featured, historical perspectives, JFK, latest

JFK 55 years on: Casting Light on 9/11 & Other 21st Century Crimes

Graeme MacQueen

1962: US statesman John F Kennedy, 35th president of the USA, making a speech. (Photo by Central Press/Getty Images)

Fifty-five years ago, on November 22, 1963, John F. Kennedy was assassinated. Although there has been a great deal written about this event over the years, I want to draw attention to one exceptionally important article, originally delivered as a talk on November 20, 1998. Vincent Salandria gave this talk in Dallas at the invitation of the Coalition on Political Assassinations. (See Sources.)

Salandria had been a high school teacher at the time of the assassination (he later became a lawyer) and was one of the first people in the US to write essays expressing dissent from the government narrative of lone gunman Lee Harvey Oswald, maverick leftist.

In his 1998 talk Salandria went through over a dozen of the famous obstacles to the government story—the grassy knoll witnesses, the “magic bullet,” the testimony of the doctors at Parkland Hospital, and so on—but he did not let himself get sidetracked into detailed debates on any of these. By 1998 he had already seen, and participated in, 35 years of such debates. He had long ago concluded that, “the national security state at the very highest level of its power killed President John F. Kennedy for his efforts at seeking to develop a modus vivendi with the Soviets and with socialist Cuba.”

In 1998 he felt it was time to warn researchers about the danger of wasting time in “false debates,” where the essential facts had clearly been established and the wrangling served only the purposes of the assassins. Rather than repeat the debates, Salandria decided in 1998 to outline his basic approach. I will call this the Salandria Approach. I draw attention to it because I believe it helps us find our feet when we tackle not only the JFK killing but many of the killings in the 21st century’s War on Terror.

Here are Salandria’s words:

I began to sift through the myriad facts regarding the assassination which our government and the US media offered us. What I did was to examine the data in a different fashion from the approach adopted by our news media. I chose to assess how an innocent civilian-controlled US government would have reacted to those data. I also envisioned how a guilty US national security state which may have gained control of and may have become semi-autonomous to the civilian US governmental structure would have reacted to the data of the assassination.”

He adds that,

only a guilty government seeking to serve the interests of the assassins would consistently resort to accepting one improbable conclusion after another while rejecting a long series of probable conclusions.”

Let us take two cases from Salandria’s list of over one dozen in order to see what he was getting at.

The Grassy Knoll

Dozens of witnesses thought there were shots from an extended grassy rise, containing several structures, situated west of the famous Texas School Book Depository Building. Salandria, refusing to get drawn into the familiar debate, says:

Let us assume arguendo [for the sake of argument] that all of the eyewitnesses who had concluded that shots were fired from the grassy knoll were dead wrong. But an innocent government could not and would not at that time have concluded that these good citizens were wrong and would not have immediately rushed to declare a far-fetched single assassin theory as fact.”

Note that Salandria’s emphasis is not on the details of the grassy knoll discussion but on the method the government followed in its investigation. And he is right, both about the immediate claim that Oswald acted alone— presented, as he explains, by a government representative on November 22 itself—and about the identical statement presented later by the Warren Commission.

In both cases the claim flew in the face of the eyewitness evidence. For example, despite the fact that there are references to dozens of witnesses to shots from the grassy knoll in the 26 volumes of evidence appended to the Warren Report, the Commission itself displayed little interest in them. And when the Commission dismissed every single one of the grassy knoll witnesses to protect its lone gunman theory it did so without bothering to make a sustained argument.

It chose instead to play a credibility game. It pronounced:

No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building” Warren Report, p. 61

In other words, the Commission decided to gather together into one great agglomeration the credibility of its seven well dressed and high-ranking white men associated with government and use this to crush the credibility of the “good citizens” who were present in the Plaza and witnessed, with their senses, the unfolding of events.

It was a breathtaking move. But in what way could it be said to characterize an innocent government? How could any serious investigator pretend to solve an evidential problem by playing a credibility game? Standard practice in a homicide investigation would be to find all witnesses, to interview them, and to record their statements impartially, making sure to ask each one of them where they thought the shots came from and why they reached their conclusion. How would the opinions of congressmen, spies and the like possibly be relevant to the case when these gentlemen declined to offer adequate counter-evidence or to give a serious argument to support their peculiar conclusion?

Readers who have never had the opportunity to see and hear for themselves the good citizens in question may benefit from Mark Lane’s documentary:

Well, where, in such a case, does the Salandria Approach lead us? We have no choice but to conclude that the Warren Commission’s investigation was not what we would expect from “an innocent civilian-controlled US government.”

It was more characteristic of “a guilty government seeking to serve the interests of the assassins.” There was a predetermined perpetrator and an insistence on the guilt of this perpetrator, while evidence suggestive of a conspiracy was systematically ignored, distorted or suppressed.

Suppose we were to apply the Salandria Approach to events of the 21st century–to the eyewitnesses at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, for example? We have over 150 witnesses who reported that they saw, heard or felt explosions at the time of the beginning of destruction of the Twin Towers. (See Sources for assertions in this and the following paragraph.)

Their testimony constitutes very significant support for the theory that the Trade Center was blown up and did not undergo collapse from structural failure caused by airplane collision. We are not simply talking about loud sounds here. We are talking about sounds that experienced firefighters suspected were caused by bombs. We are talking about patterns of explosions seen pulverizing the buildings. We are talking, in some cases, about witnesses who say these explosions threw them through the air. Now, avoiding the debates about the details of this testimony, let us follow Salandria and ask: What did the government’s 9/11 Commission do with these eyewitness accounts, all of which were in its possession?

The answer is that it called for no comprehensive search for eyewitnesses (neither did the FBI, as far as I can discover), nor did it have such witnesses asked the appropriate questions. It devoted to these witnesses a single line in the roughly 585 pages of its Report. And that single line is both dismissive and extremely misleading.

What about the National Institute of Standards and Technology, assigned by government the task of looking in detail at the destruction of the Trade Center and sorting out the reasons for its destruction? In the thousands of pages of its reports on the Twin Towers we find not a single mention of the explosion witnesses. Despite NIST’s pride in its interviewing techniques, and despite its access to all the relevant information, it somehow missed over 150 witnesses. It made no attempt to find them, to sort out their testimony, or to discover how their words might illumine the mystery of the so-called “collapses.”

We should recall that the efforts of the 9/11 Commission and NIST were mere follow-through. A strenuous attempt to promote the structural failure hypothesis was begun on the very day of September 11, 2001, in the absence of serious evidence in its favour and in bold contradiction to what large numbers of witnesses were saying. (Sources)

When we adopt the Salandria Approach we must, to paraphrase Salandria, conclude that, “an innocent government could not and would not at that time have concluded that these good citizens were wrong and would not have immediately rushed to declare a far-fetched [structural failure] theory as fact.”

The Magic Bullet

In his essay Salandria explains the absurdity of the single bullet (“magic bullet”) theory, according to which one bullet passed entirely through the president’s body and then caused all of Governor Connally’s wounds, emerging after its adventure in near-pristine condition. This bullet evidently had no difficulty changing direction in mid-air, nor did it balk at losing mass in Connally’s body and then regaining this mass at the end of its journey. Salandria concludes:

“our Cold War government in the context of the assassination had declared a moratorium on the science of physics.”

Remember: the issue before us is not merely he single bullet theory itself but the behavior of government representatives in investigating this hypothesis. So it is in those moments when we read the Warren Commission transcripts and watch counsel Arlen Specter leading and pressuring witnesses into accepting the single bullet theory that we realize we are seeing the handiwork of a guilty state.

Now, what might we find if we were to apply the Salandria Approach to the destruction of the World Trade Center? To restrict ourselves, for the sake of this discussion, to World Trade 7, what would the approach of an innocent government to this building destruction look like? Would we not expect a thorough search for eyewitnesses?

Would not all of the recoverable steel be preserved carefully and made accessible to civilian experts? Would there not be a serious attempt to explain evidence of corrosion and vaporization of the steel? Would there not be the most rigorous examination of the Trade Center dust, searching for evidence that would allow ascertainment of temperatures reached during the building’s destruction and searching as well for residue of explosives and incendiaries?

Would there not be frank astonishment at the fact that the descent of this 47-storey building, not hit by a plane, began rapidly, symmetrically, and at free fall acceleration? Would not physicists openly debate this astounding event, troubled by the fact that the vertical columns of this well constructed steel-framed high-rise offered no resistance whatsoever when, for mysterious reasons, the collapse began?

Surely an innocent government sincerely probing for the truth would not choose, instead of taking the path outlined above, to construct a computer simulation that, even with manipulation, could not replicate the historical event clearly preserved on video? Surely investigators would not bring the simulation to an abrupt end before it was able to represent total collapse, and surely they would not refuse to release the complete data set used in their simulation, claiming it might compromise national security? (Sources)

When we ask these questions and contemplate the answers we see at once what game NIST has been playing in its account of World Trade 7. In the 21st century there is, perhaps, no more obvious demonstration that the US government, for the sake of its War on Terror, has “declared a moratorium on the science of physics.”

There is an entire organization, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which has taken as its task for over a decade the pointing out of such violations of the laws of physics in the US government’s account of the September 11, 2001 crime. The organization is to be praised for its creativity and persistence. Yet the false debate continues, and the intelligentsia continues to insist that the Emperor is well dressed, thank you very much.

Political Implications of Grassy Knolls and Magic Bullets

There is something I have always found arresting about the grassy knoll, and my concerns extend to the suppressed witnesses of September 11. In both cases we have ordinary folks—people like ourselves—who are, supposedly, citizens of a democracy. They are also, as far as we can tell, of sound mind and body, able to perceive with their senses and assess with their minds. Yet, all of a sudden, when their bodies and minds tell them something that conflicts with a government dictum, they are considered by government of no more political competence than cattle. I find it hard to think of a greater insult to these “good citizens” and to the notion of democracy, and I find it hard to think of a more brash assertion of the principle of authority.

This is why witnesses from the grassy knoll and the World Trade Center should be at the centre of the current debate about state deception and its relation to democracy.

As for magic bullets in Dealey Plaza and the mysterious collapse of World Trade 7, they are, I suggest, of comparable political importance to the abused witnesses. We face a collection of gentlemen in suits and ties (seven gentlemen in the Warren Commission and ten in the 9/11 Commission) telling us that their stories are more potent than the laws of the universe. How poor must be our self-confidence that we can put up with this guff? How defective must be our educational systems if they produce citizens who accept this?

Here we are, then, at the 55th anniversary of the murder of a president who was moving away from Cold War thinking and entering a different path. As we reflect on the direction in which his assassins have steered the United States of America, to the detriment of all of us, US citizens and otherwise, let us reflect on Salandria’s words:

By coming to understand the true answer to the historical question of who killed President Kennedy and why, we will have developed a delicate and precisely accurate prism through which we can examine how power works in this militarized country. By understanding the nature of this monumental crime, we will become equipped to organize the struggle through which we can make this country a civilian republic in more than name only.”

Graeme MacQueen is the former director of the Centre for Peace Studies at McMaster University. He is a member of the 9/11 Consensus Panel, former co-editor of the Journal of 9/11 Studies, and an organizer of the 2011 Toronto Hearings, the results of which have been published in book form as The 9/11 Toronto Report. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)


  1. The Salandria essay that is the basis of my article, “The JFK Assassination: A False Mystery Concealing State Crimes,” can be found here.
  2. Both the Warren Report and the 26 volumes of evidence can be found at the Mary Ferrell Foundation website.
  3. 3. The list of 156 eyewitnesses to explosions in the Twin Towers can be found here. A discussion of the method used to arrive at the list as well as the treatment of these witnesses by the 9/11 Commission and NIST can be found in my article, “Eyewitness Evidence of Explosions in the Twin Towers” in The 9/11 Toronto Report, ed. James Gourley, International Center for 9/11 Studies, 2012.
  4. For a discussion of the destruction of World Trade 7 see the website of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth & especially Ted Walter’s publication, Beyond Misinformation.
  5. For the dismissal of evidence of controlled demolition from the earliest moment see Ted Walter’s recent article, “Dick Cheney and Rudy Giuliani: The First Government Officials to Dismiss the Idea of Controlled Demolition on 9/11.”
  6. For a discussion of Kennedy’s turn away from the Cold War see James Douglass’s brilliant JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2008).


  1. Geoffrey ONeill says

    The “Salandria’ approach is brilliant in its simplicity. You can apply it to most any serious crime the govermnet has committed or covered up over the years Take the USS Liberty incident for instance. Would an innocent government, after hearing eye witness accounts of the deliberate, malicious attack by the IDF from every survivor, order them under penalty of court martial and dishonorable discharge to never speak of it, ever to anyone, even to family members? Would an innocent government then order a media black out? This was an ultimate betrayal of Americans to protect the incestuous relationship of two rogue states. Would an innocent government lie about an act of war in the Gulf of Tonkin leading to the deaths of nearly 60 thousand of its own countrymen and probably 2 million Asians? The U.S. goverment is corrupt. Seeing the establishment recently deify 2 war criminals, McCain and Bush 41 to perpetuate the myth of the exceptional nation is in itself proof of the corrupt nature of the United States.

    • Ash says

      There is a plethora of examples in the last 120 years alone that, if looked at via the Salandria Approach, all make a sane person come to the same conclusion. I have studied many of them deeply and KNEW the US govt. to be corrupt and controled. The Salandria Approach is very useful to give expression to this knowing. The questions Salandria asks are potent because it all boils down to a binary: innocent civilian-controlled US government vs. guilty US national security state. Of course it will trigger a massive cognitive dissonance in many people, don’t be surprised if they become agressive, but anyone with an open mind will come to the same conclusion.

      “American exceptionalism” is just thinly veiled facism, a myth to justify any and all atrocities committed by the military industrial complex, that must lead to world domination. And, I have said this for 30 years, the “Nazi’s” won WWII and took over the USA. Only, just forget the historical word “Nazi” and substitute that with facist. When we think Nazi, we think Germany and that completely ignores the facists inside the US. There was a lot of support for the Nazis in the US, pre WWII. Then after the war “Project Paperclip” happened. It was probably a lot more smart Nazis than admitted, that ended up setting up the NSA, NASA, CIA and NATO, modeled after their Nazi counterparts. And are these not the agencies that cause most trouble? Are they not the ones behind many, if not most, false flag operations in the world? Are they not the ones responsible for many wars? Etc etc etc.

      The rabbit hole goes way deeper that that still… Glad I read this piece, it gave me fresh insight and food for thought.


  2. PSJ says

    I’ve been reading the discussion between flaxgirl and Milosevic about possible fakery on 9/11 and I would like to try to sum up the argument if flaxgirl doesn’t mind.

    @flaxgirl — you believe “perps” DID pull three buildings down and DID use explosives to do so, I take it, and DID allow people to breathe in the toxic dust and get sick and die as a result? And you believe they DID use this false flag as an excuse for launching wars in the ME that murdered millions more people.

    You accept all this is true, correct?

    However you think they emptied the buildings of people before bringing them down, and prevented any firefighters from going in so that there would be no immediate casualties.

    They then pretended there WERE thousands of immediate casualties, including faking names, photos and back stories and paying some brave fool to throw mannequins out of the floors above the impact sites, and paying crisis actors to pretend to be grieving widows etc and sue the federal govt in various ongoing lawsuits.

    They did this, in your view, in order to better control the crime scene and aftermath. Because the grieving families of the victims might cause trouble.

    That’s fair enough as a coherent argument. But a couple of questions immediately arise.

    1. What about the families of the people who undeniably DID die from inhaling the toxic dust? Why are they not just as much a potential problem?

    2. What about the fact there ARE family members making a fuss? How is this (supposedly) fake fuss benefitting anyone?

    3. Who put the human remains in the dust? (they’re there, they really are).

    4. How can your hypothesis be falsified?

    • Frances says

      Before you start believing the rubbish put out by the likes of flaxgirl, Judy Wood and all the rest of the nutcases you should read “On the Physics of High Rise Building Collapse” where some real scientists present some real facts

    • heads up there’s no point in reasoning with flaxgirl on either of the following subjects:

      fake deaths (she is convinced no one ever dies)

      AGW (she is convinced Skeptical Science is the Word of the Lord on that subject and is deaf to reason)

    • What an in depth, informative yet interesting read. Thank you soooo much for sharing. Personally, I believe Mr. Salandria’s analysis in this case.

  3. On airplanes mysteries and Zion - III says

    If you’re an openly anti-Zionist nation, does the probability of ‘a malfunction onboard of a brandnew state-of-the-art Boeing leads to the destruction of the aircraft and killing everyone onboard’ increase?

  4. On airplanes mysteries and Zion - II says

    If you’re a clearly and openly anti-Zionist nation, does the probability of ‘your passenger jet going north toward Beijing suddenly veers to the east and continues flying until it falls off the edge of the planet’ increase?

    And if you’re an openly critical of Israel, does the probability of ‘your passenger jet gets shot in Ukrainian airpspace killing everyone onboard’ increase?

  5. On airplanes and Zion - I says

    If you kept restricting Israel’s military actions, does the probability of ‘Your surveillance aircraft gets shot and pulverised by your own defences’ increase?

  6. Cherrycoke says

    This is overall a very good site. It is a pity that idiots (Chomsky a “scumbag”? No, Chomsky has done great work. He is wrong about 9/11 and JFK though, yes.) and anti-semites (The Jews, Mossad, Israel, Zionists are behind everything? No, Israel has political interests and it has some influence in the US, and the Mossad does dirty work just like every other secret service in the world, some of it good, as in Eichmann, some of it bad, as in PROMIS, and the Zionists are only one political faction/ideology, and would you please stop mentioning Rothschild in every other sentence as some kind of code word in order to evoke a world-spanning Jewish Conspiracy, which has been complete and utter paranoid and anti-semitic bullshit since the forged Protocols, and, no, the word “anti-semitic” has not been invented to critizise Corbyn, whom I support, it has a very real meaning and the fact that it is now being used as a political smear does not mean that its meaning is obsolete, thank you very much) and people who give parapolitical research a bad name (puppets thrown out the WTC buildings) are so prominent among the commentators.

    • milosevic says

      anti-semites (The Jews, Mossad, Israel, Zionists are behind everything? No, Israel has political interests and it has some influence in the US, and the Mossad does dirty work just like every other secret service in the world)

      see a few posts below, for Al Jazeera’s documentaries about exactly how much influence Israel has over US and UK politics, especially foreign policy.

    • mark says

      I think Israel has more than “some” influence in the US. I don’t know any other secret service that does 9/11s, and a lot else besides.

      “Our race is the “Master Race.” We are divine gods on this planet. We are as different from the inferior races as they are from insects. Other races are beasts and animals, cattle at best. Our destiny is to rule over the inferior traces. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves.” – Menachem Begin.

      You’re not calling old Menachem a liar, surely? Or Shamir, Sharon and Nuttyyahoo himself, helpfully explaining how they exert complete control over America, to the extent that he has only to break wind and all the 30 shekel whores in Congress jump and down to give him 20 standing ovations like trained seals?

      • milosevic says

        Nuttyyahoo himself, helpfully explaining how they exert complete control over America, to the extent that he has only to break wind and all the 30 shekel whores in Congress jump and down to give him 20 standing ovations like trained seals

        It would appear that there are a great many more than thirty shekel whores in the US Congress; it might be hard to find thirty of them that aren’t.

        It would also appear that nothing so strenuous as breaking wind is necessary to command their servile displays of obedience; it seems that a meaningful glare is quite sufficient.

        And only twenty Stalinoid standing ovations (surely even trained seals have more dignity than this?), might be a considerable underestimate.

        The Al-Jazeera Israel Lobby documentary, linked below, helps to clarify how such a situation could arise.

        • milosevic says

          there are a great many more than thirty shekel-whores in the US Congress

          On re-reading the post to which I was responding, I realize that phrase was probably intended as “30-shekel whores”, rather than as “30 shekel-whores”.

          That is, it was referring to the price for which the politi-whores might be purchased, rather than the number of such creatures.

          Then one of the Twelve — the one called Judas Iscariot — went to the chief priests and asked, “What are you willing to give me if I deliver him over to you?”

          So they counted out for him thirty pieces of silver.

          From then on Judas watched for an opportunity to hand him over.

          — The Gospel According to Matthew, 26:14-16

    • Indeed. I’m a life long anti Zionist and anti racist. Its a shame to see the antisemites and right wing banking conspiracy nuts seemingly taking over the comments section here.
      The left doesn’t need to make common cause with the libertarians or other alt right/fascist fringe. It’s a trap.

      • milosevic says

        I’m a life long anti Zionist and anti racist. Its a shame to see the antisemites

        I keep hearing that “anti-zionism is the same thing as anti-semitism.” Since it appears that only a small minority (how small?) of self-identified “Jews” (surely the only relevant criteria) would disagree with this idea, I’ve decided to stop arguing the point.

        Serious investigations of the phenomenon of “anti-semitism” reveal that the issues involved are much more complicated than we have been led to believe.

        Ron Unz — The Nature of Anti-Semitism

        Vineyard Saker — A crash course on the true causes of “antisemitism”

        • Constantine says

          Bringing Ron Unz and the Saker just destroyed whatever argument you may have had. Both are spewing anti-Semitic nonsense and just like you actively harm the effort of people who criticize Israel and the western establishment.

          BTW, this type of anti-Semitic crap is used specifically in social media by various pro-Israel trolls precisely to discredit sites, other commenters etc. with success.

          • milosevic says

            anti-Semitic nonsense

            Anti-Semitic nonsense that people like you don’t even try to refute, because you can’t. So your only recourse is to pathologize it in the hope that people won’t even look at it and form their own opinions. Just like the pro-Israel trolls do. Funny how that works.

            The truth about Jewish ethnic supremacism is starting to get out. When it becomes widely understood, the game will be up. I can see why you’re worried.

            For everybody else, I urge you to read the two articles linked above. The ethnic activists don’t want you to do that, hence the increasingly hysterical shrieks of “anti-semitism — evil! evil! evil!” They don’t want you to hear facts and arguments which they’ve successfully suppressed for a hundred years. Maybe that’s a reason why you should.

            Be sure to read the Talmud excerpts quoted by “mark”, above. It’s all real — there are online copies of the Talmud, look it up for yourself. Then go and watch the al-Jazeera Israel Lobby documentaries, which I linked below. You’ve heard of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? And how it’s all fake? Even if it were true, it’s minor-league stuff, compared to how the Zionist Lobby operates nowadays. Watch the Netanyahu / shekel-whores video I posted, just above. How do you think something like that comes about?

            Go ahead, troll — call me an “anti-semite”, and a “nazi”. Your Hasbara isn’t working anymore. People aren’t buying it. It doesn’t scare them like it used to. Here, have another Ron Unz article:

            Oddities of the Jewish Religion

            I do not doubt that much of the candid analysis provided above will be quite distressing to many individuals. Indeed, some may believe that such material far exceeds the boundaries of mere “anti-Semitism” and easily crosses the threshold into constituting an actual “blood libel” against the Jewish people. That extremely harsh accusation, widely used by stalwart defenders of Israeli behavior, refers to the notorious Christian superstition, prevalent throughout most of the Middle Ages and even into more modern times, that Jews sometimes kidnapped small Christian children in order to drain their blood for use in various magic rituals, especially in connection with the Purim religious holiday. One of my more shocking discoveries of the last dozen years is that there is a fairly strong likelihood that these seemingly impossible beliefs were actually true.

            I personally have no professional expertise whatsoever in Jewish ritual traditions, nor the practices of Medieval Jewry. But one of the world’s foremost scholars in that field is Ariel Toaff, professor of Jewish Renaissance and Medieval Studies at Bar-Ilan University near Tel Aviv, and himself the son of the Chief Rabbi of Rome.

            In 2007, he published the Italian edition of his academic study Blood Passovers, based on many years of diligent research, assisted by his graduate students and guided by the suggestions of his various academic colleagues, with the initial print run of 1,000 copies selling out on the first day. Given Toaff’s international eminence and such enormous interest, further international distribution, including an English edition by a prestigious American academic press would normally have followed. But the ADL and various other Jewish-activist groups regarded such a possibility with extreme disfavor, and although these activists lacked any scholarly credentials, they apparently applied sufficient pressure to cancel all additional publication.

            It appears that a considerable number of Ashkenazi Jews traditionally regarded Christian blood as having powerful magical properties and considered it a very valuable component of certain important ritual observances at particular religious holidays. Obviously, obtaining such blood in large amounts was fraught with considerable risk, which greatly enhanced its monetary value, and the trade in the vials of this commodity seems to have been widely practiced. Toaff notes that since the detailed descriptions of the Jewish ritualistic murder practices are very similarly described in locations widely separated by geography, language, culture, and time period, they are almost certainly independent observations of the same rite. Furthermore, he notes that when accused Jews were caught and questioned, they often correctly described obscure religious rituals which could not possibly have been known to their Gentile interrogators, who often garbled minor details. Thus, these confessions were very unlikely to have been concocted by the authorities.

            Furthermore, as extensively discussed by Shahak, the world-view of traditional Judaism did involve a very widespread emphasis on magical rituals, spells, charms, and similar things, providing a context in which ritualistic murder and human sacrifice would hardly be totally unexpected.

            Obviously, the ritual murder of Christian children for their blood was viewed with enormous disfavor by the local Gentile population, and the widespread belief in its existence remained a source of bitter tension between the two communities, flaring up occasionally when a Christian child mysteriously disappeared at a particular time of year, or when a body was found that exhibited suspicious types of wounds or showed a strange loss of blood. Every now and then, a particular case would reach public prominence, often leading to a political test of strength between Jewish and anti-Jewish groups. During the mid-19th century, there was one such famous case in French-dominated Syria, and just before the outbreak of the First World War, Russia was wracked by a similar political conflict in the 1913 Beilis Affair in the Ukraine.

      • milosevic says

        right-wing banking conspiracy nuts

        As the zionist-orchestrated “anti-semitism” campaign against Jeremy Corbyn makes clear, the insistence that opposition to the activities of large banks and their controllers must necessarily be “right-wing” and “anti-semitic”, has the ultimate objective of pathologizing and eventually criminalizing all consistent left-wing politics.

        One wonders whether those who endorse this idea, do so because they are afraid that any serious investigation of big banks would show that self-identified “Jews” really are disproportionately represented among their controllers, and wish to pre-emptively discredit any such conclusions as “racist”.

        Alternatively, perhaps they are only pro-bank and pro-capitalist, and merely find the “anti-semitism” slur a convenient means of attacking serious leftists, now that the previously-standard “conspiracy theory” slur has become somewhat embarrassing, with the Establishment finding Russian/Putin/Trump “conspiracies” under every rock and pebble.



          • milosevic says

            you’re a racist loon

            You people are so predictable — everything you say comes right out of the Hasbara Handbook. (There really is an official Hasbara Handbook! google it! You’ll finally understand why every zionist you ever met says exactly the same things.)

            I think you’re an khazarian ethnic-supremacist troll, so I guess that makes us even.

            For everybody else: read the articles on the nature of “anti-semitism”, linked just above. In order to have an informed opinion about it, one must first have a reasonable understanding of the Semitism to which it is opposed, just as having an opinion of “anti-racism” depends on first understanding what “racism” is. (When you read those articles, you will see why I chose this analogy.) This, above all else, is what the ethnic activists like the two above want to prevent you from understanding. Hence the slurs — “anti-semite! racist! nazi! evil! evil! evil!”

            But don’t take my word for it — let’s hear again from Ovadia Yosef, the former Sephardi Chief Rabbi of Israel, already quoted by “mark”, above:

            Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world — only to serve the People of Israel.

            In Israel, death has no dominion over them… With gentiles, it will be like any person — they need to die, but God will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d lose their money.

            This is his servant… That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew.

            Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat… That is why gentiles were created.


            also see the following article, which asks the question, if two genocides occur within the span of a decade, in the same geographical area, and where the perpetrators of one are largely the victims of the other, and vice-versa, is it at all reasonable to believe that there is no connection between them?

            Nicholas Lysson — Holocaust and Holodomor

            • Admin says

              @Jag and Milosevic This article is not about Israeli involvement in 9/11, so maybe this particular OT subject has monopolised the debate for long enough?

              • milosevic says


                Thanks for letting my provocative (but referenced) replies to the standard cries of “racism” and “anti-semitism” remain in place.

              • I was merely agreeing with the other poster regarding the preponderance of clearly antisemitic right wingers on these forums of late.
                I’m not monopolising anything and my comments tend to be brief and succinct. Unlike others with their endless cut and pastes from Griffin et al.

            • milosevic says

              I can be an anti-zionist without being an anti-semite.

              Haven’t you heard?

              “anti-zionism is the same thing as anti-semitism.” — according to about 95% of self-identified “Jews”.

              Are you saying they’re wrong? You know better than they do what the content of Jewish identity is?

              That’s mighty white of you.

              People like you do the Palestinians no favours.

              — whereas the current “solidarity” movement is reaching ever greater heights of success, as everybody can see. Never mind the ongoing genocide in Gaza, what’s really important is not offending the Jewish State’s friends and admirers, by taking their own racist ideology at face value.

              • I don’t have a clue of why you think those assertions are relevant.
                The world is not divided into 2. And everyone who opposes your racism is not an apologist for zionism.
                People like you are a pox on the Palestinian liberation movement.
                I sometimes wonder ehether by design.

                • milosevic says

                  Try reading Gilad Atzmon. Maybe he can get through to you.

                  Meanwhile, enjoy your job as a sabbat goy, obscuring how zionism really stays in business.

  7. tonyopmoc says

    I just found this video on Aletho. It was well worth 6 minutes of my time. President John F, Kennedy knew what was going on. He and the World were warned about it, by his predecessor President Dwight D. Eisenhower. I hadn’t seen this video before. JFK was a very brave man. He tried to confront the evil. They killed him. They are now in control.

    “Gaddafi was right about JFK”



  8. systemicfraud says

    The recent leak of the Al Jazeera undercover investigation of the Israeli Lobby in the USA reveals to total corruption of the US main stream media–the alarming part is the US independent media sites were also silent on the release.

    I expected total silence from the US MSM–but to witness the absolute Wall of Silence which the independent sites exhibited as well, was shocking. No coverage from The Intercept, Truth Dig, anti-war.com (etc.). Glenn Greenwald did make a tweet–but a tweet is hardly an article–especially when there are no gatekeepers for Greenwald, he is a founder at The Intercept and there is no one to tell Greenwald “don’t cover that.”

    The Non-Response by the independents in the USA is a perfect Litmus Test for how strong the Israeli Lobby is in the USA. In the UK, the UK investigation received quite a bit of coverage–and actually led to some blow back for Israel. An Israeli diplomat resigned, Israel offered an apology and UK parliament members even spoke of an official inquiry into the Israeli lobby. In the USA–only a few independent media covered the release of the documentary–there was no blow back. The only difference being the UK version did involve actual UK politicians; while the US version only involved the upper-tier lobbyists and their connections to Israeli military/intelligence.

    Now 9/11 researchers can see why 9/11 Truth NEVER gets any coverage in the USA–if Israel was involved with US CIA and Deep State forces, then just as the Israeli Lobby documentary was spiked–there would be even more reason to spike any coverage of 9/11 material which ultimately will lead to US and Israel.

    • milosevic says

      In the UK, the UK investigation received quite a bit of coverage — and actually led to some blow back for Israel. An Israeli diplomat resigned, Israel offered an apology and UK parliament members even spoke of an official inquiry into the Israeli lobby.

      Al Jazeera — The Lobby

  9. Edwige says

    One of the most curious aspects of JFK is how Mark Lane went from the author of ‘Rush to Judgment’ (which seemed to break plenty of genuinely new evidence damning to the official version) to being in the Jonestown compound less than a decade later – and being one of the very few to escape at the end (I’m assuming that most people reading here agree that Jonestown was some sort of intelligence agency operation). Was he compromised – or had he always been an asset?

    I’d also urge caution about “eyewitnesses”. In the 1965 murder of Mary Pinchot Meyer it became clear there were obviously planted “eyewitnesses” whose role was to incriminate the patsy (he only escaped conviction because jumping in the river made it a physical impossibility he was the killer). It seems highly probable the same tactic was used in Dallas. It would certainly explain why there is such conflicting testimony in, for example, the death of officer Tippit.

    • different frank says

      Before Dealey Plaza the crowds were large. In dealey plaza the people were sparse/

    • Cherrycoke says

      It is indeed a very interesting coincidence if that is what it is. On the other hand, I have seen “Rush of Judgment” and read some things about the man, and I have absolutely no reason, other than the murky Jonestown business, to suspect Mark Lane was an intelligence asset. Note that he later destroyed Howard Hunts alibi.

  10. paul metcalf says

    michael collins piper’s book,The Final Judgement, comes highly recommended.i’ll have to save up to buy it though.

  11. TFS says

    The JFK community is vast, the information is vast, so much so, that most people glaze over it. In all the vastness of material the challenge in getting people to question the official narrative has become an uphill struggle. Better to strip it back to maybe one question and move on from there.

    The JFK community would do itself a great job if it:

    Stated One Fact & Asked One Question, as a primer for those supporters of the official narrative on the subject.

    1 Fact: Back and to the Left
    2.Question: Please explain, with evidence, how a bullet from the TSBD caused the fact mentioned above.

    By means all mean write your hypothesis down, but do support your hypothesis with the help of science (physists, mathematics etc). Your hypothesis must be tested in the real world and be reproduceable by others.

    I’m sure there is a shorter list for people to be challenged on regarding 9/11.

    • different frank says

      I thin it is more important to ask who benefits.

      • milosevic says

        Back and to the Left — Please explain, with evidence, how a bullet from the TSBD caused this fact.

        This would assume that a majority of people in the relevant countries are acquainted with the basic principles of physics.

        I think it is more important to ask who benefits.

        This would assume that a majority of people in the relevant countries are acquainted with the basic principles of logic.

        Evidence for the veracity of the two assumptions above is severely lacking, unfortunately. The survivors of the Iraq War might have cause to regret the quite astonishing stupidity and ignorance of the US population, but it seems unlikely to change, anytime soon.

        • Badger Down says

          Extraordinary, milosevic.
          1) No need for “basic physics”. Just show a vid of pumpkin shot from the front and from the rear. (And don’t even think about which is front or back of a pumpkin.)
          2) No need for “majority of people”; 30% would be plenty. Anyway, most seven-year-old children have a fair understanding of “cui bono”, as long as you don’t say it in Latin.
          3) Maybe the US population is stupid and ignorant, but you appear to say that they benefited from the US war in Iraq.

          • milosevic says

            most seven-year-old children have a fair understanding of “cui bono”, as long as you don’t say it in Latin.

            It’s too bad that most US adults don’t, or they wouldn’t have been so eager to accept the ridiculous 9/11 faery tale, and the Iraq War for which it served as the essential pretext.

            Maybe the US population is stupid and ignorant, but you appear to say that they benefited from the US war in Iraq.

            No, I’m quite sure I didn’t say that. Maybe you should read more carefully.

      • DunGroanin says

        ‘Between 1933 and 1963, all Federal Reserve notes promised to pay (or be redeemed) in “lawful money,” which meant silver. Then the wording on the Federal Reserve notes began to be changed to somewhat obscure language, which should have given Americans a warning that the government was planning something.’

        The bigger warning was the public execution of 1 of the 2 most powerful leaders on the planet at that moment, by his own establishment on behalf of the banker overlords, that JFK fought.

  12. Bilge says

    Maybe members of the public are so afraid of ridicule amongst their peers, or realise if they do accept that their governments are deceiving them, then they are taking ‘the red pill’ and once they take it there’s no going back, so they willingly accept the official versions?

    • milosevic says

      This is the purpose of the CIA-created “conspiracy theory” meme — to pathologize what would otherwise be the obvious interpretation of such events, and the people who are sufficiently intellectually sophisticated and independent to arrive at it.

      Conspiracy Theory in America — by Lance deHaven-Smith

      Ever since the Warren Commission concluded that a lone gunman assassinated President John F. Kennedy, people who doubt that finding have been widely dismissed as conspiracy theorists, despite credible evidence that right-wing elements in the CIA, FBI, and Secret Service—and possibly even senior government officials—were also involved. Why has suspicion of criminal wrongdoing at the highest levels of government been rejected out-of-hand as paranoid thinking akin to superstition?

      Conspiracy Theory in America investigates how the Founders’ hard-nosed realism about the likelihood of elite political misconduct—articulated in the Declaration of Independence—has been replaced by today’s blanket condemnation of conspiracy beliefs as ludicrous by definition. Lance deHaven-Smith reveals that the term “conspiracy theory” entered the American lexicon of political speech to deflect criticism of the Warren Commission and traces it back to a CIA propaganda campaign to discredit doubters of the commission’s report. He asks tough questions and connects the dots among five decades’ worth of suspicious events, including the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy, the attempted assassinations of George Wallace and Ronald Reagan, the crimes of Watergate, the Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages deal, the disputed presidential elections of 2000 and 2004, the major defense failure of 9/11, and the subsequent anthrax letter attacks.

      Sure to spark intense debate about the truthfulness and trustworthiness of our government, Conspiracy Theory in America offers a powerful reminder that a suspicious, even radically suspicious, attitude toward government is crucial to maintaining our democracy.

      • milosevic says

        The most widespread conspiracy belief in the UK, shared by 44% of people, was that “even though we live in what’s called a democracy, a few people will always run things in this country anyway”.

        These people are just obviously crazy. Who could possibly believe an outlandish conspiracy theory like that?

        Fortunately, there’s still a 56% majority who stubbornly believe whatever unquestionable truths the government and mass media tell them.

      • DunGroanin says

        Yeah i thought about posting that – but the band of Whiners there are already crowing about their million readers from all over the world! Mostly Oz, US and the WHOLE world as well as the diminishing readership in it’s own land – spewing out incongruous ‘news’ that is as geoinsensibile as that word i just made up.

        The poll itself is reported as being some kind of europe wide effort but didn’t carry a link to any of the data set, so can not be easily examined.

        The combined propaganda efforts to reheat the mouldy skripal codswallop and feed it to us via the BBC, TV, Radio and Newspapers is A conspiracy.

        The conspirators hide in clear sight, barefacedly telling us black is white, inventing memes, and the latest, a conspiracy with Hillary&Blair to warn Europe about immigrants! The very people who encouraged illegal immigration and created chaos so that people became refugees and ‘flooded’ towards us. Meanwhile, they try and windup a Ukrainian war, getting their population fit for conscription by financial rewarding them for doing 10,000 steps!

    • kevin morris says

      I am extremely wary of these, ‘we’re in the know’ why aren’t others?’ view of the world. Frankly, for many the day to day dramas of life are quite enough and many others in the world probably wisely conclude that if there’s nothing to be done, it is better not to know. The most powerful organisation involved in the 9/11 truth movement is Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth who deliberately avoid conclusions as to who was responsible. Their film also emphasises why, in the opinion of experts, so many do not wish to know.

      I sometimes visit an elderly musician friend. He missed service in world war two by one year but did his national service in the RAF near Southampton. He has many happy memories of his service which began his career as a musician. He recently told me that since what goes on in the world nowadays is so deplorable he no longer watches the news. He has no illusions about the cruelties of the world but wisely no longer wishes to know.

      I do wish to know but I have the relative leisure and sense of curiosity which equips me to investigate. But the lessons gained as a consequence are often painful. Whilst the conclusions often are appalling, I find it equally so that many seem to use their enlightenment as a form of self aggrandisement.

      • milosevic says

        — but there’s obviously no problem in that people who have taken the trouble to figure out what’s actually going on in the world, and explain their conclusions in public, are routinely sneered at and pathologized as “conspiracy theorists”, “fascists”, or “mentally ill”, by those who content themselves with the day-to-day dramas of life.

        After all, there’s nothing to be done, so one might as well go right on watching TV, voting for bourgeois politicians, serving in the imperial military, and spitting on those who suggest that there’s actually anything wrong with any of this.

        • kevin morris says

          Or of course one could merely keep on preaching to the converted, courtesy of OffGrauniad as I suspect many here do.

      • harry stotle says

        “Frankly, for many the day to day dramas of life are quite enough and many others in the world probably wisely conclude that if there’s nothing to be done, it is better not to know.” – sorry, I strongly disagree with this.

        We all have responsibility even if individually we have negligible influence.
        Nonetheless this doesn’t stop movements from rising or tipping points from being reached when finally enough people demand change because of egregious injustices.
        Incrementally and over time there have been advances such as better access to education and health care or improved working conditions (relatively speaking).

        9/11, just like the Kennedy assassination makes more sense when seen as a part of a much bigger picture which, for convenience sake, can be measured from Hiroshima to Syria, with places like Korea, Viet Nam and Iraq along the way – not that we can discount the latest worrying chapters unfolding in Russia, Iran or the Yemen.

        In simple terms the pattern seems to be this;
        Empire employs micro or macro violence for geopolitical and/or economic ends.
        Invents a smokescreen, such as ‘war on terror’ in order to mask true intentions.
        Briefs the MSM on how to perpetuate the myth (which they never fail to do).
        Trivialise or ridicule skeptics who point out the lies (conspiracy nuts, etc).

        Of course the machine relies on public apathy combined with short memory to keep getting away with it (because they do keep getting away with it) – the public are not hard to manipulate and it is saddening the ease with which things like Russophobia is so easily embraced once neocons start pushing a few predictable buttons.

    • harry stotle says

      JFK said, “The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie–deliberate, contrived and dishonest–but the myth–persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the cliches of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”

      Are you listening Guardian – ‘the comfort of opinion without thought.’

  13. “Go anywhere, pay any price”. Cuba, Vietnam, … Iraq, Libya, Syria; we went, they paid:

    Virginia State senator Richard Black: “In my lifetime, there has never been a greater force of evil than the terror rained down on Syria by foreign nations. Its cruelty and savagery have had no bounds. Nonetheless, Syria has defended itself against the economic might of 2/3 of the world’s great powers and has beaten them all. As a career military officer and student of military affairs, I cannot explain how Syria could accomplish this if it were not the will of God.”


    • Mulga Mumblebrain says

      I do hope there is a God. A just and vengeful one.

      • Badger Down says

        … who enjoys monkeying around and random violence. Like the omnipotent god ruling current affairs.

        • Oh yeah, you mean the almighty God who gave us life and free will? The one who warned us time and again for thousands of years to be just and to have compassion for one another because someday we will be made to give an account for everything we have done? Is that the God you’re talking about?

          You must be talking about the God mentioned by prophet after prophet for thousands of years who guarantees us an eternal peaceful abode in the hereafter, but warns us that, for a period of time here on Earth, we must unfortunately struggle against an evil foe called the devil or Satan?

          Of this evil foe, it is said he strives to lead man to become selfish, uncaring, mean spirited, hateful, prideful, vengeful, manipulative… dare I say psychopathic? This evil foe is said to be the ruler of this realm we inhabit. It is said of him that he is the father of lies and deciet, and that he only seeks to kill, steal, and destroy. I wonder, can anybody on this website think of any powerful people or groups of people who tell lots of lies to make themselves seem like good guys, but really they are always doing all kinds of terrible things like killing, stealing, and destroying? It couldn’t actually be the case that this world is being run by evil, could it?

    • mark says

      Syria has been the rock on which US/ Zionist aggression and imperialism have foundered, like Stalingrad in 1943. The cost has been incalculable, but the heroism of the Syrian army and people and their allies and the leadership of Bashar Assad have won through. The US, the Zionist Terror Regime, Erdogan’s Turkey, the Barbaric Gulf Dictatorships, UK, France, and Quisling states like Jordan, threw everything they’d got at Syria and failed. Hundreds of thousands of the most vile, barbaric terrorists on the planet, from over 100 countries, were funnelled into the country from their havens in Turkey and Jordan, equipped, trained, paid and orchestrated by these countries to the tune of many tens of billions of dollars. Qatar alone did just one arms deal with Croatia for $5 billion to equip them. Ukraine supplied them with 100 tanks in another deal. The SAS was training these people in Jordan long before 2011. Syria fought back with 50 year old T54s and MIG21s and shot down Zionist aircraft with 50 year old museum piece S200s.
      Syria faced a vicious campaign of economic strangulation from the most powerful countries on the planet which led to the deaths of sick children for lack of basic medicine. Britain organised the propaganda and demonization campaign, creating the White Helmets Propaganda Organisation, with a PR Department with a staff of 150 and funding it to the tune of well over £100 million, along with the MI6 Front Syrian Observatory For Human Rights. Britain subsidised the Syrian terror groups to the tune of well over £3 billion, making it one of the leading global state sponsors of terrorism. Nice to know taxpayers’ money is being well spent. So much better than squandering it on the NHS. No doubt the UK orchestrated Syrian Gas Hoaxes provided a useful template for the later Skripal Hoax. No doubt in due course MI6’s pet cannibal head choppers and throat slitters will drift back here and show their appreciation for all that largesse by staging another Manchester Arena type bombing, like their pet terrorists from Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. That’s the trouble with bankrolling terrorism. It tends to blow up in your face. Literally.

      • milosevic says

        No doubt in due course MI6’s pet cannibal head choppers and throat slitters will drift back here and show their appreciation for all that largesse by staging another Manchester Arena type bombing, like their pet terrorists from Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. That’s the trouble with bankrolling terrorism. It tends to blow up in your face. Literally.

        — although somehow it never seems to blow up in the faces of those specific individuals who actually bankrolled and directed it. Funny how that works.

        It’s also an amazing coincidence that the various “blowback” outrages seem to be highly correlated with the need for spectacular pretexts for new campaigns of imperial warfare or police-state fascism. This pattern has become so striking that it must take real intellectual effort to remain oblivious to it, and continue to mistake effects for causes, and vice-versa.

        9/11 attack –> Iraq War


        Iraq War requires pretext –> “New Pearl Harbor Attack” miraculously occurs

        Jonathan Revusky — A Framework for Reclaiming Reality

  14. Antonym says

    The biggest differences between JFK’s assassination and 9/11: the former was pre covered by vice President Johnson and done by CIA elements while the latter was post covered by president Bush and done by Saudi elements.

      • @CarlAntoine: “Financed by Saudi Arabia, Done by Israel …”

        …. under orders from the Bush regime; who were in their turn under orders from Anglo Zio Capitalist HQ namely, the City of London. British PM Tony B.Liar was rewarded with a directorship in House of Rothschild — the highest rank ever attained by a British PM. British Finance Minister Gordon Brownstuff was rewarded with a directorship in Rothschild arms company Carlyle Corp; as was B.Liar, who also received a $4Mpa appetiser from Rothschild bank GoldmanSachs.

      • Mulga Mumblebrain says

        The Saudis were nothing but the patsies. 9/11, plainly, was yet another MOSSAD false-flag, aided and abetted by local US sayanim, and elements of the US elite, notably the Continuity of Government capi, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

    • milosevic says

      Saudi elements

      There’s no serious evidence for the involvement of Arabs or Moslems of any sort, except as patsies.

      The simplest explanation is that the aircraft were flown to their targets by pre-programmed autopilot systems, after the flight crews were disabled, possibly by gas. On the single airplane for which passenger phonecalls provide meaningful evidence for the presence of “hijackers”, who may not have known that they were going to die that day, something went wrong, and it was shot down by the USAF over a rural area, and sadly missed its appointment with WTC-7.

      Plausibility of 9/11 Aircraft Attacks Generated by GPS-Guided Aircraft Autopilot Systems

      • Antonym says

        Right, only Saudis allowed to fly straight after 9/11 over Americans by president Bush means nothing. Bush – Bin Laden family oil business: all details. Gulf wars; no Saudi involvement, like Syria or Yemen today. The 1993 WTC basement bombing: no Muslims involved. Same for 1983 Berut bombing or Madrid 2004. OBL and KSM holidaying in Afpak pure coincidence; could have been in Ireland or Thailand.

        • milosevic says

          There’s obviously Saudi involvement in most of those events; my reference was specifically to 9/11, as was your original reference. I’m not sure why that would be unclear.

          As for prominent Saudis being quickly whisked out of the US after 9/11, this is easily explained by the fact that the event was going to be purposefully blamed on Saudis, and the US ruling class not wanting any of their friends and business partners to suffer any unpleasant repercussions. It’s not particularly mysterious.

          The more interesting questions are those of Israeli involvement, for example their apparent role in babysitting, or perhaps even supplying, the pre-designated Arab patsies.

        • Mulga Mumblebrain says

          So, in your Zionazi dream world bin Laden’s denials of involvement don’t exist, the Five Celebrating Israelis, filming the atrocity as it unfolded, don’t exist, the numerous Israeli ‘predictions’ of just such an attack don’t exist, Nutty-yahoo’s plain delight at the attack doesn’t exist, Israel’s long history of false-flags does not exist, and the question,’cui bono’ is insufferably ‘antisemitic’.

    • mark says

      No, by 5 Dancing Israelis and a network of 200 Mossad agents, some of whom were caught with explosives before being quietly deported by the dual national Israeli citizens and Mossad agents infesting the US state machinery.

  15. Couldn’t agree more about keeping it as simple as possible. All the different theories they push out is simply a propaganda technique to obscure the obvious truth lying right there staring you in the face. There is a false assumption that you present as much evidence as you possibly can to prove your case. My theory is you present only enough evidence to prove your case because that limits any argument.

    Nothing could be simpler than 9/11 though. You don’t need witness testimony (nor do you really need it for JFK I’d say), all you need is the 2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration through the path of greatest resistance in the collapse of WTC-7 – agreed to! if reluctantly by NIST – that anyone can play over and over again on YouTube. That is all you need. For that to have occurred all its 82 support columns needed to have failed at virtually the same time and for that to have occurred, controlled demolition must have brought the building down – not to mention that the collapse displayed all the other characteristics of a collapse by CD and none of a collapse by fire. It is so very, very simple. The Commission was a massively staged event including even the family members.

    Death and injury were also obviously staged on 9/11 and they have managed to almost completely suppress that very important lie with truther-targeted propaganda including disinformation agents aligning with truthers on implication of government while talking about loved ones and colleagues in the buildings. https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/3000-dead-and-6000-injured-a-lie.html

    One thing that hasn’t been mentioned about JFK which I suspect very strongly is that Lee Harvey Oswald was not killed by Jack Ruby. After realising that the Bologna train station bombing did not involve death or injury meaning that those alleged to have been jailed wouldn’t have been, I realised that the power elite can easily simply pretend to jail people. Why on earth would Jack Ruby have killed Oswald and go to prison for it. It makes no sense and the photographic evidence does not support it … and doesn’t Oswald’s, “I’m just a patsy” sound very staged.

    While they push their hoaxes in our face with obvious impossibilities such as Flight 175 popping out the other side of the building even with JFK which involved real killing they still push it in our face with Oswald’s choice of weapon, a Carcano, a rifle used by Mussolini’s armed forces – as if an assassin would choose that! – which may have been a nod to the Italian neofascists in on the job – see Michele Metta’s fascinating film – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrnNpm74Ocw.

    • Antonym says

      You want to keep it as simple as possible / Occam’s razor?
      Your “Death and injury were also obviously staged on 9/11” does not pass this test at all. Keeping thousands of Americans mum for decades is mission impossible.

      • That’s speculation – we don’t know whether people could or couldn’t and when you say “keep mum” what you’re referring to is “going public” – I’m sure in private people talk about it. Occam’s Razor works on evidence not speculation about what is and isn’t possible in the realm of people keeping their mouths shut. The evidence overwhelmingly shows that death and injury were staged.

        — A video has been done comparing the “jumpers” to people outside the twin tower windows which shows the jumpers are much bigger than ordinary people in proportion to the window size. The videomaker suggests the jumpers are filmed on a model, however, my theory is that the jumpers at the windows are dummies and it was dummies that were launched from the windows. Whatever – the size doesn’t match.

        — The photos of the alleged dead jumpers are completely unconvincing.

        — There are only a paltry few photos of the alleged 6,000 injured and all of them are 100% consistent with evacuation drills – in both the fact that staff outnumber victims and in that there is no sign whatsoever of real injury in any of the people. Additionally, most of the photos are remote from the site where the injury allegedly would have occurred and there’s a ludicrous photo miles from the Pentagon with loads of drip-style equipment, no clear image of an injured person and lots of other people standing around including the Opus Dei priest. I mean, come on!

        — There is no obvious answer to why 6,000 people were injured. We read the ludicrous stories of the very few who survived the building collapses – how were the 6,000 injured and why do we see so few?

        — There is video of the “last man suffering burns” leaving a hospital. He is suffering from vitiligo with no signs of burns. Do you see how they mash they hoaxery in our face? Can you please, please wake up and see that not only do they hoax us they push it in our face like cream pie and they do it so very obviously. What is blinding you to this obvious fact?

        — The miracle survivor stories made me laugh hysterically. Again – mashing their hoaxery in our face.

        — There is the obvious anti-motive of killing 3,000 and injuring 6,000 when controlled demolition is so obvious. Do you really think the perps are going to want to have all those loved ones rattling the gates? There are only precious few “family members” making a fuss and we see one of them “Bob McIlvaine” in an obviously photoshopped photo with his son “Bobby McIlvaine” – another clear sign from the perps. If they can persuade us that 19 barely-trained terrorists armed with boxcutters etc surely they can persuade us that 3,000 people tragically died and 6,000 were injured. They did it with so laughable evidence it is absolutely gobsmacking. And they luuuuurve absolutely luuuuuurve fooling us while mashing their crimes in our face. Can you get who the power elite are, Antonym? Can you get what sort of people they are and how they get their kicks? It’s really not that complicated.

        If you believe that death and injury were real then I beg you – please get your 10 points and get a person who coordinates emergency response to validate them and I will give you $5,000. How hard could it be to get 10 points to support the “real death and injury” hypothesis if it were true?

        • … Oh, and I forgot
          Eight years after the event, ​Ersun Warncke did an exhaustive check of the list of victims provided on the CNN website. He found that of 2,970 people listed only 446 appear in the Social Security death index and of those only 249 have a confirmed death certificate on file. Of those, not a single one has a valid “last address of record” on file.

          • milosevic says

            To be clear, do you claim that the actual number of 9/11 casualties is 446, 249, or zero?

            as for this —

            my theory is that the jumpers at the windows are dummies and it was dummies that were launched from the windows

            — your theory is that the organizers of 9/11 went to the trouble of preparing dummies to be thrown from the burning buildings (by who?), but they quite stupidly did not realize that their dummies were much larger than any actual human could be?

            And you claim that this is an example of “keeping it as simple as possible”?

            And the purpose of such claims is not to discredit by association, the extremely compelling evidence of controlled demolition, etc?

            I’d like to propose another application of the “keeping it as simple as possible” principle.

            If a person posing as a 9/11 researcher claims that for some reason, 9-foot-tall dummies were thrown from the burning WTC buildings, and that the numerous videos of a Boeing-767-sized aircraft crashing into WTC-2 were all generated by giant open-air holograms, or something, what is the simplest possible explanation for such a person? Is it that they are:

            a) a serious investigator

            b) wholly ignorant of not just science, but physical reality in general

            c) crazy

            d) a government disinfo shill

            e) some combination of (b), (c) and (d)

            The simplest explanation consistent with the known facts is most likely to be correct.

            • Milosevic, I really don’t think you understand what I’m saying. Of course, there was controlled demolition but any people were evacuated before the buildings came down. I don’t argue for a hologram but I do argue that the video footage of Flight 175 is faked and that a 200 ton airliner cannot penetrate a 500,000 ton steel frame building and I’m afraid that the fact that you think it’s perfectly possible shows your lack of scientific understanding. You make a great deal of a bullet piercing steel but we also have footage of a bullet NOT managing to pierce 1/4 inch steel and the frame of the twin towers was much thicker than 1/4 inch while a plane is not designed for penetration while a bullet is. https://911planeshoax.com/tag/911-impossible-physics/

              They show us Flight 175 pop out the other side of the South tower (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WH5InKzdQHw) and they have a witness testify seeing it “ream right into the side of the twin tower exploding through the other side.” https://youtu.be/f-pLwI7dcQ0?t=56s
              I’m all ears, milosevic. How do you explain the footage of it popping out the other side with the witness testimony? Beyond any answer you provide to this question I will not engage in any more conversation on the planes with you.

              your theory is that the organizers of 9/11 went to the trouble of preparing dummies to be thrown from the burning buildings (by who?), but they quite stupidly did not realize that their dummies were much larger than any actual human could be?

              As I keep saying over and over the hoaxers push they hoaxery in our face (perfect example above with Flight 175) so they may well have made the jumpers too big or whatever with zero concern for size or perhaps they outsized them deliberately. Who knows? They don’t struggle with the realism, they just put an awful lot of thought into the propaganda – how many theories they’ll push out and how they’ll time them, how many different groups they identify to target. I’m sure we have absolutely no idea the sophistication of how they do their propaganda. There’s a number of PhDs waiting to be done on the subject.

              • milosevic says

                a 200 ton airliner cannot penetrate a 500,000 ton steel frame building and I’m afraid that the fact that you think it’s perfectly possible shows your lack of scientific understanding.

                As I’ve said before, the exact same argument would imply that a 2g rifle bullet cannot penetrate a 5kg (= 5000g) steel plate, and yet it does, so perhaps I’m not the one who lacks understanding of physics.

                Are you aware that the WTC facade was mostly glass? That it had windows, and mostly empty space behind them? Or do you imagine the WTC towers as a solid chunk of steel, which is the only way your argument makes any sense?

                What do you think should have happened, that the airplane should have bounced off the building like a basketball hitting a brick wall, or something?

                Try throwing a cup of water at a steel-mesh window screen, and see which side of the screen most of the water ends up on. You’ll say that water is not a solid object, but neither was the cloud of aircraft debris and jet fuel that came out of the far side of WTC-2, as is easily seen in the videos.

                They show us Flight 175 pop out the other side of the South tower

                That video is of such poor quality that it doesn’t show much of anything at all. Better quality videos clearly show that what “pops out” is a cloud of metal debris, with the largest single piece being possibly an engine, and many tons of jet fuel.

                and they have a witness testify seeing it “ream right into the side of the twin tower exploding through the other side.”

                Everybody knows that “Harley guy” is a government plant. Fake witnesses lie; that’s what they’re for. The purpose of this fake witness is to tell us that the building collapses occurred “mostly due to structural failure, because the fire was just too intense”, something that nobody could have known at that point, even if it were true, which it isn’t. This is explained even in the Youtube comments, so I’m not sure what your point is. If a fake witness, in the course of telling their assigned lies, happens to mention that the sky is blue, that doesn’t prove that it isn’t.

                the frame of the twin towers was much thicker than 1/4 inch while a plane is not designed for penetration while a bullet is.

                Here’s a video of a high-speed water jet cutting through a steel plate. Water is not even solid, much less “designed for penetration”, and yet somehow it manages, anyway.

                According to your understanding of physics, this should be completely impossible. Maybe the government faked this, too?

                • Butties says

                  “WTC facade was mostly glass”
                  Lets have the stats for that please. Mostly steel box section with small opening for glass is the photographic evidence. Do you have a link to the ‘blueprints’ by any chance?

                    • Butties says

                      Thanks for that link to the ‘blue prints’ I will have a look. One question you may be able to answer and save me time is “What is the height between floors at the level of the impact?” The reason this is of interest is that the floor plate would provide massive resistance to anything hitting it from the side.

                    • Butties says

                      Just had a quick look at the ‘plans’ but they are at such a small scale that ‘blown up’ they are illegible. However there does seem to be an anology between the height of the floor to floor on the plan sections (even though the dimensions are illegible) and that shown in your photograph link. At a rough estimate based on the height of the man in the photo we are looking at circa 8metres floor to floor! Am I missing a floor plate somewhere or did the aluminium airframe take that out as well?

                  • milosevic says

                    also see here; it appears that the width of the steel box columns is actually rather less than that of the spaces between them. there is some kind of thin aluminum cladding which is then applied to the columns, but that wouldn’t provide much impediment to the passage of a 200-ton airplane.

                    • Butties says

                      “there is some kind of thin aluminum cladding which is then applied to the columns, but that wouldn’t provide much impediment to the passage of a 200-ton airplane.”

                      said areoplane ‘Made of Aluminium’ and alloys thereof!

                      Looking at the blurred ‘blue prints’ can you tell me what happened to the central core of steel columns and beams? Given that this structure is a massive cantilever where the ‘core’ is the actual structure, what happened to it? Where did it go? Why is there no large stump in the debris?

                      I may be a tad late getting into this event but I have to date only read one plausible explanation as to what happened. It wasn’t a collapse due to a plane impact that is for sure.

                    • Admin says

                      What do you think happened to the central core?

                    • milosevic says

                      It wasn’t a collapse due to a plane impact that is for sure.

                      I never said it was. For anybody with eyes to see, it is obviously a controlled demolition, accomplished with what must have been enormous quantities of explosives.

                      I am merely concerned to refute the disinformational claim that there were no aircraft impacts at all, numerous videos and thousands of direct witnesses notwithstanding.

                    • milosevic says

                      said aeroplane ‘Made of Aluminium’ and alloys thereof!

                      The landing gear struts are most definitely made of steel, rather than aluminum; I’m not sure about the wing spars. The engine cores are presumably made of titanium or tungsten alloys, or something like that. Tungsten is also used to make kinetic penetrator slugs which are able to defeat steel tank armour.

                      A disposable ball-point pen (“BIC”) is made entirely of plastic, except for the tiny metal (tungsten!) ball and socket at the very tip. And yet with such a pen, you could easily punch a hole through an aluminum Coke can.

                      I’m pretty sure you could do the same thing with a sufficiently sharp pencil, which contains no metal at all.

                      Try these experiments for yourself, if you doubt the claim.

                    • milosevic says

                      Tungsten is also used to make kinetic penetrator slugs which are able to defeat steel tank armour.

                    • Antonym says

                      Aluminium from the aircraft, iron oxide (rust) from the columns and high temperature can also be the components of a thermite for a redux reaction, which can cut through just about anything.

                    • Admin says

                      Hasn’t the “natural thermite” argument been debunked?

                • Chris says

                  Dear Milosevic – regarding the video of the water cutting tool: an amazing piece of machinery for sure but, with respect, the energy of the high pressure water is extremely focused. Anyone who has been up close to a fire hose knows how water can be focused to deliver extraordinary power – particularly those people who have been badly hurt by the use of hoses on political protesters. Note too that many of the cuts of the slightly thicker metals take some time. However, the aluminimum shell of an aeroplane has nothing comparable in terms of focussed strength even at high velocity. Especially when one considers the far higher tensile strength of the beams in the Twin Towers. And the sudden short impact we see in the official vision of the plane impact does not permit anything like the controlled and steady focussing of energy with which this water can be applied.

                  Quite apart from all this however this discussion is essentially a distraction. The fact is the official impact vision of the plane is all obviously phony (the fact that ANY of it would be phony should make us question the entire aerplane premise); as is the only picture of any debris on the ground – a badly photo-shopped video years later after people started asking the obvious question of why there was no plane debris on the ground.

                  • milosevic says

                    the aluminimum shell of an aeroplane has nothing comparable in terms of focussed strength even at high velocity. Especially when one considers the far higher tensile strength of the beams in the Twin Towers.

                    Consider that the entire 200-ton weight of the airplane is supported by the massive spars (“beams”) which form the structure of the wings; these are certainly not just a “shell”. Nor are the two engines, or the landing gear, which must similarly support 200 tons of weight when the plane is on the ground. The load on any single exterior column of the building is much less than this.

                    If you look closely at the pictures I posted above, it appears that most of the building columns have been smashed only for a metre or so of their length. This corresponds closely with where the airplane wing spars passed through the building facade. Otherwise, only the aluminum cladding has been knocked off, and the windows between the columns smashed.


                    • Ken Kenn says

                      It was similar to an egg slicer.

                      The problem is that once the planes hit the the 14″ – 1/4 2 thick box beams they would first hit the front of the box then the two sides of the box then the back of the box and about eight end on concrete pans with 4″ thick concretei n them thereby slowing the aircraft down as it entered the building. We did not witness the rest of the aircraft’s
                      non penetrative backend fall awayfrom the building as its momentum slowed.

                      If the aircraft was slowed down measurably – how could the rest of the plane’s parts cause so much damage to the much stronger inner core if it had slown down?

                      I’ll say this again as it’s worth noting:

                      The manufacturers of these aircraft said that you would need more than four times the thrust for the engines at sea level to reach the speeds the planes were said to have flown at before hitting the buildings.

                      Apparently if that happened the aircraft would have shaken to pieces.

                    • milosevic says

                      It was similar to an egg slicer.

                      Yes, exactly. Except for the aircraft wing spars, which appear to have been slicers, rather than slicees, relative to the building columns.

                      The manufacturers of these aircraft said that you would need more than four times the thrust for the engines at sea level to reach the speeds the planes were said to have flown at before hitting the buildings.

                      — we may therefore conclude that the aircraft did not actually fly at the speeds they were said to have flown at. That doesn’t prove that they weren’t there, or didn’t crash into the WTC.

                      Obviously, agreeing with the Official Story to the extent that some actual airplanes did actually crash into some actual buildings, doesn’t imply that I have to agree with all the other details of the Official faery tale.

                    • milosevic says

                      If the aircraft was slowed down measurably — how could the rest of the plane’s parts cause so much damage to the much stronger inner core if it had slown down?

                      We don’t know that there was ANY damage caused to the building cores by the aircraft impacts. The fact that the part of the buildings above the impact zone did not topple or collapse, even a little bit, until the whole thing was blown up with demolition explosives an hour later (1-3/4 hours later, for WTC-1), strongly suggests that the core columns were not seriously damaged, and continued to support the weight of the building. The aircraft debris and jet fuel either missed them completely, or passed through them like water through a window screen, or an egg through an egg slicer.

                  • milosevic says

                    the energy of the high pressure water is extremely focused. Anyone who has been up close to a fire hose knows how water can be focused to deliver extraordinary power – particularly those people who have been badly hurt by the use of hoses on political protesters.

                    Again, the aircraft fuel tanks in the wing roots contain multiple tons of kerosene, which is suddenly applied to the building facade at 300mph. Presumably, this is substantially faster than water coming out of a firehose.

      • mark says

        “Keeping thousands of people quiet is impossible……”

        One fine summer’s day in 1945, there was a big bang over a city called Hiroshima. That was the first anybody ever knew about the atomic bomb, a project completed over several years involving hundreds of thousands of workers from many countries at a cost of billions of dollars. This involved creating entirely new towns, and new power stations to supply the high energy needs. Using new technology like completely automated factories. The US Treasury was emptied of silver bullion to provide high grade electrical wiring. But nobody knew anything about it. Truman was only told of it shortly before the bombing – and he was the president.

        During the war an operation was mounted to break the German military codes. Everybody now knows the story of Bletchley Park and Enigma. People like Montgomery were able to pose as military geniuses for years when they were receiving daily messages that Rommel had only a dozen tanks left and had run out of petrol, and so on. This involved a huge operation over several years, employing many thousands of people from all walks of life and different countries, and completely new technology like the world’s first computer. This was kept completely secret. At the end of the war, the records and equipment were destroyed. All the thousands of personnel were sworn to secrecy and dispersed. This was a deliberate policy, as it was believed that it might be necessary in the near future to mount a similar codebreaking operation against the Soviet Union. Nobody knew anything about it till the 1970s, when officialdom decided that the operation could be declassified and all the people like Turing given the recognition they deserved.

        • Roberto says

          There’s an amusing story told about Truman meeting Stalin at Potsdam, Truman telling Stalin that a new powerful weapon was being prepared by the US. Stalin acknowledged the comment but was not particularly interested in pursuing the subject further beyond a ‘good luck with that’ response.
          Of course Stalin knew all about the bomb almost from day one, and followed its progress carefully, unlike Vice President Truman, who had never heard of it. Pavel Sudoplatov ran the program that recruited sources from Oppenheimer down that either provided intelligence or looked the other way as it was collected and given to the Soviets.

    • John A says

      Oswald was shot by Jack Ruby live on TV. Oswald is being escorted in handcuffs by two cops, Ruby walks up and shoots Oswald. Oswald’s face contorts in pain. Of all the mysteries surrounding JFK, the Ruby – Oswald shooting is the least to be open to doubt.
      Not sure how you can argue otherwise. I am intrigued to hear your logic, please.

      • milosevic says

        It’s simple; the masters of the universe are, contrary to all available evidence, secretly humanitarians of the highest ethical principles. They wouldn’t hurt a fly. Nothing that happens in the world is actually real. The entire Vietnam war was faked with giant holograms. The supposed 58 thousand American victims, and four million Vietnamese victims, are happily living out their lives under new identities in Argentina and Pitcairn Island. Lee Harvey Oswald underwent plastic surgery and later became a famous Hollywood movie star, whereas JFK secretly married Marilyn Monroe. Their seven children are currently living in a yurt in Outer Mongolia.

      • Contorts in pain? That’s compelling evidence for you, John? In the footage milosevic shows us below we see zero evidence of a bullet landing in Oswald. Zero. And you really have to wonder why that is. We see the camera on the gun but we don’t see the bullet go from the gun to Oswald. I rest my case. I’m not saying he definitely wasn’t shot – all I’m saying is there is no evidence for it and there seems to be no good reason for Jack Ruby to go to jail for it so I think it’s exceedingly unlikely. I also think that his saying, “I’m just a patsy” sounds very staged which also fits the power elite pushing their crime in our face along with having a Carcano rifle as his weapon of choice.

        Milosevic seems unfamiliar with “sheep dipping”, the practice of giving agents new identities. OK, I’ll confess to harbouring a totally outlandish theory. Lee Harvey Oswald was really his brother Robert. No doubt there are convincing photos of the two brothers but wouldn’t that be a turnup for the books?

        • Also, it would have had to be a set up for Ruby to do it and there’s an awful lot of people around. Wouldn’t it be very risky? Do you think they’d take that risk pulling off such an operation … when they didn’t have to? Don’t you think that if they killed Oswald all the other agents working for them would feel very unhappy about that? Why would they do it for real? It makes no sense.

        • Oh, and of course. There’s a massive huddle around him … could it be to cover the fact that he wasn’t shot? Actually, the more I think about it the more it would seem that Oswald wasn’t shot. There’s simply no evidence for him being shot so why should we believe it any more than we believe anything else they’ve told us happened on that day. There are so many good reasons for not having him shot and none that I can think of for doing it for real.

          • John A says

            I am not quite sure why I should bother to answer again but in the 1980s, Oswald’s body was exhumed for identification purposes (and to prove the grave was not empty as some theories went). This was pre DNA days, but his jaw was intact and Oswald was positively identified from his dental records going back to his childhood.
            Now, of course, you might have another ‘explanation’ for this, but I for one, am totally convinced, Oswald was killed after the Kennedy assassination. I am however, totally unconvinced that Oswald was the assassin.
            And there I will leave it. You continue to think what you like.

            • They told is it was exhumed, you cannot say for sure that happened. He may have died by then and it was his real body or they fabricated the story – who knows? They told us that human fragments were found in the twin tower dust but I don’t believe that because of the evidence of death and injury being staged.

              I judge by the evidence presented clearly and logic and reason.

              — They had no reason to kill Oswald and Jack Ruby certainly didn’t thus they didn’t have to do it for real if they didn’t want to. They were at liberty to choose whether to stage the death or make it real. So often staging death is less problematic than killing for real and the choice you’d expect them to take. Sure, when they WANT to kill someone they do just that but if they don’t want to I think their preferred MO is not to – and that would generally make more sense.

              — It was obviously a set up for Ruby to kill him.

              — Jack Ruby was not known as a crack shot so, apart from anything else, having him shoot presented great risk – that he wouldn’t manage to kill Oswald or that he might kill someone else in the crowded room. For such an important operation they wouldn’t risk performing a real killing when they both didn’t have a reason to and it involved considerable risk. That would make no sense.

              — Agents aren’t going to be too happy to be recruited if they kill their agents for real in operations are they – and they employ lots of agents. No doubt it happens. I’m sure it does but that’s when they really want it to because the agent is not obeying orders or possibly by accident. Agents are not employed to die for real in operations.

              — The footage that we see of the gun appearing very clearly in the bottom right of the screen and then suddenly all these people surrounding Oswald with no indication whatsoever of a bullet reaching him or being inside him greatly supports the hypothesis that Oswald wasn’t killed.

              — They told us that Jack Ruby went to jail. I don’t believe it as it makes no sense. Why would he agree to doing the shooting knowing he was going to jail – and if they told him that they’d spare him jail wouldn’t he squeal if they actually put him in jail? They simply pretended to jail him and perhaps put him in the cells at convenient times. I have no idea how they manage to do all this fakery but it’s the only thing that makes sense.

              — There is absolutely no compelling evidence that Oswald was killed.

              • John A says

                There are photographs of Oswald dead on the mortician’s slab showing the bullet wounds. There are photographs of the exhumation, of his teeth, of the dental records.
                Ruby shot him at point blank range with a handgun, no need for him to have any kind of sniper type skllls.
                I fear people like you enable TPTB to easily tar everyone who does not accept the ‘official’ story with the same brush as loony conspiracy theories.
                Oswald was shot on live TV, at point blank range. He was dead on the mortician’s slab. He was buried wearing his wedding ring and another ring his wife wanted him to have. The exhumed body still had those rings and they were identified as the same by his wife.
                Oswald was a patsy. And as the old saying goes, ‘dead men tell no tales’. If Oswald had stayed alive, he would have had to be brought to trial. He would have had his day in court to give his version. As it was, the Warren Commission could simply nail him as the killer and close the case.
                This is my final word on this. I have no desire to continue entertaining your fabulist notions.

                • Of course, they had every reason to get rid of Oswald. Of course. But he was an agent and they can “disappear” agents easily without killing them so we have to wonder why they didn’t just use their normal technique of “sheep dipping” him – giving him another identity and shipping him off somewhere.

                  I’d be much obliged, John, if you could tell me where in milosevic’s video we see evidence of a bullet in Oswald. I must be missing it somehow or if that footage isn’t what you’re referring to, any footage that shows evidence of a bullet in Oswald at the time of the shooting. I think it’s fair to say that the immediate crowding around him could be viewed as a method of covering the fact that he wasn’t shot, wouldn’t you agree?

                  Here is a photo of Oswald on the mortician’s slab and I’d say it’s definitely him, however, photos can involve fakery and if this is the only evidence it isn’t sufficient to convince me – he could be alive lying there and they could have done stuff to his body to make it look stitched or put a different body with his head … or he could have been stitched for some previous injuries which was why they selected him for the job. If this is the only photo showing seeming clear evidence I can’t go with just that even though I have to admit I cannot see obvious fakery – then again the photo is not very clear either so any fakery is harder to perceive. However, convincing live footage would be compelling so if you can identify on milosevic’s video or direct me to another piece of footage that contains clear evidence that would be good.

                  As far as the exhumed body goes they could have put the rings by at the time for resurrection at his “exhumation” or he could have been dead when they exhumed him but have died at a date later than that of his alleged killing. They carry these things on for years so the wedding ring and “special ring” don’t mean anything to me and, of course, if his wife were in on it and I’d say she would have been, the rings would just have been a concocted story.

                  To me, the motive they had for shooting him and a motive Jack Ruby personally had to shoot him for real is very hard to determine so I need compelling evidence to believe he was really shot. That’s not unreasonable, is it?

                • I thank you, John, for prompting me to think more on this subject by looking at the photo of Oswald on the mortician’s slab. It definitely got me pondering. For an hypothesis to be true, every single bit of evidence must be accommodated somehow, every single bit.

                  I have to say that I think the photo of him on the mortician’s slab does not look faked (or most of it doesn’t) so how can this fit the hypothesis, “Oswald’s shooting staged”?

                  They often use people in their events who’ve already suffered some kind of injury or have a condition so for the 9/11 photos of the injured we see a woman with scars on her arm that look old and we see a man with vitiligo allegedly suffering from burns. However, these conditions or old scars are hardly convincing.

                  In the story that goes along with the picture of Oswald it says:

                  Ruby’s .38-caliber bullet entered Oswald’s lower chest just below his left nipple and lodged in a noticeable lump under the skin on the right side of his back. It pierced nearly every major organ and blood vessel in his abdominal cavity – stomach, spleen, liver, aorta, diaphragm, renal vein, a kidney, and the inferior vena cava, a major vein that carries deoxygenated blood from the lower extremities back to the heart. Oswald bled out very quickly through a dozen or more holes.

                  The bullet caused all that including bleeding out through a dozen or more holes. Really?

                  That seems very odd to me. I think they say he bled out through all these holes to explain his extensive surgical stitching. I think it’s quite possible that Oswald really did suffer a previous injury and that is why he was chosen for the job – to put his extensive stitching on display even though it doesn’t actually match “single bullet wound”. And perhaps his extensive stitching was ultimately a result of some kind of misdemeanour he’d committed for which they obliged him to carry out the operation (but that is pure speculation).

                  The bullet wound scar does not look particularly convincing so that is where the fakery could be. He’s alive on the slab with a fake bullet wound – everything else is real but does not match his alleged wound.

                  So we can make the photo on the mortician’s slab fit “Oswald’s shooting staged” quite easily unless you can come up with something that refutes my argument, John.

                  I no longer harbour my ridiculous theory that Lee Harvey was really his brother Robert. I don’t know why I thought they looked so alike.

                  • John A says

                    Flaxgirl you say “So we can make the photo on the mortician’s slab fit “Oswald’s shooting staged” quite easily unless you can come up with something that refutes my argument, John.”

                    Quite frankly, even if I were to build a time machine and transport both of us to the Dallas Police Station on the day Oswald was shot, and the two of us witness it in person, then visit the morgue to view his body to see the body and see it is the same person, I get the impression you would still not be convinced. There is no point in trying to refute your argument because no proof or evidence or anything else would shake your conviction that everything is some kind of faked event.

                    • I don’t think everything is faked, John, just an awful lot of things. I think the evidence shows astronauts landed on the moon, for example. I’m now not convinced that LHO’s death was faked, however, I don’t think there is compelling evidence he was killed either and his death is certainly the kind of thing intelligence agencies fake all the time. I really don’t see that Jack Ruby would have gone to jail – that had to be faked, surely.

                      I’ve learnt since last posting that the stitching matches that of a post-mortem so my speculation that the stitching was a result of previous injuries and doesn’t match the bullet wound has no basis and I have to say the stitching looks pretty real to me.

                      What I don’t think is convincing at all is the actual shooting so while I think the body looks convincing, the shooting doesn’t so I guess I’m on the fence. I’d have to do a lot more research and there’s not much point, is there?

                    • John A says

                      Flaxgirl, Ruby was a nightclub ‘owner’ with all sorts of Jewish, mafia and government informer connections. He could well have been blackmailed into killing Oswald. Plus he died in gaol of cancer not too many years later, so probably felt his life span was short. Ruby had to go to gaol, the evidence that he did the shooting was too damning not to. The only alternative was to bump him off as well, but that might have got even the most slow-witted to have a light bulb moment.
                      I dont think Oswald killed Kennedy, I dont thing 911 was Bin Laden, I dont think the Chechen brothers were responsible for the Boston marathon bombing. I dont think Russia had anything to do with the Skripal case, or the MH17 shoot down. The Manchester bombing is questionable, but to label literally everyting as fake or a hoax opens up the chance for the MSM etc., to squeak conspiracy nut all the time.

                    • I know we were told that Ruby went to jail but did he really or did he just turn up for special appearances? Perhaps these things are unfakable but when I learnt that the Bologna train station bombing was faked it occurred to me that all those charged with the (fake) bombing surely wouldn’t have gone to jail even though we’re told they did. The “pressure from the Mafia” could simply be propaganda, couldn’t it? Perhaps we’re simply told he was under pressure to provide his motive both to do it and to suffer the consequences. We’re also told by the daughter of an old friend of Ruby’s, her mother’s thoughts about Ruby’s intentions:

                      She doesn’t think that killing Oswald was Ruby’s original plan on November 24, 1963.
                      “He would have never done it with Sheba (his weenie dog) left in his car, knowing they would arrest him and Sheba would be alone,” she said. “Sheba was a child to Jack.”


                      We also see this iterated by a niece.

                      “If he had planned to do anything, he never would have left that dog in danger,” one of the sisters recalled.


                      Really? Don’t you think this sounds like propaganda? A reinforcement of the message that he really didn’t want to but he did it anyway.

                      How do we know whether he was really under pressure – and whether he was or he wasn’t, the Mafia were in with the government officials involved and you’d think those people would help to keep him out one way or another just as they kept all the Mafia criminals out. I know they can chew people up and spit them out but they may not necessarily, especially when they don’t have to.

                      I can’t say he didn’t go to jail – I have no evidence to back it up. However, what makes the most sense is that he didn’t go to jail for real and I don’t think we can be sure of any of the stories we’re told that seem to support that he did it for real and went to jail for it.

                      I have to live with people thinking I’m a conspiracy nut. There’s nothing I can do about it but I’m not going to keep quiet on things simply to try to avoid it.

    • Michael McNulty says

      In the photo of Jack Ruby shooting Lee Harvey Oswald it appears part of Oswald’s hand is blown away as the bullet passes through the base of his thumb (not to be confused with the photo of Gary Oldman playing the role of Oswald, which looked very close to the original photo except it shows no injury).

      The injury is visible here: http://acopswatch.blogspot.com/2017/11/an-ordinary-american.html

      • Goodstuff says

        The comments there are a lot more instructive then the policemans story and photo

      • I see no injury myself and that nice old guy seems like a disinformation agent. Also if the bullet went through his hand how would it have killed him? Or were there other shots later we don’t see.

  16. Elizabeth Woodworth says

    I strongly recommend reading Dr. MacQueen’s article on JFK and 9/11 from start to finish. Dr. MacQueen is one of the most steadfast, articulate and meticulous researchers into 9/11. This powerful new Salandria Approach to the topic has produced one of his best essays.

    The monumental and utterly transparent guilt of the institutions that the public hires to keep it safe is almost beyond comprehension.

    This essay should ignite outrage and a cry for justice from even the most insensitive of hearts.

  17. Mossad in cahoots with certain people in the US administration was responsible for both the JFK assassination and the 9/11 false flag “attacks”.

  18. John2o2o says

    Grassy Knowl. The problem is that eyewitnesses are confused and uncertain. Possibly even panicking when a scene such as Kennedy’s murder unfolds. I have no problem with the official story of his killing, nor with the official narrative on 9/11.

    The American deep state tried many times to kill Castro and failed. You’re telling me that they got it right with Kennedy?

    I’m sure that you can justify your idea, but if this was some sort of state sanctioned killing I think they would have made a better job of covering it up. Lee Harvey Oswald would be an unlikely fall guy. I am quite sure that he killed Kennedy. You’re not going to shift my view on that, no matter how hard you try.

    As for 9/11. Explain to me again why? (No, please don’t).

    I am again happy with the official story. The way that it all unfolded was extraordinary. Sure, you can maybe try to create flaws in the narrative, but if this was being made up then the idea of having aeroplanes (learn to spell Yanks) flying into the twin towers and the Pentagon would probably have been considered much too extreme and unbelievable as a cover story.

    I have no doubt that the Saudi terrorists who committed the 9/11 atrocity were amazed that they succeeded. Indeed, had they used conventional methods they would surely have failed.

    • Hugh O'Neill says

      Fool or Knave? Lets give you the benefit of the doubt and suppose the former: do governments lie? Did Bush & Blair lie about WMD in Iraq? If they did, how many innocents have died because of those lies? Even if one cannot care less about Arabs or Muslims, a lot of US and UK servicemen have died too – because of those same lies.
      Gulf of Tonkin anyone? Maybe 58,000 US soldiers died in the Vietnam War (and even more committed suicide after).
      Pentagon Papers? Do governments lie? Watergate? Khashoggi? The jailing of Bradley Manning and the persecution of Julian Assange. Do governments lie? Do governments assassinate those they perceive as enemies? See Bergman’s “Rise and Kill First”.
      Do bullets reverse their direction in mid-air? Do steel-framed buildings collapse due to fire? Fool or knave?

      • Mulga Mumblebrain says

        ‘Fool or knave?’ Probably both.

      • milosevic says

        Fool or knave?

        The first-level disinfo shills, such as this one, confuse only those who want to be confused. It’s the second-level shills, such as those who claim “no planes”, or “no casualties”, who do more serious damage, as they serve to discredit people who are trying to understand.

    • Gary Weglarz says

      John2o2o – you: (“I am quite sure that he (Oswald) killed Kennedy. You’re not going to shift my view on that, no matter how hard you try.”) & (“I have no doubt that the Saudi terrorists who committed the 9/11 atrocity . . .”)

      — If these fact-free absurd assertions, (both of which fly in the face of the laws of physics and the witness testimony), are meant to be some sort of “argument” all I can say is you missed your calling – you should have served the power structure as a member of the Warren Commission or the 9/11 Commission. That you would state such evidence free drivel as your opinion suggests a deeply reactionary psyche – one that is more comfortable with the myths and fairy tales promoted by the powerful – rather than facing reality.

      De Gaulle knew the U.S. State killed JFK. After the funeral he told one of his ministers that the American people didn’t have the stomach for the truth. Of Americans he predicted: (“They don’t want to know. They don’t want to find out. They won’t let themselves find out.”) Sadly you (wherever you reside) and most Americans have proven him quite correct in predicting the moral and intellectual cowardice of the West.

      One could add Aldo Moro and Olaf Palme to the list of heads of State assassinated by their own governments with U.S. complicity. But so much easier not to question the “official story,” and to just shut off our critical thought processes and accept whatever nonsense they tell us to believe. Most seem only too happy to do so.

      • Gary: “De Gaulle … predicted: “They don’t want to know. They don’t want to find out. They won’t let themselves find out.” Sadly you (wherever you reside) … have proven him quite correct in predicting the moral and intellectual cowardice of the West.”

        De Gaulle confirms Solzhenitsyn’s opinion at Harvard, on the decline of civic courage in the West. Two great political minds thinking alike. Both of them mocked and rejected by Main Stream Western Opinion.

        “Humankind cannot bear very much reality” — TS Eliot

      • milosevic says

        If these fact-free absurd assertions are meant to be some sort of “argument”, all I can say is you missed your calling — you should have served the power structure as a member of the Warren Commission or the 9/11 Commission. That you would state such evidence free drivel as your opinion suggests a deeply reactionary psyche — one that is more comfortable with the myths and fairy tales promoted by the powerful — rather than facing reality.

        Vineyard Saker — When sanity fails — the mindset of the “ideological drone”

    • different frank says

      I’m amazed that many of them were reported alive and well after the 11th of September.

      • milosevic says

        No actual Arabs and Moslems were involved in the 9/11 event, as the aircraft were not actually hijacked, but rather flown to their targets by autopilot. The official patsies are simply people who were present in the US at some time, for flight training or other purposes, and had their passports stolen by government agents while they were there.

        BBC — Hijack ‘suspects’ alive and well

        Another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well.

        The identities of four of the 19 suspects accused of having carried out the attacks are now in doubt.

        Saudi Arabian pilot Waleed Al Shehri was one of five men that the FBI said had deliberately crashed American Airlines flight 11 into the World Trade Centre on 11 September.

        His photograph was released, and has since appeared in newspapers and on television around the world.

        Now he is protesting his innocence from Casablanca, Morocco.

        He told journalists there that he had nothing to do with the attacks on New York and Washington, and had been in Morocco when they happened. He has contacted both the Saudi and American authorities, according to Saudi press reports.

        He acknowledges that he attended flight training school at Daytona Beach in the United States, and is indeed the same Waleed Al Shehri to whom the FBI has been referring.

        But, he says, he left the United States in September last year, became a pilot with Saudi Arabian airlines and is currently on a further training course in Morocco.

      • The false-flag analyst, Ole Dammegard, says that an insider told him that the power elite justify their hoaxing of us by providing us gratuitously, in addition to the preposterousness of their basic story, additional signs including ridiculousness, impossibilities, things that don’t add up, contradictions, smiling grievers, obviously doctored imagery and on and on – it’s up to us to call them out and if we don’t the fault’s on us, sparing them from karmic repercussions. They also obviously derive a huge amount of amusement from pushing the envelope in their shameless hoaxery.

        For 9/11 they gave us the “alive and well” terrorists; the magic passport that, despite its pristineness, managed to change ownership; the pre-announcement of WTC-7’s collapse; Flight 175’s nose cone popping out the other side of the building; Silverstein saying about his building, WTC-7, that he said to “pull it”, the flight instructor of the little pilot, Hani Hanjour, who penetrated the Pentagon in an impossible 330 degree manoeuvre, telling us that he used to cry – yes cry – when asked to attempt stalls and steep turns; ludicrous miracle survivor stories … and they made boxcutters the weapon that Barbara Olson allegedly told her husband in a phone call from Flight 77 she saw the terrorists using – compare boxcutters with the Carcano rifle (used by Mussolini’s armed forces) as the weapon chosen by Oswald to kill JFK.

    • different frank says

      Many of the same Saudi “terrorists” were reported alive and well after the event.

      • different frank says

        Admin please delete one of these.

    • mark says

      I believe in pixies, elves, leprechauns, Father Christmas, Roger the Rabbit, the Skripal Poisoning, and everything the MSM tells me.

    • John G says

      ” You’re not going to shift my view on that, no matter how hard you try.”

      Thanks for the warning/admission.

  19. Badger Down says

    And “Jack Ruby” murdered the “lone gunman”, or “patsy”, Lee Harvey Oswald. The news media didn’t let on that he was Jacob Rubenstein, a Jewish gangster connected with Meyer Lansky. JFK’s murder was very good for “israel”.

    Come to think of it, the pulverisation of the WTC was also very good for “israel”.

    • milosevic says

      the pulverisation of the WTC was also very good for “israel”.

      — as was immediately acknowledged at the time:

      New York Times — September 12th, 2001

      Israeli leaders, who have chafed at occasional American criticism of their measures against Palestinians, said the day’s attacks would awaken the United States to the threat of global terrorism.

      Asked tonight what the attack meant for relations between the United States and Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, the former prime minister, replied, “It’s very good.” Then he edited himself: ”Well, not very good, but it will generate immediate sympathy.” He predicted that the attack would ”strengthen the bond between our two peoples, because we’ve experienced terror over so many decades, but the United States has now experienced a massive hemorrhaging of terror.”

      In an appearance late tonight, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon repeatedly placed Israel on the same ground as the United States, calling the assault an attack on ”our common values” and declaring, ”I believe together we can defeat these forces of evil.” He declared Wednesday a day of mourning.

      As is well known, the Five Dancing Israelis pre-empted their Glorious Leader, by demonstrating their approval of the attacks while they were still underway.

      “Our purpose was to document the event.”

        • The dancing Israelis was pure propaganda just like the van that was stopped with the explosives dust. They love having everyone pointing the finger at the various groups. We know it involved Israel and Saudi Arabia and that it was basically a global event. It’s not important in the first instance. It was on US soil and the US government was involved – work that out first and the rest worry about later – it was all under US government’s auspices.

          • Mulga Mumblebrain says

            I think you just revealed your real purpose.

            • You mean that you think I’m a Zionist shill, Mulga? Is that what you infer from what I say? If so, I guess there’s really no hope. I guess the power elite can leave their trails of breadcrumbs to be gobbled up just as they please and everyone will follow them, regardless of whether they think of themselves as having swallowed the red pill or not.

              I knew about all the other hoax events for four whole years before I cottoned on to staged death and injury on 9/11 so I do not blame anyone for not cottoning on sooner. But now that I’ve cottoned on, provided ample evidence and explained the logic of the propaganda – which isn’t all that complicated – it really only needs pointing out – I simply do not understand others’ resistance to it.

              They push out a distorted version of the truth with lies. It’s a type of propaganda, Mulga, that is what it is, to seduce the truthers who think, “Oh yes, ISRAEL, so whatever they say or imply along with ISRAEL means the “along with” part must be true too.” They know that truthers know that Israel was involved so they don’t bother trying to suppress that information – they exploit it instead by conveniently pushing out ISRAEL along with anything that supports “people in the buildings dying” in one form or another.

              The dancing Israelis and traces of explosive dust in the van suggest “outsiders” did the bombings which is more plausible than insiders actually killing their fellow citizens. Geddit? I completely swallowed it myself so I don’t blame anyone for being seduced by the idea of Israelis conducting the bombing operation and it may well be that Israelis really did do the bombing (I hear they’re good at it – but that may be propaganda too although I have to say it seems very plausible) but the dancing Israelis is still propaganda regardless. Because whoever conducted the bombing operation didn’t intend to kill the people in the buildings so it really makes no odds whether it was Mossad, CIA or a demolition company.

              Can I make myself any clearer, Mulga, or do you still think I’m a Zionist shill?

        • That’s propaganda directed at the truthers, DunGroanin. It’s ironic, isn’t it? Of course, Israel was involved but they push propaganda telling you it was involved, separate to their genuine involvement. They want to CONTROL the information as much as possible which means pushing out what appears, so seductively, to be the truth when it isn’t. It’s all about controlling the information. Death and injury were staged so all those names are bullshit but they push out the Israel low numbers to maintain the lie that people died – just a small number of Israelis.

          • DunGroanin says

            People did die – many of them emergency staff.

            Of course if the buildings werr as full as it was supposed to be then one would have expected a lot more casualties.

            Someone tried to tell me that metropolitan NY being the highest jewish population would in no way have been attacked by Israeli skulduggery and was an obvious target for the islamist attack!
            The logic of that propaganda fails as the pilots didn’t decide to land the plane in anypart of that mega conurbation with the highest concentrations of jews did they?

            I mean i don’t know how many of which religions and foreign countries citizens usually worked in the WTC. I’m not sure if any such records went up in smoke. Or were mysteriously destroyef like WTC7. But that list shocked me.

            Infect, the one simple fact of a dozy BBC news report which had in the background behind their reporter, the building 7, as she and her colleague discussed the report of its collapse! After 5 mins they suddenly dropped the feed. Doh!

            A open and shut case of a conspiracy in that one transmission of preprepared script involving dozens of media persons and no doubt scores across the world in the choreography.

            But what can we do? If the MSM like one eyed Nelson looks at such clear fake news with a blind eye? The legal institutes and experts likewise close ranks? Their whitewashing Inquiries that tell us there is nothing else to see except their statement of what is the truth?

            We do this. We keep the information flowing. We record the facts and quote them and invite others to do inspect for themselves.

            That is how the narrative control is smashed.

            • They told us that 343 firefighters died but logic and reason do not support this statement and there is no particular evidence to suggest it either. 343 of 2606 who died in the twin towers is 13% of victims. Really? Firefighters are AOK with 13% of victims being their colleagues when it is obvious that controlled demolition brought the buildings down? That would mean that the government sent them in to rescue people from the buildings and then cold-bloodedly brought the buildings down on them in the middle of their rescue operations. Why is the Firefighters for Truth and Unity webpage (https://www.ff911truthandunity.org/) so muted in comparison to the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth webpage (https://www.ae911truth.org/) when architects and engineers were not killed in any great number – if at all.

              Oh my goodness. It is so hard to explain to normal people that 9/11 was an inside job but it is equally difficult telling people who get it was an inside job that it was also a complete hoax in that death and injury were staged. Why is it so hard when staged death and injury make vastly more sense than doing it for real?

              • milosevic says

                Firefighters are AOK with 13% of victims being their colleagues when it is obvious that controlled demolition brought the buildings down?

                Conversely, according to your theory, thousands of New York firefighters are A-OK with the Official Story that 343 of their colleagues died, when it is known to all of them that no firefighters actually died. None of them has publically objected to the Official faery tale in the seventeen years since, because they’re all in on the “no real victims” conspiracy.

                There could hardly be a more graphic illustration of the essential idiocy of your position, than this.

                Graeme MacQueen — 118 Witnesses: The Firefighters’ Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers

                • I posed a question to you milosevic that you didn’t answer so I’ll bring it out again with some added questions.

                  They show us Flight 175 pop out the other side of the South tower (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WH5InKzdQHw) and they also have a witness testify seeing it “ream right into the side of the twin tower exploding through the other side.” https://youtu.be/f-pLwI7dcQ0?t=56s

                  1– Do you believe a real plane could do what is shown and allegedly witnessed?

                  2– If not, what is your explanation for these two pieces of video?

                  3– Do you think there is anything anomalous in the witness’s seemingly chipper mood just after such a tragic occurrence?

                  4– Do you think there is anything odd in the witness’s reference to “Ground Zero” (the technical term for the point below the detonation of a nuclear or massive bomb) so immediately after the event?

                  5– What do you find the most convincing piece of evidence for death and injury being real on 9/11 rather than staged – or if no one piece stands out, any piece of evidence you find convincing?

                    • Apologies, milosevic, I didn’t realise that you’d answered my question. I thought your comment was just more on the planes which I wasn’t prepared to read. I will get back to that in a later comment. For now in response to the 118 testimonies …

                      I’m not sure how you think the firefighter testimonies refute my idiotic theory, milosevic. It would seem, on the contrary, they completely support it. (They support controlled demolition against which I have no argument of course.) In fact, it seems that’s the point of them. I’d argue that the firefighter testimonies were devised as truther-targeted propaganda. They’re probably mostly genuine but the intention was to get all the testimony suggesting controlled demolition and push it out (at an appropriate time, of course, not directly after the event) as distraction from the key point: lack of death and injury. That’s the counterintuitive thing about it milosevic. They’re not shy to push out certain truths where it suits them, or generally a distorted version of them, to better control the information. They have us all distracted with controlled demolition while keeping the focus off death and injury.

                      So 118 firefighters are interviewed immediately after the event and none of them mentions death and injury (except one that speculates about people dying)! How about that! None of them mention one of their 343 colleagues who reportedly died! Not a one. The name is so clever, “Oral histories”. There’s nothing historical about them except the release date. They interviewed them at the time before the firefighters cottoned onto things and then they released the histories so much later (OK, I haven’t checked the date but I’d bet my bottom dollar it wasn’t shortly after the “oral histories” were taken.) And most of them are firefighters who were near the buildings, not IN them. Where are all the testimonies of the rescues, milosevic? Where are the testimonies of those whose colleagues died? Well, we have a few testimonies of rescues in the miracle survivor stories. Do you have any problems believing them, milosevic, I wonder?http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/sept11/2003/n_9189/

                    • So here’s my response to your response to my questions, milosevic.

                      Let’s put aside your own opinion of the footage of what some say is a plane popping out the other side. Will you allow that a reasonable number of people interpret the footage as a “plane popping out the other side” and interpret this is as obvious fakery?

                      Then we have the recognised plant say that he saw it ream through.

                      What do you make of that? That both a reasonable number of people recognise faked footage of a plane popping out the other side and a planted witness saying he observed this very phenomenon? What is your explanation? Are you a coincidence theorist? Do you think it’s just a coincidence that we see footage that is interpreted at least by some to show a plane popping out with a scripted witness seemingly corroborating (after a fashion) this observation?

                      … or do you think that it is evidence that supports what Ole Dammegard says an insider told him: that the power elite tell us in no uncertain terms with impossibilities, improbabilities, ridiculousness, the actual truth, smiling grievers, contradictions and on and on what they’re up to?

                      As indicated in my previous response, your current answer doesn’t work for question 5. Do you have another answer?

                    • milosevic says

                      I note that you didn’t bother to respond to this, so I have nothing else to say on the issue. I have no interest in following you any further down your disinfo rathole.

                      according to your theory, thousands of New York firefighters are A-OK with the Official Story that 343 of their colleagues died, when it is known to all of them that no firefighters actually died. None of them has publically objected to the Official faery tale in the seventeen years since, because they’re all in on the “no real victims” conspiracy.

                      There could hardly be a more graphic illustration of the essential idiocy of your position, than this.

                    • I’m not sure what I should respond, Milosevic. You’re speculating about what you think should happen. How many people had to keep quiet for the Holocaust to happen and as Mark commented elsewhere many people kept quiet about the atom bomb and the Enigma code. No doubt firefighters are saying things in private but why do you expect them to say anything in public when no one else is, milosevic? You are speculating about what you think should happen. This is not evidence.

                      The evidence is this: 118 firefighters gave testimony shortly after 9/11 and not a single one mentioned death of their 343 colleagues or talked about rescuing. They were even subtly questioned on controlled demolition. I read these testimonies awhile ago – and was all agog at the obviousness of controlled demolition. The strangeness that death of colleagues or rescue activities were not mentioned did not cross my mind for a nanosecond and I seem to remember being struck by the fact that there was difficulty in getting hold of them – it seemed they were trying to keep them secret. That’s the cleverness of propaganda. It’s so very, very clever but when it’s pointed out, milosevic, can you not see it now? Can you not now see the propaganda targeted at the truthers that the perpetrators could not but anticipate would show up to analyse the events of 9/11? They thought, “We can’t hide controlled demolition so let’s push it out in various ways to distract the truthers from the key truth that death and injury were staged. They’ll never persuade the non-truthers of who the real perps are without that key truth.” Of course, trying to persuade people it’s a complete hoax is hardly much easier but nevertheless the perps know that “complete hoax” must be just that little bit easier and that’s why they have tried so very hard to make sure the real truth of “complete hoax” is kept secret as long as possible.

        • Antonym says

          On that list there are 16 countries with only one victim, including Russia, Venezuela and Ukraine. Israel had 5 so they didn’t get that phone call, but these other countries with less…
          If it was all fake, 3000 victims over 62 nations is a lot to pretend and make up….

  20. The official Kennedy narrative is plainly a pack of lies. Many witness statements were also doctored and key witnesses died in suspicious circumstances (not least Oswald himself and Jack Ruby). The whole tragedy, and the continued necessity for the authorities to cover up the truth, is an example of the tangled web liars weave.

    • But witnesses dying can also be faked – Barry Jennings was a fake WTC-7 whistleblower and his death was faked – although I’m sure many are not. The levels of fakery do your head in.

      • milosevic says

        The levels of fakery do your head in.

        speaking from personal experience?

  21. mark says

    There may have been several reasons for JFK’S murder linked to Cuba, Vietnam and the Cold War. But it is of great interest that at the time he was trying to prevent Israel from developing nuclear weapons, and was replaced with the pliable pro Zionist Johnson, who covered up the USS Liberty soon after. There is certainly a long record of Zionist terrorist assassinations, from the UN Peace Envoy Count Bernadotte onwards. Over 1947-8 there were Zionist terror plots to murder Attlee and Bevin, the UK prime minister and foreign secretary. Afterwards came the Lavon Affair and the Mossad attacks on synagogues in Arab countries to cause a panic emigration of Jews to Israel. The Liberty came soon after. 9/11 falls into the same pattern on a much larger scale. This is of significance in that having got away with it on so many occasions, the Zionists may try to repeat the process with a similar false flag to incite a war with Iran. Going off previous history, they would probably be allowed to get away with this by Israel’s Fifth Column in the US.

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says

      JFK was also planning to end the Federal Reserve, and limit private monetary bribes, sorry, ‘contributions’ in US elections. Both ‘antisemitic’ outrages, so he had to go. So did Bobby, whose assassination is an even more ludicrously covered-up atrocity.

    • Antonym says

      Biggest gainers: his own vice president Johnson and the (Viet nam) US war mongers. Ex CIA-ers have spoken about this long after.

    • Schlueter, re your Link, Uncle $cam is far from being a helpless giant — behaves more like a mad Elephant or else a vicious kicking Donkey.

      In Measure for Measure Shakespeare has Isabella denounce the deputy for being corrupted by power, “it is excellent To have a giant’s strength, but it is tyrannous To use it like a giant”.

  22. harry stotle says

    Why are the public so uncritical of the endless lies fed to them – in particular risible accounts of 9/11 from FEMA, NIST and the 9/11 Commission (reports which cannot withstand a shred of forensic scrutiny, even from a reasonaly well informed member of the public).

    Playing devils advocate for a moment lets suppose I was a neocon planning the next war or act of political violence and was wondering to myself how hard I might have to work on the official smokescreen based on how easy it is to fool most of the public?

    The resounding conclusion based on past evidence suggests the answer is not very hard at all because it seems there is literally no bullshit they are not willing to swallow, up to, and including mass murder of thousands of fellow citizens.

    • Makropulos says

      “Why are the public so uncritical….” Perhaps they are not? Don’t forget that it is not public opinion you hear about but public opinion as presented through the mainstream media. It could well be that the vast majority of the public have – to say the least – doubts about JFK, 9/11 etc. but you’d never have this admitted to in the mainstream press.

      • harry stotle says

        Would Bush have been re-elected in 2004 if the US public really believed he was complicit with 9/11 (directly or indirectly)?

        The MSM perpetuate offical myths surrounding the Kennedy assissination and 9/11, no argument, there, but even Chomsky has been conspicuous by his absence when it comes to challenging the official version of such seminal events.

        Ever since Hiroshima neither the international community or the internal electoral system has been able to constrain the use of official lies to mask a self-evident pattern of serial violence perpetrated by US security forces.

        • Mulga Mumblebrain says

          The US public didn’t re-elect Bush in 2004. That sham was stolen, in Ohio, too, just like 2000 was, by the Reptilian Supreme Court.

        • milosevic says

          Chomsky has been conspicuous by his absence when it comes to challenging the official version of such seminal events.

          Actually, Chomsky never misses an opportunity to shill for the 9/11 Official Story, using the sort of arguments that he would be the first to denounce as absurd, in any other context.

          — except for the JFK assassination, the Official Story of which he’s been shilling for decades.

          The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum — even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate. — Noam Chomsky


      • mark says

        It’s funny watching how CNN immediately pulls the plug and “loses the link” with any interview who departs from the official line and fails to sing from the correct hymn sheet.

  23. bill says

    “The DELTA Group”, from UC Davis in California, is a consortium of aerosol scientists from various institutions who have studied over 7,000 incidents of aerosols from dust storms to volcano eruptions. Of their 7,000 studies that they conducted never before had the seen such fine dust as gathered from TTs after 9/11….hardly surprising then that official studies suppressed…… Vince Salandria was always way more insightful than of 99% of researchers-he allegedly told a close relative just after the assassination that if Oswald died within a few days,he would be certain he was a patsy within a national security state cover-up

  24. John A says

    “only a guilty government seeking to serve the interests of the assassins would consistently resort to accepting one improbable conclusion after another while rejecting a long series of probable conclusions”

    Fast forward to 2018, ditto the media and government conclusions on the Skripols. I notice there is yet another Brexit diversion today, with more improbable crap about this matter. Finally the plucky policeman has given an interview. But why not father and daughter Skripal, both desperate to go home to Russia?

      • mark says

        I always thought he was fictitious. When I heard of Sgt. Nick Bailey, I couldn’t help thinking of Dick Barton, Special Agent.

Comments are closed.