Michael Collins Piper: Final Judgement

[Jeff Dahlstrom]

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

Roy,

My short answer to your question is ... YES.

Why? There were too many mistakes made on 9/11 by the perpetrators in order to launch the "global war on terrorism". I don't think America can wait to figure out who did it for 42 years like the JFK Assassination. The murderous traitors in our government that did 9/11 are still not disclosed to the citizens of this country, they are still in power, and they will certainly do it again to create more "terror". Perhaps a small 10 kiloton nuclear weapon in Los Angeles blamed again on an unsuspecting Islamic Jihadist group in Iran to launch all out nuclear war and more fear induced abridgement of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

How could the most powerful military defense in the world not intercept four "hijacked planes" flying in our airspace for 45 minutes to an hour? There were two squadrons of F-16's and F-15's on alert at Andrews AFB that should have been airborne in minutes. What were those military drills and war games about on 9/11? Vigilant Guardian, Vigilant Warrior, Tripod II, etc?

One of the drils was a simulated jetliner hijacked and flown into the CIA headquarters on 9/11. Why did Condi Rice testify (lie) under oath at the 9/11 Commission that they had no idea about an attack from inside the USA?

How could the most secure building in the US with extensive video surveilance (Pentagon) be struck by a large 757 flown by an arab hijacker pilot that was not qualified to fly a cessna 172 after executing a 270 degree immelman like maneuver from 7,000 feet? Why was there no 757 jetliner parts in the damaged Pentagon and where are the surveilance videos of the event? How did 7 of the FBI's 19 arab hijackers survive their suicide missions?

Why was there no Fight 93 - 757 jetliner wreckage in the burning crater in Shanksville, PA?

If the two World Trade Center tower collapses were not caused by preplanted explosives detonated with precise military timing, how did they collapse in 10 seconds or the same speed as free fall due to gravity? How were massive steel beams blown 300 feet out and up during the tower's collapse? Why did the 47 story steel framed WTC building 7 collapse at 5:30 pm on 9/11, since no hijacked suicide bomber terrorist hit that building? Tenants in the WTC #7 were the Defense Department, Secret Service, CIA, IRS and Mayor Guliani's 23rd Floor, self contained OEM Office with bullet/explosive proof windows and a seperate self enclosed power and air supply. How did so many witnesses and first responders in the WTC from the FDNY FDPD, Harbor Patrol hear, feel, and see the explosions in the WTC Towers?

9/11 was an "Inside Job" as outlined by one of our favorite JFK assassination authers, Jim Marrs. The US military had to be involved and the number of conspirators, moles, and patsies was VERY large.

Should I have simply stopped with my short answer, Roy?

Jeff D.

[Mark Stapleton]

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.

Post #45. You stated: Your point about the Cohen book is useless..

Tim, it's obvious to me and others on the Forum that you are one of the most careless readers here. John's already apologised to Jeff Dahlstrom on behalf of you for your bizarre accusations of anti-semitism towards him. It's a bit rich to lecture someone about critical thinking when you appear to be completely brainwashed by the current administration in Washington and its media cheer squad.

The problem you face is that it will take twice the time for you to learn critical thinking than for others who don't share your affliction. First, you'll have to unlearn decades of right wing, neocon propaganda before you can start from scratch with a new slate. It won't be easy but we're here to help you, Tim. You're the saddest case I've yet encountered.

Edited February 10, 2006 by Mark Stapleton

[Tim Gratz]

Mark, the sad case is you.

Critical thinking includes the ability to make distinctions, which you obviously lack.

You still don't get it, do you? That is what is sad!

And I ignore John's comments about me. In that same post he claimed I suffered from a "lack of education" whereas I have a post-graduate degree with honors. John now dislikes me because I do not share his hatred of all things American.

Mark, I bet you never completed a course in logic, have you?

[Mark Stapleton]

Mark, the sad case is you.

Critical thinking includes the ability to make distinctions, which you obviously lack.

You still don't get it, do you? That is what is sad!

And I ignore John's comments about me. In that same post he claimed I suffered from a "lack of education" whereas I have a post-graduate degree with honors. John now dislikes me because I do not share his hatred of all things American.

Mark, I bet you never completed a course in logic, have you?

So John Simkin has a hatred of all things American? I believe he will be surprised to hear that. And I'm not going to enter a debate on logic and critical thinking with a person suffering with your unfortunate affliction. However, I do feel a degree of sympathy for your plight.

BTW, are you implying that no-one is fit to debate you unless they have completed a course in logic? I thought so. How illogical.

[Tim Gratz]

Mark, my point was that your lack of training in logic shows.

If I am wrong, please demonstrate it by posting a typical example of syllogistic reasoning (without researching same).

You still (of course) have not responded to my point that I never said Cohen's book was useless. It demonstrates you lack the ability to make distinctions. I far prefer that to the alternative explanation that you deliberately distorted what I said.

Edited February 10, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[Mark Stapleton]

Mark, my point was that your lack of training in logic shows.

If I am wrong, please demonstrate it by posting a typical example of syllogistic reasoning (without researching same).

You still (of course) have not responded to my point that I never said Cohen's book was useless. It demonstrates you lack the ability to make distinctions. I far prefer that to the alternative explanation that you deliberately distorted what I said.

Tim,

If your syllogistic reasoning background can't help you read a post (whatever that is), then what chance do I have of curing you ?

My exact words were, "And my point about the Cohen book is useless?". Please point out where I claimed that YOU said the Cohen book is useless?

Why I continue this futile debate with a Forum member who has a history of running like a greyhound from his own unsubstantiated assertions is a mystery. Maybe I have too much time on my hands. It doesn't make any sense (from a syllogistic viewpoint, that is).

[Tim Gratz]

Mark S. wrote:

Please point out where I claimed that YOU said the Cohen book is useless?

Mark, these were your exact words:

"[You] condemn a very scholarly book as useless . . ." (In your Post #56)

You very clearly said I was condemning the book as useless whereas my point (as you well knew) was that your employment of the book to make your point was useless.

Every day in appeals courts an attorney will argue that an opponent's attempted reliance on a precedent is inapposite or not on point. That does not mean, of course, that the attorney is arguing that the precedent itself is useless.

You said (it's in black and white) that I condemned the book as useless.

Can we agree that you said that but that it was not a true statement because I never posted a single word critical of the book?

By the way, thank you for your acknowledgement about your lack of training in syllogistic reasoning. It shows.

Edited February 10, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[Ron Ecker]

There were two squadrons of F-16's and F-15's on alert at Andrews AFB that should have been airborne in minutes.

Aircraft was not on alert at Andrews. (The closest NORAD bases on alert were Langley and Otis, where fighters were scrambled, then sent in wrong directions.) This is not an excuse for Andrews not getting fighters in the air to protect DC (that's the base's mission) before the Pentagon was hit. (The SECRET SERVICE had to call Andrews asking for some planes. The Pentagon never thought of that.)

What were those military drills and war games about on 9/11? Vigilant Guardian, Vigilant Warrior, Tripod II, etc?

One of the drils was a simulated jetliner hijacked and flown into the CIA headquarters on 9/11.

Not exactly. The drill did not involve a simulated hijacking but a plane crashing into the headquarters of the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO, run by the CIA) after takeoff from Dulles, 4 miles away.

Tripod was not a war game but a biochemical attack drill scheduled in NYC for 9/12. Hundreds of people from FEMA and other agencies had assembled beforehand for this drill, and were thus "serendipitously" on hand to provide immediate emergency help on 9/11.

[Tim Gratz]

Without criticizing any member, I suggest this thread is getting off the point.

The point of this thread is not whether 9-11 was a conspiracy (that issue has its own thread) but whether there is any reasonable evidence to suggest the Mossad killed JFK.

Of course the anti-semites would claim 9-11 was a "zionist" conspiracy so in some senses it fits.

[Tim Gratz]

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).

To which I replied:

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

John then jumped in:

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.

What a ridiculous post.

Most people believe that there is at least a tinge of anti-semitism involved with anyone who argues that the government or the media is controlled by a Zionist conspiracy, as Richard Nixon infamously did, and Jeff did here.

Simkin says I often resort to the logic of calling someone an anti-semite or a Communist? Prove it, John. Find a post and quote me. Put up or shut up.

John also says I called Jeff an anti-semite because I could not argue with the "logic" of his position. LOL. I found an outlet that sells Piper's book through 60 seconds on the Internet (and I posted it), proving that his "logic" that some nefarious Jewish conspiracy was suppressing Piper's book was bullroar. Jeff's "logic" was demonstrably demolished by me in sixty seconds. To quote a movie title: Jeff's logic was "Gone in Sixty Seconds." Moreover, it should be clear there are so many book distributors in this country, of all political persuasions, that no grand comspiracy could control them all.

By the way, forget Jeff's logic. Just look at his punctuation (misplaced comma) and spelling ("amendment" with three "n"s.)

Edited February 10, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[John Simkin]

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”.

And I ignore John's comments about me. In that same post he claimed I suffered from a "lack of education" whereas I have a post-graduate degree with honors. John now dislikes me because I do not share his hatred of all things American.

Did not take me very long for me to find a quote where you falsely attacked someone for being "anti-American" (it appeared on the same thread as this one). Of course, what you really mean is that I am "anti-George Bush" but according to your twisted logic, this means I am "anti-American".

Your "lack of education" has nothing to do with you having a university education. Your idea of education is learning what you think you already know.

Simkin says I often resort to the logic of calling someone an anti-semite or a Communist? Prove it, John. Find a post and quote me. Put up or shut up.

As regards to people being called communist sympathizers, you have repeatedly done this to members of the Forum when they have questioned your theory that Castro did it. Remember, on the thread on Tom Buchanan, you famously said that he could not be believed because he was a former member of the American Communist Party and "all communists are liars".

By the way, forget Jeff's logic. Just look at his punctuation (misplaced comma) and spelling ("amendment" with three "n"s.)

This is the other line that Tim takes. This is quite amazing as Tim makes more spelling mistakes than almost anybody else on the Forum. Not that this in itself means that Tim is not very bright. However, it is a reflection of his closed mind that he appears to be completely unaware of it.

[Tim Gratz]

John wrote:

As regards to people being called communist sympathizers, you have repeatedly done this to members of the Forum when they have questioned your theory that Castro did it.

Remember, of course, that I asked him to cite a post in which I accused a Forum member of being a Communist. He says I have done so "repeatedly". But he offers not one instance. Nada. Nothing. Zip.

And of course he totally ignores my point that he claimed I was unable to criticize Jeff's logic when I proved I demolished it--smashed it to pieces--in a mere sixty seconds. He has to ignore it because there is no possible response. I proved Jeff wrong.

Re Buchanan: First, he of course is not a Forum member; second, he was an admitted Communist so I did not falsely accuse him. So the Buchanan matter doesn't cut it, John. Moreover you said "repeatedly".

John, why don't you have the intellectual courage to just admit I successfully called your bluff. I do not go around accusing people of being a communist. As all regular readers know, I regularly decry people who malign the motives of others.

Edited February 10, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[Len Colby]

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?

Gee, John while you’re at it you might want to invite David Duke here to comment on his books too. I don’t know his contact details but you could ask Piper they travel in the same circles. Piper has spent (as far as I can tell) his entire career as a writer working for publications associated with Willis Carto America’s ‘preeminent’ anti-Semite/Holocaust denier, all his books put Jews in a bad light and he frequently speaks at events run by neo-Nazi/Klu Klux Klan types.

Jeff – Do have any evidence to support your claim that the “Israel lobby” is making the book “hard to buy”. Tim found it Googling in a few seconds and John didn’t seem to have much difficulty finding it nor did Gary on eBay. I guess you didn’t even take a look at Amazon which doesn’t sell it directly but offers it through 3rd party sellers, or perhaps you did since the World’s largest bookseller was conspicuously absent from your list and contrary to your contention Barnes and Noble does offer it (though only used through 3rd parties).

There are several reasons besides pressure from Jewish groups that could explain why many booksellers don’t offer it.

1) They normally don’t sell any books by it’s publisher.

2) They avoid selling books that are racist, sexist, anti-Semitic etc. they have the right to decide what book they wish to sell. They can decide this for ethical reasons if they find the book objectionable or financial ones if they believe the sale of such books will loose them more sales (from customer who find such books objectionable) then they would earn from selling the books.

3) They didn’t expect Final Judgment to sell well enough to be worth stocking. They might only buy books they expect to sell over a certain number of copies.

4) They avoid selling books that are poorly researched or contain factual errors. Papillon was out of print for many years because it was shown that much of the story was made up.

5) A combination of all of the above.

Let’s not also forget that just as Piper and the American Free Press have first amendment rights to write and publish what they please people who don’t like what they have to say have the right to protest protected by the same amendment. The first amendment only precludes Government action.

Your assertion that Jewish groups have prevented the book from being sold is undermined by the fact that many anti-Semitic books are widely sold. David Duke’s and Edgar Steele’s works are sold directly by Amazon and Barnes and Noble.

You have also yet to explain your ‘seemingly’ anti-Semetic remark that the US government is controlled by Zionists.

All - I believe much of the book is absurd or weak.

1) It’s seems to be consensus on this thread that it is unfathomable that Israel would take lead on the assassination of an American president in the US.

2) It thesis seems to be based on the premise that Clay Shaw any Guy Banister were controlled by the Mossad and that Shaw and Banister were LHO’s handlers. My impression is that most JFK researchers now believe Shaw and Banister didn’t have roles in the assassination or small ones at most.

3) Piper asserts that Kennedy was planning to attack China’a nuclear weapons facilities that had been built with help from Israel and that LBJ called off the attacks.

4) Meyer Lansky was the real boss of the Chicago mob and was the ‘godfather’ of Israel.

5) The Israeli government was “dominated by the Mossad”.

More can be read about the book at these links:

Len

[Mark Stapleton]

Mark S. wrote:

Please point out where I claimed that YOU said the Cohen book is useless?

Mark, these were your exact words:

"[You] condemn a very scholarly book as useless . . ." (In your Post #56)

You very clearly said I was condemning the book as useless whereas my point (as you well knew) was that your employment of the book to make your point was useless.

Every day in appeals courts an attorney will argue that an opponent's attempted reliance on a precedent is inapposite or not on point. That does not mean, of course, that the attorney is arguing that the precedent itself is useless.

You said (it's in black and white) that I condemned the book as useless.

Can we agree that you said that but that it was not a true statement because I never posted a single word critical of the book?

By the way, thank you for your acknowledgement about your lack of training in syllogistic reasoning. It shows.

Hands up all who have training in syllogistic reasoning.

You might be the only one Tim.

OK, I'm calling you. Since you claim to have training in this field could you please start a thread on it--elsewhere on the Forum of course--and prove to me that your claim is true.

I'm not saying I don't believe you but your credibility regarding unsubstantiated claims is, well, less than perfect.

I'll come clean right now--I've never heard of syllogistic reasoning. You say you have training in this area. Please prove it--but not here. This subject of this thread is Michael Collins Piper's book and the possible role of the Israeli Government in the murder of JFK.

Don't make claims you can't back up Tim. I'm keen to learn. It's not a JFK issue so please post proof of your knowledge of this complex sounding subject in one of the education subforums. Sounds to me like 2000 words would barely do it justice. Don't let me down now. Otherwise you'll be regarded as a person who makes boastful claims then runs away when asked to substantiate them.

Edited February 10, 2006 by Mark Stapleton

[Gary Buell]

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?

Michael Collins Piper tells me he will be joining this discussion.