.

My take from that reading and using typical governmental power history common sense is that there is much more to the story that the main stream media ever presented. Which is typical of government control of such in the last 60 years.

I also agree with WN's proposition that the vast majority of structural and thermal physics engineers didn't even get close to studying the 911 building collapse issue.

They reacted with the same "career fear" that accompanies other major governmental power truth challenging in any public way.

They were never going to risk the dangers that come with such.

In my 70+ years I have happenstance bumped into a handful of people in the aerospace industry ( or even the military if it was relatable ) and I have invariably asked them their views on the UFO story if I sensed they would be even a little open to my doing so.

It seems every time they tense up, stammer a bit and give the most vague responses.

Yet, I never recall any of them saying flat out...it's all BS!

One fellow said..."I think they are our own" which I found very curious.

My guess is the 911 story is the same type of situation.

 

 

Edited April 26, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[Norman T. Field]

Re: ."I think they are our own"

I concur that a significant percentage of such sightings are indeed domestically produced UFOs, beginning in the late 1940s as we began testing the odd devices that Patton took out of the Czechoslovakia near the end of WW2. Especially given the military's unwillingness to tell President Eisenhower what was going on at Area 51. 

OTOH, the  high degree of affinity between nuclear facilities and UFO sighting strongly suggests that those objects are of interstellar origin.  

Jackie Gleason, who apparently was very interested in UFOs,  claimed that President Nixon took him to see alien cadavers at Homestead air force base. 

 

 

[Joe Bauer]

On 4/22/2023 at 9:26 AM, Norman T. Field said:

 

OTOH, the  high degree of affinity between nuclear facilities and UFO sighting strongly suggests that those objects are of interstellar origin.  

 

 

 

Reference Air Force officer Robert Salas's UFO story at Malmstrom Air Base in Montana 1967.

My older brother was stationed at an Air Force base in Morocco around 1960.

He was an AP ( air policeman )

Doing guard duty one evening he and his fellow security team saw large red circular objects hovering over the base.

They radioed into their superior officer what they were seeing.

After a pause this is what they were told.

"We have nothing on radar. Therefore you see nothing. And don't write home about it."

He also said one of the red objects descended down and slowly flew over their aircraft on the ground.

Then, this craft instantly shot up in the sky in a flash and all the objects disappeared.

I would ask him to tell me that story every few years.
And he never changed his story up until his passing at the age of 81.

Edited April 23, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[Michael Griffith]

20 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Michael,   

 

 I could take you to the cleaners in a debate about the scientific and forensic 9/11 data.

No, you couldn't. Again, 99.9% of the scientists who've examined the "scientific and forensic 9/11 data" reject the 9/11 Truther claims as preposterous, absurd, unscientific, and bogus. 

1)  This thread on the JFKA board about Col. L. Fletcher Prouty is not the right place for that debate, and

2)  I never wanted to take on the role of explaining to the duped American public what really happened on 9/11, as I told Mark Stephens on this forum a year or two ago.

We already know what "really happened" on 9/11. Terrorists flew two gigantic airliners loaded with Jet A fuel into the Twin Towers and one airliner into the Pentagon. They openly bragged about it. They were proud of it. They said we had it coming.

99.9% of the scientists, engineers, and other experts who've examined the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC 7 have rejected the ridiculous, paranoid, and silly "controlled demolition" theory and have explained the collapses to the satisfaction of 99% of the educated population. 

Literally thousands of people in DC saw American Airlines Flight 77 flying unusually low and heading straight toward the Pentagon. People who were on the plane called friends and loved ones just before the plane crashed into the Pentagon to warn them the plane had been hijacked. I had a friend who was a Pentagon policeman on 9/11 and who saw part of the plane's fuselage in the giant hole made by the impact. There was no missile. The missile theory is not just demonstrably false, it is idiotic, paranoid, and obscene. 

     In fact, I feel about taking on the role of explaining 9/11 the same way that Fletcher Prouty felt about telling America that Allen Dulles's favorite black ops expert, Ed Lansdale, was in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63. I can point out some decisive clues, but I'd prefer that people solve the puzzle themselves.  

This is crazy talk that even Oliver Stone has backed away from. Again, Lansdale liked and admired JFK and grieved his death. Lansdale opposed the deployment of large numbers of American troops to Vietnam. He even opposed many of the recommendations in the Taylor-McNamara report. In fact, Lansdale even opposed bombing North Vietnam. Lansdale was bipartisan. Lansdale was also not your typical CIA man, either, and many CIA agents disliked him because he disapproved of many of their methods and views.

These facts have been noted by a number of historians who have studied Lansdale career. Have you read Cecil B. Curry's seminal work on Lansdale, Edward Lansdale: The Unquiet American (Houghton Mifflin, 1988)?

Prouty's charges against Lansdale are obscene, nutty, and baseless. I would note that when Prouty was interviewed by the ARRB, he did not repeat his claim that Lansdale was the one who had sent him on the South Pole trip. Moreover, Prouty refused to identify the person who had supposedly corroborated that Lansdale appeared in one of the Dealey Plaza "tramp" photos. Prouty had claimed that one of those photos showed Lansdale's backside, and that someone who had known Lansdale had told him that the man in the photo was Lansdale. When the ARRB asked Prouty to name this person, he refused.

[Matthew Koch]

3 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

No, you couldn't. Again, 99.9% of the scientists who've examined the "scientific and forensic 9/11 data" reject the 9/11 Truther claims as preposterous, absurd, unscientific, and bogus. 

Thanks for the laugh Michael!! https://rumble.com/v2ex9qi-911-wtc-2-collapse-rare-view.html

If you could, you would have cited data, but instead you ran for cover to the pentagon and selected cherry picked info to hide behind. Here's scientific proof btw (Molten Metal) https://rumble.com/v2e4uqg-the-great-thermate-debate.html https://rumble.com/v2g2t3a-ground-zero-months-later.html

What a coincidence that the part of the pentagon hit by the plane stored the records to the missing trillions of dollars that the pentagon announced it lost the day before. https://rumble.com/v2fee8e-pentagon-announces-it-lost-2.3-trillion-dollars-the-day-before-911.html Now I know 911 involves your favorite country Israel which is probably why you haven't looked much into it because you don't want to be labeled what you call Prouty which is "Anti Semitic" but how do you explain away the dancing Israelis? https://rumble.com/v2f9i7q-urban-moving-systems-aka-the-dancing-isralies.html or the spying ring from earlier that year that shadowed the hijackers? https://rumble.com/v2f4aj2-israeli-spying-ring-connected-to-911-hijackers.html

How about the put options, Just another coincidence? https://rumble.com/v2g2q88-911-insider-trading.html

 

Now as far as Prouty goes, Michael you have been unable to mention anything specifically antisemitic and have resorted to generalized guilt by association attacks about Prouty. I find that rather ironic given what you said about Ron Paul and your working for his campaign. Well the complaints about Prouty are the same as the complaints against Ron Paul and his "Racist Newsletter" which means that you are guilty of the same thing Prouty is... which is guilt by association so if Prouty is a Crackpot Antisemite because of people he has associated with.. then you are racist by the same standard, lol ; ) 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fl8oUEicVSQ

 

 

 

 

[Michael Griffith]

19 minutes ago, Matthew Koch said:

Thanks for the laugh Michael!! https://rumble.com/v2ex9qi-911-wtc-2-collapse-rare-view.html

If you could, you would have cited data, but instead you ran for cover to the pentagon and selected cherry picked info to hide behind. Here's scientific proof btw (Molten Metal) https://rumble.com/v2e4uqg-the-great-thermate-debate.html https://rumble.com/v2g2t3a-ground-zero-months-later.html

What a coincidence that the part of the pentagon hit by the plane stored the records to the missing trillions of dollars that the pentagon announced it lost the day before. https://rumble.com/v2fee8e-pentagon-announces-it-lost-2.3-trillion-dollars-the-day-before-911.html Now I know 911 involves your favorite country Israel which is probably why you haven't looked much into it because you don't want to be labeled what you call Prouty which is "Anti Semitic" but how do you explain away the dancing Israelis? https://rumble.com/v2f9i7q-urban-moving-systems-aka-the-dancing-isralies.html or the spying ring from earlier that year that shadowed the hijackers? https://rumble.com/v2f4aj2-israeli-spying-ring-connected-to-911-hijackers.html

How about the put options, Just another coincidence? https://rumble.com/v2g2q88-911-insider-trading.html

Now as far as Prouty goes, Michael you have been unable to mention anything specifically antisemitic and have resorted to generalized guilt by association attacks about Prouty. I find that rather ironic given what you said about Ron Paul and your working for his campaign. Well the complaints about Prouty are the same as the complaints against Ron Paul and his "Racist Newsletter" which means that you are guilty of the same thing Prouty is... which is guilt by association so if Prouty is a Crackpot Antisemite because of people he has associated with.. then you are racist by the same standard, lol ; ) 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fl8oUEicVSQ

I could post numerous scientific links that debunk the 9//11 Truther garbage, but I'm just not going to waste time on this embarrassing nonsense. It's like wasting time posting links that debunk the flat-Earth theory. Why bother refuting something that 99% of the educated population in the U.S. already knows is false and absurd?

As for my alleged failure to "mention anything specifically anti-Semitic" regarding Prouty, wow, I suggest you re-read my posts in this thread.

I'd say that palling around with Holocaust deniers for years, having a Holocaust-denying publishing company republish one of his books, recommending that people read an anti-Semitic newspaper, blaming high oil prices on the Israelis (sure, makes perfect sense!), appearing on an anti-Semitic and Holocaust-denying group's radio program 10 times in four years, publicly praising two prominent anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers for agreeing to republish his book, and saying "I'm no authority in that area" when asked about Holocaust denial--I'd say that such actions certainly justify the charge that Prouty closely associated with anti-Semites for years, and that he expressed anti-Semitic sentiments. 

Edited April 23, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Matthew Koch]

14 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

I could post numerous scientific links that debunk the 9//11 Truther garbage, but I'm just not going to waste time on this embarrassing nonsense. It's like wasting time posting links that debunk the flat-Earth theory. Why bother refuting something that 99% of the educated population in the U.S. already knows is false and absurd?

As for my alleged failure to "mention anything specifically anti-Semitic" regarding Prouty, wow, I suggest you re-read my posts in this thread.

I'd say that palling around with Holocaust deniers for years, having a Holocaust-denying publishing company republish one of his books, recommending that people read an anti-Semitic newspaper, blaming high oil prices on the Israelis (sure, makes perfect sense!), appearing on an anti-Semitic and Holocaust-denying group's radio program 10 times in four years, publicly praising two prominent anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers for agreeing to republish his book, and saying "I'm no authority in that area" when asked about Holocaust denial--I'd say that such actions certainly justify the charge that Prouty closely associated with anti-Semites for years, and that he expressed anti-Semitic sentiments. 

Funny if that's your response then your wasting my time now, lol

You can't refute it and that's why you just gave this very weak response hiding behind Flat Earth Theory of all things.. I would label that cognitive dissidence myself. 

If blaming Israelis for high oil prices is all you have that is what I and most people call grasping at straws. I don't think that trumps Prouty's military service or his time teaching at Princeton. Do you have anything that rises to maybe Kanye level otherwise I wouldn't label him anti semtic.   But Ron Paul posted this cartoon in 2018 and you haven't denied him or his racist cartoons so... https://www.salon.com/2018/07/02/internet-unleashes-fury-on-ron-paul-for-sharing-insanely-racist-cartoon_partner/