Wednesday, December 31, 7000

Permanent Top Post by JM Talboo and Steve W.

By JM Talboo and Steve W. people subconsciously make the mistake of only seeing the issues concerning 9/11 in black and white, as opposed to shades of gray. This is known as the black-or-white fallacy. In this case, the false dilemma is: 9/11 was either carried out by Al-Qaeda or it was "an inside job."

Just because the evidence suggests that rogue elements of US and other international intelligence agencies were involved doesn't mean bin Laden and Al-Qaeda hijackers weren't involved.

In the fight to uncover the truth about 9/11 we must contend with individuals and groups that distort, omit and lie about important details in order to defend the official narrative - the 911 truth Debunkers.


The NORAD-stand-down, various whistleblowers, and physical evidence centered around the destruction of the 3 World Trade Center Buildings in New York, make a strong case that the attacks involved substantial inside help.

We might be wrong about where we suspect this all leads, but the "debunkers" are wrong when many essentially argue that it's acceptable for 70% of 9/11 family members questions to have never been answered by the 9/11 Commission. So of course, most have no qualms about promises made to 9/11 family members being broken by the Commission to investigate all whistleblower claims, which a substantial amount of the public find highly-suspicious at minimum, with many regarding the evidence as suggestive of complicity to varied degrees.

The below link proves that many thousands of family members want a new investigation. Likely the amount of people killed that day is outnumbered by these 9/11 victim's family members.

[On the left side (above) is a video of WTC 7 collapsing. On the right side is a video of a controlled demolition.]

And it stands to reason, that these ilk feel the lack of air defense story is above scrutiny to the point that secrecy and rewards are warranted. So what if this tale consists of 3, or some contend 4, mutually contradictory versions of events and admitted lies. It makes perfect sense that the top officials from NORAD and the FAA received promotions, as opposed to having to provide documents with data that would prove that the jet fighters were acceptably responsive, given the past response time averages.

Unsurprisingly, they hate even the best of the "Loose Change" films, but loose ends are no biggie.

The Washington Post reported on August 2, 2006 that:
Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources... "We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. 'It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."
So, if 9/11 didn't have an inside element, what's to stop such a scenario from taking place in the future when we get investigations that have attributes like these? 

It is therefore the purpose of this website to rebut the hollow claims of the so-called 911 truth 'Debunkers' and clarify what is known about the attacks for the benefit of those following the debate and also for the largely uninformed public.

Sorry that we don't allow any comments, but if you wish to communicate any thoughts you have about the published material please contact us here. Ad hominems will be ignored, but well-formed rebuttals may be addressed (and that is a subjective matter) provided we have not refuted the points therein numerous times on this blog already.


National Security Notice via Washington's Blog:

We are NOT calling for the overthrow of the government. In fact, we are calling for the reinstatement of our government. We are not calling for lawlessness. We are calling for an end to lawlessness and lack of accountability and a return to the rule of law. Rather than trying to subvert the constitution, we are calling for its enforcement. We are patriotic Americans born and raised in this country. [Four foreign countries also represented here at DTD]. We love the U.S. We don't seek to destroy or attack America ... we seek to restore her to strength, prosperity, liberty and respect. We don't support or like Al Qaeda, the Taliban or any supporting groups. We think they are all disgusting. The nation's top legal scholars say that draconian security laws which violate the Constitution should not apply to Americans. Should you attempt to shut down this site or harass its authors, you are anti-liberty, anti-justice, anti-American ... and undermining America's national security.

Saturday, November 21, 2015

Proof of a JFK Assassination Plot Without Debating a Magic Bullet

The Jim Marrs interview at the bottom of this page is overflowing with evidence of a JFK conspiracy that doesn't require debating a magic bullet, which is almost all the mainstream ever wants to do on this topic.

These evidentiary points include a very compelling case that Oswald did not kill police officer J. D. Tippit, but rather was dropped off at the theater by him where 3 witnesses place Oswald at the time Tippit was killed. Killed by someone else besides Oswald (who was busy buying popcorn) as also indicated by the Tippet murder scene, which didn't indicate someone fleeing from shooting the President, but rather someone sticking around to make sure that officer Tippit was dead by shooting him in the head after already having killed him before he hit the ground with a shot to the heart.

Marrs also speaks about Photographic evidence indicating that two men who confessed to being involved in the plot to kill Kennedy that day in Dallas were indeed there in Dealey Plaza that fateful day. One of these individuals was a convicted hit man, as detailed on Wikipedia:

Charles Harrelson

Charles Voyde Harrelson (July 23, 1938 – March 15, 2007)[1] was an American organized crime figure who was convicted of assassinating federal judge John H. Wood, Jr., the first federal judge killed in the 20th century...

Allegations of involvement in the assassination of John F. Kennedy

In September 1980, Harrelson surrendered to police after a six-hour standoff in which he was reportedly "high on cocaine".[19][20] During the standoff, he threatened suicide and stated that he had killed Judge Wood and President John F. Kennedy.[19][21] In a television interview after his arrest, Harrelson said: "At the same time I said I had killed the judge, I said I had killed Kennedy, which might give you an idea to the state of my mind at the time." He said that the statements made during the standoff were "an effort to elongate my life."[22]
Joseph Chagra later testified during Harrelson's trial that Harrelson claimed to have shot Kennedy and drew maps to show where he was hiding during the assassination. Chagra said that he did not believe Harrelson's claim, and the AP reported that the FBI "apparently discounted any involvement by Harrelson in the Kennedy assassination."[23] According to Jim Marrs in 1989's Crossfire, Harrelson is believed to be the youngest and tallest of the "three tramps" by many assassination researchers.[20] Marrs stated that Harrelson was involved "with criminals connected to intelligence agencies and the military" and suggested that he was connected to Jack Ruby through Russell Douglas Matthews, a third party with links to organized crime who was known to both Harrelson and Ruby.[21]

The other individual Marr's cites in the interview as being identified in photos from Dealey plaza (claiming not to have been an active participant but having played a "bench warmer" role) is the infamous CIA agent and convicted Watergate burglar E. Howard Hunt, who spilled the beans of his involvement in the plot while on his death bed. Death bed confessions are given a unique legal status as being admissible in court as more than hearsay because, as one person aptly put it, "If you are aware that you are dying, you have nothing to lose (and, for many folks) much to be gained from telling the absolute truth." Yes, it was reported that "Hunt's widow and her two children, 27-year-old Austin and 23-year-old Hollis, dismiss the brothers' story, saying it is the result of coaching an old man whose lucidity waxed and waned in his final months." However, the audio tape in question was recorded three years prior. Another family member claimed they "pressured their father for dramatic scenarios." I'm saying a family being divided on whether their loved one was not only a crook but involved in a plot that killed the president is probably pretty normal. Furthermore, as Online Journal Associate Editor Larry Chin wrote:
Would Hunt continue to tell lies on his deathbed? Perhaps. Would Hunt tell a final tall story or two, to protect himself, or perhaps deal one final slap in the face to the US government (which made him a fall guy for Watergate)? Yes. Would Hunt hide the involvement of certain individuals to whom he remained loyal, including people who are still alive? Certainly. Anything from an operative like Hunt can only be accepted with caution and healthy skepticism.
Nevertheless, Hunt's scenario has the ring of truth.
Each of the named names are well-known CIA and CIA-linked players exposed by many researchers and historians who have detailed the enduring connection from the Bay of Pigs and the Dallas hit to Watergate and Iran-Contra.
The Hunt confession vindicates generations of historians, researchers and whistleblowers who have given their lives and careers to expose the truth about Dealey Plaza...
Meanwhile, the criminal deceptions of the US government and its corporate media, the Warren Commission, and the dirty work of cover-up specialists such as Gerald Posner and Mark Fuhrman, and the legions of JFK assassination revisionist/theorists, deserve a final rebuke, and eternal scorn.
Highlighting Hunt's role
Although the Rolling Stone piece does not address it, the Hunt confession directly corroborates two classic investigations that previously exposed the role of Hunt. They are Mark Lane's Plausible Denial and Michael Canfield/A.J. Weberman's Coup D'Etat in America. Lane's book details how he took Hunt to court, and won a libel suit, essentially proving that the CIA murdered JFK, and that Hunt lied about his whereabouts. The investigation of Canfield and Weberman identified Hunt and Frank Sturgis as two of the three "tramps" arrested at Dealey Plaza.
Time has only made these investigations more relevant. More than ever, their books, and those of the JFK historians and researchers above listed, deserve to be found, read and studied.
Marrs disputes Hunt being one of the tramps, but again references photo evidence that he was there.

Evidence that Oswald had many doubles is presented in the most compelling manner I've ever heard, this includes an unclassified June 3rd, 1960 memo where former FBI director J. Edgar Hoover writes to the State Department, "Since there is a possibility that an imposter is using Oswald's birth certificate, any current information the Department of State may have concerning subject will be appreciated." This is interesting for another reason as Marrs notes in the interview and has written, "What a bombshell. We were told that nobody within the government paid much attention to Oswald, and yet here is a document showing that no less than J. Edgar Hoover personally was aware of Lee Harvey Oswald three years before the assassination, and that he had reason to suspect that someone was posing as Oswald, indicating a possible intelligence connection." The intelligence connection of an Oswald double culminates with this scenario, as outlined by a poster on the AboveTopSecret forum:
It's my understanding (from The Men Who Killed Kennedy) that when the vault was unearthed and the coffin opened for DNA testing, the head was no longer attached to the body. Sometime after the original burial, persons unknown dug up the vault and substituted the head of Harvey, which was still attached to the body at burial, with the head of Lee Harvey Oswald. When the coffin was opened, the head of LHO was found loose (unattached) along with the headless body of Harvey. This is stated as fact by the funeral director and his son who placed Harvey's body in the coffin and buried his "sealed" vault in 1963.

No mention was made of this observation by any authority. Anyone surprised???.

Of course when DNA samples were taken from the unattached head in the coffin, the mastoid scar located, it proved that the loose head inside the coffin belonged to Lee Harvey Oswald.

Therefore, the "real" Lee Harvey Oswald met his demise at some time after Harvey was murdered in the basement of the Dallas Police Department, November 24, 1963, and before the unearthment of the vault some 30 years later.

So when Harvey said he was "just a patsy", he was telling the truth.
Actual audio of the funeral director talking about the circumstances is played during the interview, as is that of a man from a military air transport who picked up a man in Dallas he swore was Oswald after Kennedy's shooting on the day of the assassination. Also spoke of is a witneses who swore he saw Oswald being arrested behind the theatre until Marrs showed him the official footage of Oswald being ushered out the front, promoting the witness to ask, "Then who did I see?"

Marrs is asked about Oswald's widow confirming that the backyard photos of Oswald were taken by her, but he contends that they are a hoax and that she admitted to taking some photos, but not those particular ones. I think the interviewer is speaking of Jesse Ventura saying that after speaking to her for 2 and a half hours he "did get this totally verified... she took the famous photograph of Oswald holding the gun and the communist paper. She looked me right and the eye, she said 'Yes, I took that photograph. It's not doctored. It's not anything." I said why, she said 'I don't know why. Lee wanted it done." Ventura continues, "I got the impression that Lee was under instruction to get those photos taken and I believe it was all part of creating the set up. You know to create these photos of him with the gun." Marrs should consider the idea that these photos are fake is disinformation intended to muddy the waters. The case made by Ventura is compelling and just as damning.

One site promoting the idea that the pictures are fakes notes that, "The chin of the 'Oswald' in the photos seems more broader and squarish than the Oswald who was arrested in Dallas and who had a narrow, cleft chin." Getting back to the Oswald doubles idea, the difference noted about his chin could literally be because it was a different Oswald! Marrs notes family members stating Oswald had a thinner neck and different skin tone after not seeing him for awhile. Granted, these were more formative years when changes would be easier to pass off, but from what Marrs describes there were at least two and maybe six Oswalds, two of which looked very similar.  Here are four examples:

Lee Harvey Oswald Lee Harvey Oswald

photographed by his brother, Robert Oswald, in Texas in
1958 and printed between pages 96-97 in Robert's book LEE, A Portrait of Lee Harvey Oswald.
when he appeared at the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City in Sept. 1963. The Cuban Government provided this photo to the HSCA.

Lee Harvey Oswald Lee Harvey Oswald

when he visited the Russian Embassy in Mexico City in Sept. 1963.  The CIA provided this photo of "Lee Harvey Oswald" to the FBI on 11/23/63.  in Dallas Police custody two days after the assassination of JFK and officer Tippit. The accused assassin was shot dead by Jack Ruby, who formerly supplied guns to Cuba.

You have one hell of an argument without debating a magic bullet when you combine this material with the other facts Marrs speaks in the interview especially those concerning the doctoring up of the Zapruder film and autopsy records to cover-up the exit wound in the back of Kennedy's head thus covering up the kill shot from the front. The latter is the subject of this little book as detailed in the related link below the interview.

That author cannot be dismissed as just as just another JFK conspiracy theorist you may notice.

An interview with Jim Marrs performed by "Dark Journalist." The interview is somewhat edited and shortened.


Proving a JFK Conspiracy Without Debating the Magic Bullet

Petition:  Free the JFK Files

Wednesday, November 11, 2015

Pseudoscience & the “study” of “conspiracy beliefs” from message board postings
Originally published at the Political Film Blog by Joe Giambrone 
I read with some interest your “study” of some message board postings concerning the September 11th attacks. I found your efforts less than compelling. Random samplings of arguments on message boards are a legitimate way to understand the September 11th 2001 attacks? No. But it is a convenient way of lumping large disparate groups of people into simplistic categories in order to smear them.
As someone who has intensely studied the issue for some 13 years and counting, I would have to say that your approach is hamfisted, ignorant, and even juvenile. You and your partners have relied upon your own concepts of “belief” and “theory” and the utterances of message board posters, but lack a firm foundation to compare or contrast any of the information that was analyzed.
In other words, you don’t have an expert knowledge of the US government cover-up of the September 11th event (or even acknowledge it), nor of the many high-level government whistleblowers surrounding this issue. You lack an even rudimentary understanding of the event, and therefore have no basis to judge the competing arguments, at all. Nor do you concede the obvious fact of conspiracies throughout history, actual state crimes, of which there are numerous examples. This would lead to an examination of motive, and that the state gains an incredible amount of power after failing to stop an attack, including the power to wage foreign wars of aggression with impunity.
You know: 1 + 1=2 type stuff.
It is not difficult to engage in a conspiracy. Any two individuals on planet earth can commit a crime together, andvoila: there’s a conspiracy. The idea that conspiracy is rare or even non-existent(!), as some mainstream media pundits have argued, is absurd on its face and should discredit the author entirely. As an obvious example, you–as someone purportedly studying government conspiracy–should be well versed in the Iran-Contra fiasco of the 1980s. Colonel Oliver North was convicted, with ten others, to refresh your memory. So, is someone who “believes” in the Iran-Contra conspiracy more or less prone to “belief” in conspiracy, as per your definitions and comprehension?
Clearly we have a problem when you divide the public based upon generalizations that cannot possibly hold true when tested against real historical facts. The knowledge, or ignorance, of these facts is paramount.
So, Mr. Wood, did the Iran-Contra conspiracy happen? Are you a “conspiracist?” Do you engage in “belief” about it?
Next, your “psychological study” has not even a mention of the concept of disinformation. This omission discredits your work. Disinformation is the deliberate seeding of the public debate with false data in order to muddy the waters and make discovery of the true facts of the conspiracy more difficult. It throws off the dogs. Disinformation is rampant and easily achieved as soon as any individual concocts a false narrative and presses “send” or “post.” Apparently this has never occurred to your team, as it received zero scrutiny.
Some number of message board trolls will turn out to be posting disinformation, in my decade-plus experience with them, a situation your study failed to even conceptualize, nevermind correct for. Others post misinformation. This is the problem with relying upon message board flame wars for your data.
Therefore your study is tangential and irrelevant to learning what actually happened. Its approach reinforces the idea that psychological pseudoscience has relevance to the facts of real world crimes and terrorist events. It champions a specious view, one founded upon ignorance and random arguments over misinformation and disinformation, rather than seeking to understand what is actually known and what is unknown, to date, about the criminal attacks you purport to study.
Similarly your “study” commented on other controversial topics without any accompanying examination of something the rest of the world likes to call “evidence.” You and your cohorts feel supremely confident in pronouncing sweeping generalizations about “belief” without providing context as to why someone would hold such a belief (factual evidence). It is for this exact reason that I have labeled your efforts “pseudoscience.” You have divorced some abstract concept called “belief” from the hard evidence that causes such “belief.” Cause and effect are alien to your own theories, at least as presented in your “psychological study.” Your article ends up lightweight pondering and lacks the gravity of facts, or the due diligence required to examine and test those facts.
You have come to this party from ignorance, and you remain there, blissfully unaware of the veracity of any of the data, whatsoever. That’s a pretty harsh criticism, but is warranted.
Mr. Wood, was the September 11th attack not a “conspiracy?”
Joe Giambrone
See Related:
Other posts by Joe Giambrone and here.
The Facts Speak for Themselves.