Michael Collins Piper: Final Judgement

[Jeff Dahlstrom]

Mark S.,

I recall you posted last year about the possibility aerial photos of DP had been taken in preparation for November 22. Have you heard any more on this and what was your source?

My post last year requesting any information about possible aerial photos of Dealey Plaza on November 22 was simply a question because I had not seen any evidence or discussions of that possibilty. One of the posters here was a CIA contract pilot and claimed to have been in Dallas that day in private aircraft, i believe one of his passengers was Rosselli.

If the JFK assassination was a military operation similar to the 9/11 attacks, the instigators might have had an interest in recording the event from the air. None of the replies to my posted question offered any information. Mr. PlumLee might be aware of possible aerial photography by those involved in JFK's death, but he never offered any information.

Jeff D.

[John Simkin]

Jeff wrote:

I don't know what Piper says, yet because the Israeli/Neocon lobby in America makes his book which is protected by the first ammendment of the Constitution, difficult to find (and read).

The more you write the more I suspect you have anti-semitic tendencies yourself.

I apologise for Tim’s behaviour. I am afraid he often resorts to this tactic when he cannot argue against the logic of your case. He usually accused people of being anti-American or a communist sympathizer. Don’t be too hard of him, his limited education has made him a victim of the lies told by the mass media. He is suffering from “false consciousness”.

Thanks for all your well informed input, I will have more to say after reading Piper's book. Perhaps John Simkin could invite Michael C. Piper to defend his thesis in this forum against his critics here that have not read the book... yet. I have enjoyed reading the comments other authors here, like Jim Marrs and Larry Hancock and many others. What do you say, John?

He is welcome to join. Do you have his contact details?

[Jeff Dahlstrom]

John S.,

Mr. Piper is a regular contributor for the American Free Press (www.amaericanfreepress.net) and his contact information published in his book The High Priests of War is as follows:

Michael Collins Piper

P.O. Box 15728

Washington, DC 20003

Email: piperm@lycos.com

Tel: (202) 544-5977

Jeff D.

[Mark Stapleton]

Of course we all know that RFK was a big supporter of Israel.

If Israel had killed JFK, it is preposterous to assume that RFK would not have at least suspected it. If he did not so suspect, either Israel did not do it or RFK was an idiot.

Does not RFK's steadfast support of Israel disprove the anti-semitic ravings of Piper?

Since when do "we all know that RFK was a big supporter of Israel"? If you mean did he support the nation of Israel, then the answer is yes. If you mean would he have reversed JFK's hardline on inspections, greatly increased military aid and protected Israel from the consequences of its own overzealous behavior, as LBJ did, then the answer is you don't know that any more than anyone else does. He may have followed his brothers impartial policy towards the Middle East. Who knows?

You're just assuming (or hoping) these things are true, then using this as platform to build a doubtful argument. Then you preach it like it's gospel truth.

[Len Colby]

Ron you insinuate that the article should not be trusted just because "it was written by some Max Holland" which I think is curious due to you position that, "facts are facts I don't care who reports them, "neo-Nazis" or men from Mars". So we should trust a nut job like Chamish but not Holland or someone like him. How do you explain this contradiction?

The way you twist things, you must be a pretzel maker down in Brazil. (Send some to Dubya*.) I did not insinuate that the article "should not be trusted" (as you put it) because of who wrote it. Regardless of whoever wrote it, I stated that the article was weak and even laughable. I called the author a Max Holland because Holland is an apologist for the Warren Commission like the author of this article is obviously an apologist for the Shamgar Commission. I did not say that Holland does not report facts (which would be a pretty stupid claim to make about any published author), contrary to your word twisting.

Perhaps I misunderstood you Ron, but since you obviously don't find Max Holland credible I imagine you would not take anything he said seriously. Imagine Holland or Posner wrote a book about the assassination of Rabin, wouldn't you "take it with a grain of salt" you evaluation of Chamish seems "salt free" to me.

To be honest I haven't looked into the Rabin assassination CTs because I never took them seriously. You said the debunking article was weak, but what about Chamish's article which doesn't cite a single source? How do we know these people really said what he claims they said?

How could I know? That's why I asked for your opinion on Chamish's articles on the Rabin assassination, since you seemed to be an expert on Chamish. Your opinion has been worthless, as you state yourself that you "haven't looked into" the conspiracy theory.

Again maybe I 'misread you'. I didn't interpret your question as asking my opinion, it seem more rhetorical. I haven't looked into the assassination much because Chamish seems to be one of the few people to take the CT seriously. By your own logic how valuable is your opinion? Besides reading Chamish (who doesn't offer any documentation in favor of his claims) how much have you looked into the case?

Ron you seem to operate by a double standard when you hear about a CT that fit's your World view you accept it uncritically. You only ask the 'debunkers' for proof.

You don't know what you're talking about.

I got the impression you've already made up your mind on this case. You critiqued the 'debunking' article for being weak because it didn't offer any proof but did not apply the same standard to Chamish. You called the author an apologist which only makes sense if you think he was wrong and there was a conspiracy.

Prove me wrong tell me one case of an assassination, attempted assassination or "suspicious" death of a political figure in the last 40+ years where you reject the conspiracy theories (other than of course where the accusations are made by Republicans like Vince Foster's suicide) as not being credible.

Maybe I'm wrong but I think we see the World differently, when I hear a conspiracy theory I have one of three reactions, I think "this doesn't make any sense" or "that could be true" or "makes sense to me". If it interests me enough I look into it before I accept it. In any case since I'm a skeptic I want to see evidence before I will believe something is true. My impression is that when you meet a conspiracy that you like you will believe it unless it's undeniably proven false.

Can we agree to disagree on this one?

Len

*Careful with comments like that Ron, I've heard of people and forums getting visits from the Secret Service for less don't forget you're living in Brave New America now

Jeff - Care to elaborate on this comment? “the Zionist/Neoconservatives controlling our current government” that myth is right out of the pages of neo-fascist/neo-Nazi publications like Piper’s employer the American Free Press. Willis Carto, that paper’s publisher, has long made his hatred of Jews and Blacks and admiration for Hitler clear. Piper is not secretly getting money from an anti-Israel group as Tim suggested he is openly employed by one. Although I agree Tim over reacted on this issue with regards to Mark, I don’t discount that he might have been on to something.

You said the book was well researched, how did you reach that conclusion before you read the book?

Len

Edited February 9, 2006 by Len Colby

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Stephen,

Jeff, I have seen most of this before, as I said, I have done my own research, but thank you.

I notice that Professor Jones background is Physics, not structural engineering,or Failure analysis. Can you cite one Engineer who claims the Towers fell because of planted explosives? Steve.

I can not cite a structural engineer claiming explosives as the cause of the collapse of the three WTC towers. However, Guns and Butter archives has two interesting programs that totally debunk the FEMA report on the collapse of the WTC towers ($600,000 cost) and the more extensive NIST report ($20 Million). Those programs are interviews with Jim Hoffman and I don't remember which program dates to refer you. Try the six most recent archives in Jan-Feb, 2006: http://www.kpfa.org/archives/index.php?sho...age=1&type=news

Jeff D.

Jeff, Hoffman is a software engineer, and a collaborator with Prof Jones, how does this make him an expert on structural failure. Engineers all over the World,not just in the US have studied the NIST report, and, as far as I know, not one has a problem with the reasons given for the collapse of the Towers, just how big is this conspiracy?The towers fell into their own footprint because logically it was the only way for a freestanding sturcture of that size to fall, unless the intial strike had been so devistating as to have "bent" the towers over one hundred feet out of alignment.and as we know, this did not happen. Check out some actual structral engineers reports, I did, It sure changed my mind. Steve.

[Ron Ecker]

Perhaps I misunderstood you Ron, but since you obviously don't find Max Holland credible I imagine you would not take anything he said seriously.

That attitude toward any writer (whether Holland or Chamish) is why it's a waste of time arguing with you, even though I'm doing it.

To be honest I haven't looked into the Rabin assassination CTs because I never took them seriously.

Then you are not qualified to say anything meaningful about them. Ignorance is bliss but not very instructive.

By your own logic how valuable is your opinion? Besides reading Chamish (who doesn't offer any documentation in favor of his claims) how much have you looked into the case?

I've just begun looking into it. It's not easy to do because Chamish is the only person I've found so far who has written much about it. I would ask you what other sources there are, but what would be the point of that?

I got the impression you've already made up your mind on this case.

How can my mind be made up when I can't find anything more on it? But it certainly feeds my suspicion when something is so blocked by a solid wall of silence.

You critiqued the 'debunking' article for being weak because it didn't offer any proof but did not apply the same standard to Chamish. You called the author an apologist which only makes sense if you think he was wrong and there was a conspiracy.

Chamish's article is not weak and laughable like the other. The other author is, by his very words, an apologist for a commission that, based on what Chamish claims, was a whitewash, which is hardly surprising, since historically that is basically what such "commissions" are for.

You have insinuated that Chamish just made up people's statements, you asked how can I know they are true. Let me ask you, if Chamish made up statements, why didn't the other author light into him and make mincemeat out of him by pointing out his fabrications? It is obvious from the article that the author couldn't handle Chamish's claims. Instead the author lists a number of things that he simply labels "False" that Chamish didn't claim, they were supposedly claimed by others, whoever they are.

Prove me wrong tell me one case of an assassination, attempted assassination or "suspicious" death of a political figure in the last 40+ years where you reject the conspiracy theories (other than of course where the accusations are made by Republicans like Vince Foster's suicide) as not being credible.

I'm not going to go down a 40-year-long list of political assassinations for you, sorry. But I will say that there are major ones that fit a familiar, tried and true "lone nut" pattern, starting with Dallas, and were clearly the work of the same conspiratorial institutions that pioneered the MO in Dallas. And that is based all on evidence in each case, not because "my mind is made up."

My impression is that when you meet a conspiracy that you like you will believe it unless it's undeniably proven false.

First, I am not as stupid as you think I am. Second, nothing in this world can ever be "undeniably proven" true or false.

And yes, I agree that we can agree to disagree. Enough on this already.

[Len Colby]

First, I am not as stupid as you think I am. Second, nothing in this world can ever be "undeniably proven" true or false.

And yes, I agree that we can agree to disagree. Enough on this already.

Ron - What makes you think that I think you are stupid. I never said anything along those lines nor do I think such an interpritation can be construed. I think you're smart but predisposed to believe in most conspiracy theories you hear about.

Considered the matter dropped.

Len

[Ron Ecker]

I think you're smart but predisposed to believe in most conspiracy theories you hear about.

Len,

Not that I want to get in the last word, but I can't let that go without comment. I believed in the conclusion of the Warren Commission report for about 20 years. My mind began changing when I started reading the JFK assassination literature. I believed the official 9/11 conspiracy theory (Bin Laden and his boys did it all by themselves) for a couple of years, till I began emerging from the corporate media-induced stupor that most Americans are still in, and began researching and actually thinking. So far from being "prediposed to believe in most conspiracy theories" that I hear about, my life experience shows that I am just the opposite. In the beginning I tend to ignore them completely.

Ron

[Len Colby]

Steve,

As you probably know, Professor Jones and Jim Fetzer have founded a group called Scholars for 9/11 Truth (see link below). I recently read Jones comment, though I can't now find the source, that they have received emails from engineers and others in support of their work.

It's understandable that engineers who believe, contrary to the official government engineering "findings", that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition might not want to be identified yet. Until the problems with the official story become better known, I imagine that speaking out on the subject by an engineer can be a real career killer.

Hopefully some will arise who put truth above career.

http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/...ter_20912.shtml

Ron

I started a new thread on the topic the lack of any expert backing for WTC controlled demolition theories and why all the rationalisations for this are not valid.It's not that they "put truth before career" but rather that none has put fantasy before science.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6094

A 9/11 conspiracy theorist was very critical of several members of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" esp. Fetzer. Note that this article is from Hoffman's site.http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/company.html

Len

Edited February 9, 2006 by Len Colby

[Dawn Meredith]

[quote name='Jeff Dahlstrom' date='Feb 9 2006, 10:11 AM' post='54162']

[

Tim,

I appreciate that you have "skimmed" Piper's thesis and book and have labeled it anti-semitic dribble. I don't know what Piper says, yet because the Israeli/Neocon lobby in America makes his book which is protected by the first ammendment of the Constitution, difficult to find (and read).

I'm glad my comments on 9-11 provided you a brief modicum of humor... after all laughter heals many ailments. As for the source of my concerns about your Republican Neocon pals in the Pentagon, White House, controlled press, and Washington DC think tanks like PNAC, that have created the myth of a "Global War on Terrorism", I can assure you that I actually read as opposed to "skimmed":

1) 9/11 Commission Report (Kean, Zelikov)

2) 9/11 Commission Report: Ommissions and Distortions, David Ray Griffin

3) The New Pearl Harbor, David Ray Griffin

4) Crossing the Rubicon, Michael Rupert

5) Imperial Hubris, Anonymous (CIA)

6) Painfull Deceptions, Eric Huffschmidt

7) One Way Ticket to Crawford, Texas, Karl Schwarz

8) 9/11 Synthetic Terror, MADE IN THE USA, Webster G. Tarpley (the best, IMO)

9) Neoconned, (Various authors)

10) Neoconned, Again, (Various authors)

Videos:

1) In Plane Site

2) Painfull Deceptions

3) Confronting the Evidence: A Call to Reopen the 9/11 Investigation.

My political persuasion, Tim, was a Republican that voted for Nixon twice and GW Bush twice (aaargh). In addition, I personally know your pal Donald Segretti. I am now adamantly and most emphatically an Independent voter and hope that the current lunatic occupants of the White House don't cause complete nuclear annihilation of the entire planet. We need another Pete McCloskey in Washington and someone that files Articles of Impeachment of Bush AND Cheney in Congress... now.

Jeff D.

Jeff:

What a breath of fresh air! When I read something like the above it gives me such hope. People

CAN change. People can come to see the light, past the layers of deception.

Dawn

[Ron Ecker]

A 9/11 conspiracy theorist was very critical of several members of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" esp. Fetzer. Note that this article is from Hoffman's site.http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/company.html

This illustrates that 9/11 CTs attack or criticize each other's work just like JFK CTs attack or criticize each other's work. But thanks for posting the link to a good CT piece.

As a 9/11 CT I would attack this particular 9/11 CT work, based on a fast reading, on one rather glaring assertion: he says that the photos purported to be of the Pentagon impact point are not of the impact point. I don't understand how he can say that (or why) when one photo clearly shows the collapse that occurred at the impact point, some 30 minutes after impact. Where else along that wall of the Pentagon was there any such collapse?

Seems to me, based on his treatment of those photos, that this fellow should not be attacking others for writing "disinformation." If someone can show me a photo of a similar collapse along any part of that Pentagon wall, and that the collapse shown in the photos in question are photos of that "other" collapse, I'll admit that I'm wrong and he's right.

Edited February 9, 2006 by Ron Ecker

[Lee Forman]

Interesting...

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJu...kscopy/Y12.html

The main JFK conspirator was named Ray Tucker and was one of the supplanted national security types at the Y-12 nuke bomb factory. He went to school in Chicago with Jack Ruby and knew the Mafia was getting down on JFK and RFK. So, he used Ruby for getting the New Orleans mob, that Ruby dealt with to get girls for his night club's strip shows, to take out a hit on JFK. It was this person that coordinated getting the Govt. to play along. He had support from those Texas interests that lost investments in Cuba to LBJ.

http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29255

JFK learned of this new invasion plot and he raided their weapons stockpiles using the FBI to shut them down. When this attempt failed to succeed in going against JFK they moved into using their connections to play the Israel card and have JFK killed and insert Israel and weapons / war friendly LBJ. Oak Ridge used their ace in the hole, Ray Tucker of the Y-12 plant who had extensive Texas oil connections and with pro-Israel Jack Ruby and LBJ. This would put the cold war back on track and supply more money to the strangled war economy of Oak Ridge. Oak Ridge would be guaranteed funding as the country came under more Jewish / Zionist and Military / Industrial network control. Oak Ridge would use the very same methods the Jews used against Hitler, methods of "Demon-ization" aimed at JFK. The plot thickened with the emergence of "Operation Northwoods" type fake out missions developed by the Joint Chiefs, which used methods of "deceit and treachery."

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...k%20ridge&st=15

However, most of the covertwork was farmed out by NSA, et al. to Rockwell International and their private armies. Most of the planning, briefing, etc. over the years took place ["In Isolation"] at the nuke warhead plants at Hanford, WA; Rocky Flats, CO; and Oak Ridge, TN.

[Royce Bierma]

Mark S.,

I recall you posted last year about the possibility aerial photos of DP had been taken in preparation for November 22. Have you heard any more on this and what was your source?

My post last year requesting any information about possible aerial photos of Dealey Plaza on November 22 was simply a question because I had not seen any evidence or discussions of that possibilty. One of the posters here was a CIA contract pilot and claimed to have been in Dallas that day in private aircraft, i believe one of his passengers was Rosselli.

If the JFK assassination was a military operation similar to the 9/11 attacks, the instigators might have had an interest in recording the event from the air. None of the replies to my posted question offered any information. Mr. PlumLee might be aware of possible aerial photography by those involved in JFK's death, but he never offered any information.

Jeff D.

Jeff, what do you mean by "If the JFK assassination was a military operation similar to the 9/11 attacks...." You're not suggesting that the US military had anything to do with the downing of the World Trade Center towers or the Pentagon attack, or the aborted attempt to bomb the Capitol building, are you?

Roy Bierma

[Tim Gratz]

Mark wrote:

And my point about the Cohen book is "useless"? You haven't even read the book. You spent much time berating others for being insufficiently read then condemn a very scholarly work as useless without even reading a word. The cover of Avner Cohen's book displays the following endorsement: "Cohen's book will necessitate the rewriting of Israel's entire history"--Tom Segev, Ha'aretz. Are you now claiming Segev is an anti-Semite and Ha'aretz an anti-Semitic publication

Mark, this comment proves to me you are not a careful reader. I assume you will be on the Internet tonight.

Kindly post where I said Cohen's book was "useless". You might learn something about critical thinking when you do.