Tuesday, March 30, 2010

My New Blog [Renamed]

As people may have noticed, I haven't exactly been staying on topic in recent months in my blog posts. So to avoid discrediting this blog any further, I've created my own personal blog to talk about general stuff that's beyond the scope of this blog. It's called "Scootle The Anti-Skeptic" (I need to find a picture of some antiseptic spray and photoshop it haha!). It's called "Skeptic Denialism", I liked the name because its meaning is two fold ... I'm "denying" the existance of skeptics and I'm exposing their denialism!

Skeptic Denialism

Only one post at the moment - just outlining who I am, why I started the blog, what it will be about etc. My two domain names, http://www.myspaceisghay.co.uk/ and http://911-dis.info/, will redirect to the blog as well until I can think of stuff to do with them. Links to all my videos are down the side, as well as an unfinished list of links to some other sites I find interesting. From now on I'll probably do all my 9/11 posts there and then repost them here. And if JM happens to like any of my other posts he's welcome to repost them here too.

Monday, March 29, 2010

9/11 Un-debunked Version 2.0

A new version of my "9/11 Un-debunked" series. It's presented in a 13 clip play list, so after hitting play the separate clips that comprise the full-length film will play one after another in order. There is a 5 second lag time between the end of one clip until the start of the next.

Obama Invokes 9/11 Yet Again!

It's like watching a Hitler speech.

I guess Family Guy was right.

One day I would like to see Obama give a speech with a lie detector present. It would be interesting to see if he could even get past "My fellow Americans" haha!

Related Info:

Obama Plays The 9/11 Card Again - December 3, 2009

Obama Warns not to challenge Official 9/11 Story - June 6, 2009

Thursday, March 25, 2010


There is damning physical evidence, from the destruction of the World Trade Centre Towers, that proves 911 MUST have involved inside help. There is nothing theoretical about the material proof here.

Thanks to the work of numerous independent scientists, we have confirmed, unimpeachable evidence, showing that the buildings could ONLY have been brought down using explosive demolition.

Simply put, it is physically IMPOSSIBLE to find tons of melted steel, chemical traces of thermitic materials, the actual remains of high tech military explosives, and to see the freefall collapse of a steel framed building, WITHOUT employing incendiary or explosive devices.

It does not matter what problems we face with other details of the attacks, we KNOW, from the key forensic evidence, that the WTC buildings were brought down using explosives.

The forensic material here represents hard SMOKING GUN evidence. It is actual PROOF that 911 was an inside job.

The next step is to launch an aggressive criminal investigation into the attacks- starting with those individuals who lied at the 911 Commission Hearings and with those responsible for the fraudulent NIST Reports into the WTC building collapses.

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Reply: Jesse The BSer Ventura: I Called It!

Update - 7/25/2011: Chemist Kevin Ryan published a video of an experiment proving that Van Romero was not using super-thermite in his experiment.

Update - 10/11/2010: Civil Engineer Jonathan Cole published a video of experiments he carried out proving that thermite variants can demolish vertically standing steel beams.

Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog called it!:

Remember back in December when the Governator had his Conspiracy Theory Show on the 9-11 Fruitcakes? There was a segment where Van Romero painted superthermite on a steel beam and lit it on fire.
(starts about 40 seconds into this clip):

Note that Romero asks the question, 'Does it burn long enough and hot enough so that we have structural failure?' at about 1:50 into the video. Hilariously, Ventura cuts off Romero at that point. As I said at the time:

"And we see that while the unpainted beam did not catch fire, the painted beam did seem to light up. But will it fail structurally?"

Well, no kidding they skip right over that part. Apparently the idea that the steel caught on fire, however briefly, is enough to convince Jesse that this was how they did it. And nobody stops to mention that the claim is that they destroyed columns (vertical) not beams (horizontal), and that we haven't seen the beam actually destroyed in the video by any means. It's another TrutherBurn fiasco!"

Well guess what Pat, Scootle Royale of the Debunking the Debunkers blog called it too! As he said at the time:

The superthermite demonstration was a bit crap .. and they didn't even show the ending so I'm assuming the beam didn't break. To be honest I'm not sure it was superthermite, the documentary did mix thermite and superthemite a few times. Also it was never explicitly stated whether the particles in the demonstration were on the nano scale. However it did appear to burn longer than ordinary thermite. Which is interesting because it's consistent with the fact that ground zero cooked for several months after the event.
Scootle adds, "I also highly doubt that there was any organic material in the so-called superthermite in that demonstration. Which is what creates the explosive force."

Indeed, the authors of the April 2009 scientific paper that found nano-thermite in the WTC dust quoted an April 2000 report by Gash et. al. which states the following about the sol-gel process, "Once dry the (hybrid inorganic/organic energenic composite) material burns very vigorously and rapidly with the evolution of significant amounts of gaseous species."

The authors note the following of the material found in the dust, "The carbon content of the red material indicates that an organic substance is present. This would be expected for super-thermite formulations in order to produce high gas pressures upon ignition and thus make them explosive."

I called it too! As I said at the time, "Pat does have a point concerning the thoroughness of the experiment... ...The 'paint' hypothesis is just one of many. Steven Jones thoroughly detailed this during a debate with Dr. Frank Greening in April-May, 2009."

Among the things Jones mentioned was using nano-thermite in shaped charges to cut through steel explosively as suggested in Fig. 1 of Miziolek AW, 'Nanoenergetics: an emerging technology area of national importance.' Amptiac Spring 2002; 6(1): 43-48. Available from: http://www.p2pays.org/ref/34/33115.pdf

In addition to noting all of this, I also recommended 911blogger.com comments at the time where it is questioned why Ventura cut off the clip, if the beam failed, and whether the material in the experiment was genuine nano-thermite.

Although super-thermite and nano-thermite are interchangeable terms, thermite with additives such as sulfur and/or barium nitrate known as thermate is also sometimes incorrectly referred to as super-thermite. Case in point, the definition of thermate contains no mention of it being called super-thermite or it being explosive like the thermite talked about in the show.

Mechanical Engineer Tony Szamboti noted that it might have been nano-thermite, but pointed out in his comment that, "Nanothermite is tailorable as far as it's brisance by varying particle size. Additionally, some energetic materials like gun powder need containment to quickly generate very high pressures and become explosive, otherwise they just burn. In the case of the open air placement on the beam the nanothermite burned but it was obviously quite energetic."

Pat, if you really have the cahones to take on the nano-thermite issue then write a detailed rebuttal to my recent blog. Or you can just act like you've debunked something because a steel beam wasn't destroyed by a few strokes of a paint brush.

This is why we can't have tyrannical things...

There was a rare dose of truth on the front page of the British tabloid The Sun today. But even when they cover important stuff it always has to be in some way related to boobs haha.

Heathrow Airport Security Guard Ogled Female Colleague in Body Scanner

A Heathrow security man was quizzed by police after ogling a girl colleague "naked" in a new anti-terror body scanner.

Jo Margetson, 29, reported John Laker, 25, after he took her picture with the X-ray gadget and made a lewd comment.

The pervy guard leered and told her: "I love those gigantic tits."

She had entered the X-ray machine by mistake - and was horrified when Laker pressed a button to take a revealing photo.

After Laker sneaked a look at her body and made the remark, horrified Jo told her bosses and police at the West London airport.

Both work for airport operator BAA. Last night Jo told The Sun at her home in Stanwell, Middlesex: "I can't bear to think about the body scanner thing.

"I'm totally traumatised. I've spoken to the police about it. I'm in too much of a state to go to work."
It's fitting that this woman actually works for the airport and may have even scanned people herself. Hopefully this will be a wake up call for her.

See Also:

Airport Worker Pervs Over Woman In Body Scanner: “I Love Those Gigantic Tits”

Two Questions Answered About the Naked Body Scanners

Even Ron Jeremy Thinks Airport Body Scanners Are Ridiculous!

Sunday, March 21, 2010

SPLC Attacks Colorado Public TV For Programming on 9/11

March 21, 2010

The Southern Poverty Law Center ("SPLC") lists WeAreChange organizations on its "Hatewatch" List. And recently printed an Article on its Website criticizing Colorado Public TV Station KBDI for presenting programming on 9/11 conspiracies (among other "conspiracies.")


So I posted this comment on the Blog for that Article:

Attacking Colorado Public TV.

Wow … that’s what this Group is about?

I came over to this site because I heard that an organization that holds itself out as a guardian of the poor, a protector of minorities and upholding the rule of law had defamed groups who are questioning the government’s explanation of what occurred on 9/11. (BTW – I see that your organization has over $100M in assets. It sure would be interesting to trace where all that money came from.)

Now you use words such as “Hatewatch” and phrases such as “Keeping an eye on the radical right.” And then poster “Tom” states that “Recall that the ‘progressive’ political Left promoted the theory that the Bush/Cheney administration was behind the 9-11 attacks.”

Okay … SPLC … I don’t know who you are, what your agenda is, or how you came about amassing such wealth, but as to your attacks on those who question the government on 9/11, you need to get a few facts straight. Let’s start with your efforts to lump these people into a homogenous group or label them.

Tom – you say that questioning the 9/11 story has its roots in the “Left” or “Progressive” political movements, as a means of attacking Bush/Cheney. Really? Name one reputable person on the political Left who proactively questions the government’s 9/11 Story. Politician? Media figure? Scholar? Commentator? Name one. Do you just make your facts up?

Now it seems the SPLC does not think much of Glenn Beck. Well when it comes to questioning the government’s story on 9/11, the SPLC is in lockstep with Glenn Beck. I doubt that Glenn Beck is more passionate about any subject beyond his avowed “hatred” for anyone who merely questions the government’s 9/11 Story.

There are millions of people of question the government’s 9/11 Story. And it is the government’s official 9/11 Story that has spawned the Patriot Act, Wars, financial ruin and untold human death and misery. And the people who question this story cover the full political spectrum, and they can be found in every Nation on the planet and they certainly have no racial identity.

But there is one distinctively unique quality among the people who question the government’s 9/11 Story versus those who treat it as religious Gospel.
We have ALL the scientists and engineers on our side.

I have a degree in Physics from one of this nation’s top Science/Engineering schools. It took me quite awhile to agree to look at 9/11, because I just naturally assumed that if there were any major defects in the story, then surely I would have heard about it in the Media.

Now why this topic has been censored within the Media is a story unto itself. There is a media watchdog outfit – ProjectCensored – that goes back to the 1960s, and you can go look up their comments on how all the top-rate questioning of the 9/11 Story (questioning by some of the best minds in the world) has been completely and utterly censored within the Mainstream Media. You’ll note that ProjectCensored has a stellar tradition of exposing all forms of Media censorship – including censorship of many topics that presumably are near and dear to the hearts of the SPLC.

So when I was finally prodded to review the official 9/11 Story … I was completely and utterly shocked. The government’s story is an absolute fairy tale. It’s ridiculous and absurd. It is scientifically impossible – in clear violation of the laws of physics. It is the scientific equivalent of claiming that the world is flat. And yet a group like the SPLC has taken it upon itself to identify those who question this fairy tale as … Dangerous?!

You try producing the name of a single reputable scientist who has looked at the Official 9/11 Story who would be willing to defend the Official Story. Just one. And while you are working on that task … you should look through the names of the scientists and engineers on the following Website, who have stated that the Official Story is a ridiculous joke and impossible:


They include scientists and engineers who have won America’s top Science Awards, as well as top NASA and Military scientists and engineers.

And yet this is all censored in the Media, and the SPLC denigrates a Public TV station in Colorado for breaking with that censorship. Unbelievable.

And in this regard the SPLC stands side by side with FOX News, Murdoch, Beck and O’Reilly, who all share the same view as the SPLC: The view that anyone who questions the official government 9/11 Myth should be silenced, ridiculed AND labeled as dangerous.

Somehow I doubt that the SPLC amassed all of its millions from common American citizens. It sure would be interesting to see SPLC’s corporate donor list.

Related Info:

Previously Unreleased Colorado Public Television Footage: 9/11 Press for Truth on KBDI Channel 12

CNN - 9/11 Truth Now A Mental Illness

WeAreChange Pittsburgh plans demonstration and information session in response to SPLC

Discrediting By Association: Undermining the Case for Patriots Who Question 9/11

Friday, March 19, 2010

Super-Duper Thermite: A Year in Review

On November 07, 2008 James B. of the Screw Loose Change blog wrote:

Since the truthers cannot explain most of their theories, they have to create speculative technologies as some sort of deus ex machina for their stupidity, be it real time large scale voice morphing, Klingon cloaking technologies or Star War Death Beams. Like most science fiction they have at least some basis in reality, but are taken to ridiculous extremes far beyond proven science. The biggest example of this is the variations of thermite, a real substance, that they create and attach any properties that they want to for use in demolishing buildings, even though thermite has never been used to demolish a building. Here is a perfect example, from David Ray Griffin's aforementioned speech, 58 minutes in:
"With regard to planting explosives, a new technology has developed, known as nano-technology and it has completely changed the nature of discussion about explosives. So thermate, thermite is a very common incendiary, than you had sulfur to it, and it is called thermate because the sulfur added to it greatly lowers the temperature at which steel melts.

But if they used ultra-fine-grained particles then it increases the strength of this many many times, super-thermate is, uhh I don't know 10 times more powerful, something like that. Compared to ordinary thermate. (grumbling in crowd)."

It is an incendiary, it is an explosive, it removes tough stains! It can do anything! Call now 1-800-SCAM-SCIENCE to place your order now.
At least two months prior to this 911research.wtc7.net published a page thoroughly documenting the existence of high-tech metal-based explosives. I guess James missed it, plus that's a twoofer site, so why would he believe it. Well I know that James reads this blog, so I wanted to make him aware of a non-twoofer article I found while untangling my way through the internets recently. Granted, it is on Wikipedia, but remember these are the same people that renamed their 9/11 controlled demolition page to a "conspiracy theory" after the publication of the nano-thermite paper. This being said, it could have been written by Steven Jones for all I know, but if the people that so hate our "theories" had an issue with it, they would surely edit it, or remove it all together. Furthermore, it is not in need of any citations, so if you think it's factually wrong James, then by all means try to edit it. Until then, we will accept that it is accurate. The article begins with a super citation:

"Nano-thermite, also called 'super-thermite',[1] is the common name for a subset of metastable intermolecular composites (MICs) characterized by a highly exothermic reaction after ignition."
The article also informs us that:

"Super-thermites are generally developed for military use, propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics. Nanosized thermitic materials are being researched by the U.S. military with the aim of developing new types of bombs that are several times more powerful than conventional explosives."

So it IS an incendiary and an explosive. Well that is just super duper if you ask me.
Now the question is are these "new types of bombs" only "being researched," or were they actually used on 9/11? Well to begin to answer that question let's compare a few excerpts of the article with excerpts from the peer-reviewed nano-thermite paper entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.
The Wikipedia excerpts will appear in blue, excerpts from the paper will appear in red.
The products of a thermite reaction, resulting from ignition of the thermitic mixture, are usually metal oxides and elemental metals...

Nano-thermites contain an oxidizer and a reducing agent, which are intimately mixed on the nanometer scale.

What separates MICs from traditional thermites is that the oxidizer and a reducing agent, normally iron oxide and aluminium are not a fine powder, but rather nanoparticles.

We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in significant numbers in dust associated with the World Trade Center destruction. The red material is most interesting...
It is composed of intimately mixed aluminum, iron, oxygen, silicon and carbon. Lesser amounts of other potentially reactive elements are sometimes present, such as potassium, sulfur, barium, lead and copper.
Iron oxide appears in faceted grains roughly 100 nanometers across whereas the aluminum appears in plate-like structures approximately 40 nanometers thick.

As Jim Hoffman has pointed out:

These are all features of a nano-engineered material. It is not possible that such a material was formed as a by-product of the destruction of the Twin Towers...
Although these elements -- aluminum, iron, oxygen, and silicon -- were all abundant in building materials used in the Twin Towers, it is not possible that such materials milled themselves into fine powder and assembled themselves into a chemically optimized aluminothermic composite as a by-product of the destruction of the Twin Towers.
Nope, these materials certainly didn't mill themselves, so who did mill them? The Wikipedia article states that:
A method for producing nanoscale, or ultra fine grain (UFG) aluminum powders, a key component of most nano-thermitic materials, is the dynamic gas-phase condensation method, pioneered by Wayne Danen and Steve Son at
Los Alamos National Laboratory. A variant of the method is being used at the Indian Head Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center."

Funny thing about the Naval Surface Warfare Center:
The Indian Head Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center, (a branch of the Naval Sea Systems Command or NAVSEA), described in 1999 as the "national center for energetics"[1], "the only reliable source of aluminum nanopowders in the United States"[2] and in 2008 as "probably the most prominent US center for nano-thermite technology"[3], alleges via Freedom of Information Act replies that records "regarding research and development of nano-sized or Ultra Fine Grained (UFG) aluminum powders, nano-sized or Ultra Fine Grained (UFG) iron oxide powders or other metal oxide powders and Metastable Intermolecular Composites prior to 2002" do not exist. According to Indian Head, "research may have been conducted by Indian Head Division personnel but not submitted."- Source: http://911blogger.com/node/2052
Nothing suspicious there, I'm sure bin Laden made the materials. And actually, so what if the materials found in the WTC dust have the same physical structure and chemical composition as nano-thermite. BB guns have the same physical structure and chemical composition as real guns, but that doesn't mean that they shoot real bullets!

At the temperatures prevailing during the reaction, the products can be solid, liquid or gaseous, depending on the components of the mixture.[12] Super-thermite electric matches developed by LANL can create simple sparks, hot slag, droplet, or flames as thermal-initiating outputs to ignite other incendiaries or explosives.[1]

After igniting several red/gray chips in a differential scanning calorimeter run to 700ºC, we found numerous iron-rich spheres and spheroids in the residue, indicating that a very high-temperature reaction had occurred, since the iron-rich product clearly must have been molten to form these shapes. In several spheres, elemental iron was verified since the iron content significantly exceeded the oxygen content. We conclude that a high-temperature reduction-oxidation reaction has occurred in the heated chips, namely, the thermite reaction.

"Super-thermite electric matches" have been developed at Los Alamos National Laboratory for which “applications include triggering explosives for ... demolition”

It is indeed possible that such matches, which are designed to be ignited by a simple electric pulse, could contain material similar to the red material we have found in the WTC dust.

As the Rock Creek Free Press pointed out in their bombshell article "Scientists Find Explosives in World Trade Center Dust

The authors avoided describing the material as "explosive" because the flakes studied are too small to assess the bulk properties of the material.

To test the power of this thermitic material, small samples were heated in a Differential Scanning Calorimeter, a very sensitive device for detecting the heat generated by a chemical reaction. The samples ignited at about 430ºC and generated as much or more heat than an equal mass of high explosive such as TNT.
So the material could have been the explosive itself, or it could have ignited other explosives. The scientists not being 100% sure about this has been used by the Screw Loose Change blog as a talking point against their findings. Which is beyond ridiculous, because they presented no argument that the material was anything but nano-thermite, but rather a debate about how energetic the material was.
So now the question is not if an explosive method was used, but which one? Well, there is evidence for both. Let's start with nano-thermite igniting other explosives, the Wikipedia article states that:
"Thermobaric weapons are considered to be a promising application of nanoenergetic materials."

This is interesting, because
as 911research.wtc7.net has pointed out before:

Advantages of thermobarics include:
Avoiding the need to install explosives near the Towers' perimeter columns. The thermobaric devices could have been installed entirely in discretely accessed portions of the Towers' cores. The number of devices could also be much smaller -- perhaps just one per floor.
Thermobarics include an absence of conventional explosive residues, and much higher energy densities than conventional explosives. For example, whereas TNT yields 4.2 MJ/kg, hydrogren produces 120 MJ/kg (not counting the weight of the oxygen it uses to burn). 4 Of the possible fuels that could be used in thermobarics, hydrogen has several unique attributes which could have been used to advantage by the planners.

The flash produced by hydrogen combustion is not visible to the naked eye in daylight conditions. The use of hydrogen-based thermobarics is thus consistent with the absence of colorful fireworks in the destruction of the Twin Towers.
On a weight basis, hydrogen has one of the highest energy densities of any fuel -- several times that of any hydrocarbon. The use of hydrogen would have allowed operatives to install far less material than would be required with other explosives.
The combustion of hydrogen in air produces only water vapor, a residue that is consistent with the vast light-colored clouds produced by the Towers' destruction.
Hydrogen has a very wide explosive range -- from 4 to 75 percent in air. That compares to 2.1 to 10.1 percent for propane and 0.7 to 5 percent for kerosene. 5 Thus it would be relatively easy to design hydrogen-based thermobarics that would function reliably in a variety of conditions.
Hydrogen has a very high vapor pressure compared to other fuels. This would have enabled its rapid dispersal into ambient air by shattering pressure vessels containing it.

The Thermitic Material authors mention that in April 2001 the American Chemical Society held a symposium on the defense applications of nanomaterials in which they stated:
At this point in time, all of the military services and some DOE and academic laboratories have active R&D programs aimed at exploiting the unique properties of nanomaterials that have potential to be used in energetic formulations for advanced explosives…. nanoenergetics hold promise as useful ingredients for the thermobaric (TBX) and TBX-like weapons, particularly due to their high degree of tailorability with regards to energy release and impulse management.
The authors then go on to point out that:

"The feature of 'impulse management' may be significant. It is possible that formulations may be chosen to have just sufficient percussive effect to achieve the desired fragmentation while minimizing the noise level."

In other words, these materials, in any form that they are used, are perfect for a covert demolition in which one would want to reduce the loud pops and flashes of conventional demolitions. Lacking these attributes makes for a good defense against the obvious!

The Wikipedia article also informs us that:
Nanoparticles can be prepared by spray drying from a solution, or in case of insoluble oxides, spray pyrolysis of solutions of suitable precursors. The composite materials can be prepared by sol-gel techniques or by conventional wet mixing and pressing.

Similar but not identical systems are nano-laminated pyrotechnic compositions, or energetic nanocomposites. In these systems, the fuel and oxidizer is not mixed as small particles, but deposited as alternating thin layers.
The Thermitic Material paper quotes an April 2000 report by Gash et. al. which states the following about the sol-gel process:
"Once dry the (hybrid inorganic/organic energetic composite) material burns very vigorously and rapidly with the evolution of significant amounts of gaseous species."
The authors note the following of the red chips in their conclusion:

"The carbon content of the red material indicates that an organic substance is present. This would be expected for super-thermite formulations in order to produce high gas pressures upon ignition and thus make them explosive."

And again, this is all perfect for a covert demolition:

The bottom line is that nano-thermite is real, it is super-duper, and it was found in the WTC dust.
The one year anniversary of the nano-thermite paper quickly approaches
and no peer-reviewed refutation has been offered. But that's OK, just attack the journal the findings were published in, and when that is demonstrated to be nonsense just continue the super-duper meme implying that it doesn't exist, and when that doesn't work, just claim (again) without any basis, that what was found was just paint. As Debunking the Debunkers blog contributor Scootle Royale said: "I don't know what debunkers paint their houses with but let's just say I don't want any of it near my house."

And when that doesn't work just question the chain of custody. Which Scootle pointed out is "effectively accusing the scientists and the citizens of conspiring to fake evidence by manufacturing high-tech energetic nanocomposites." Conspiracy theory anyone?When all else fails act ignorant of the facts. When Scootle points out that:
This stuff ignites when heated to 400-450°C and after ignition we find molten iron. Since iron doesn't melt until 1500°C, this ignition temperature of 400-450°C couldn't possibly melt iron. So the fact that we find molten iron is proof that some kind of chemical reaction has occurred.
...Just act like he is claiming that thermite burns at 400-450°C when he was actually pointing out that 400-450°C is the temperature that TRIGGERS the reaction.

Some suggestions: either fix the Wikipedia article or remove your former blog James, and then pass the word along that your side needs to put up or shut up!

Oh, and on the topic of magic:
Are there more seeming opposites than technology and magic? Technology works objectively and is usually efficacious, whereas magic, based on superstition, seems to be ineffective. The former is perceived to be rational and is associated with a scientific outlook; the latter is seen to be irrational and is associated with a religious sensibility. But our expectations for technology have become magical and our use of it is increasingly irrational. Magic in turn has acquired a rational façade and is used like technology for purposes of efficiency. In short, technology and magic, while separate and distinct categories in some abstract sense, are now related to one another in such a way that each has acquired important characteristics of the other. - Source:
Related Info:

Thermite Denial - A Year in Review

Put up or Shut up: A Year in Review

9/11 Truth Movement: Year in Review

The Sounds of Loud and Clear

Reply: Jesse The BSer Ventura: I Called It!

Debunk This! 008 ( 911 Conspiracy )

Debunk This! 008 ( 911 Conspiracy ) by BirdieDorn

As the Washington Post reported in August 2006:
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 sofar from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."
It is often claimed that 9/11 skeptics are quote mining the 9/11 Commissioners, as to suggest that they agree with our case, but this is the real logical fallacy. Kean admitted they were lied to and he did not know why. He can think that the 9/11 Commission's story of astounding incompetance is correct all he wants, but the fact remains that his report failed to tie up “those loose ends" and prove that ineptitude is all that was at hand.

As David Ray Griffin has stated:
...Although this explanation has been widely accepted, is it really believable? If our military had been guilty only of confusion and incompetence on 9/11, it would have been strange for its officials, by saying that they had been notified by the FAA earlier than they really had, to open themselves not only to the charge of criminal fraud but also to the suspicion that they had deliberately not intercepted the hijacked airliners. We are being asked to believe, in other words, that Scott, Arnold, and the others, in telling the earlier story, acted in a completely irrational manner--that, while being guilty only of confusion and a little incompetence, they told a lie that could have exposed them with being charged with murder and treason.
Equally counter intuitive is the fact that the top officials in charge of NORAD and the FAA on 9/11 were rewarded for their supposed incompetence with promotions instead of charges of perjury.

When viewed in conjunction with the preponderance of evidence supporting a deliberate NORAD stand-down, his statement does support this contention, no matter if cognitive dissonance blinds him to this fact, or whatever the case may be.

References in video:


: The 9/11 Commission Rejects own Report as Based on Government Lies

The Washington Post: 9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon - Allegations Brought to Inspectors General

CNN.com: 9/11 panel distrusted Pentagon testimony

Boston.com: 9/11 panel to get access to withheld data

PBS.org: Transcript: Frank Sesno talks with Max Cleland


Debunking 911myths.com: 9/11 ~ Dancing Israelis and White Vans

Debunk This! Series

Debunk This! 202 (ChemTrails)

Debunk This! 201 (NWO)

Debunking Myths on Conspiracy Theories

Thursday, March 18, 2010

My Fax for the “Building What?!” Campaign

"'Building What?!' is a phone and fax campaign to help the New York City Council become aware of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7."

I have been using a free service called Fax Zero:

"Dear John-Michael Talboo, Your 3-page fax to Daniel Dromm at 7188039832 has been sent successfully. (Page count does not include the cover page.)

Thank you FaxZero.com "

Here is my letter:

Dear Council Member Dromm,

I know that you have recently been flooded with requests to look into the collapse of WTC 7 and probably think this issue has been debunked/resolved. I implore you to read further, as I have objectively looked at both sides and can assure you it has not been.

In NIST's 2008 final report on WTC 7 they admitted that the diesel fuel on the premises "played no role in the destruction of WTC 7," that "the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse," and that the building fell "almost uniformly as a single unit." These are all points that truthers have been making for years, and that "debunkers" vehemently refuted.

But most importantly they admitted that the building experienced a "freefall drop for approximately 8 stories." Previous to this admission in their final Nov '08 report, their Aug '08 draft report attempted to demonstrate that "there was no freefall."

When lead NIST investigator Dr. Shyam Sunder was fielded a question by high school physics teacher David Chandler regarding the issue at a NIST press conference subsequent to the release of the draft report, Sunder stated that "freefall time would be an object that has no structural components below it." In essence, Sunder admitted that this is impossible absent some external force, i.e., explosives. I submit to you this is why NIST failed to mention their admission of freefall in their list of changes made in the final report.

The fact that WTC 7's facade plunged at a nearly fee-fall rate is also something that we 9/11 truthers have been right about for years, perhaps we are also right about its implications.

It's either that, or as NIST says, fires "similar" to those "experienced in other tall buildings," caused "the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building." Again, we truth seekers have often been criticised for saying that fires have never caused skyscrapers to collapse, but the NIST report vindicates us.

Other hard evidence in regard to Building 7 centers around the unexplained phenomenon documented in Appendic C of FEMA's WTC Building Performance Study, which found "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese."

Appendix C states:

"The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified."

NIST never even attempted to explain the melting of this steel or the source of the sulfur, however independent scientists did. What they found was that iron-rich spheres discovered in the WTC dust contained the chemical signature of the incendiary thermate; thermite with sulfur added to lower the steel's melting point. Critics of their findings have argued that a thermate chemical signature would contain barium nitrate, however this is only true if the form thermate-TH-3 was used. This should have been clear since the scientists were comparing the chemical signature of the spheres to a known sample of thermate which did not contain barium nitrate. All that being said, thermate TH-3 may have been in use as WTC dust samples have shown high traces of barium.

In fact the iron-rich spheres are themselves hard evidence of the use of thermate which produces such spheres as a by-product. Thermate also produces molten iron as a by-product, and lo and behold molten metal was found under WTC 7 as well as the Towers, and seen flowing from the South Tower's crash zone. NIST tried to deny the existence of the molten metal underneath the buildings and explain away the flowing metal in the South Tower as molten aluminum. Here a video I made demonstrating that these claims are beyond dubious...


Combine these evidences with audio of explosions, reports of explosions both from people inside and outside of the building, reports of plans to "take down" the building, and close examination of WTC 7 collapse warnings in the FDNY oral histories and in the press, and I think the case for explosive demolition is very strong.

But the bottom line is that NIST didn't test the steel for explosives or thermite residues. Their excuses for failing to do so included saying that thermite could not have been coupled to the beams sufficiently to inflict the intended damage, however this ignores methods such as shaped charges, sol-gels, and linear thermite cutting devices.

They also stated that:

"The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions."

But just because the chemical elements are there does not mean they would be there in the correct proportions.

As mechanical engineer Gordon Ross stated:

If I leave margarine, flour, sugar and fruit in a cupboard, when I next open the cupboard I will not find a fruit crumble. Some mechanism is required to convert the ingredients. Similarly, if I take these same ingredients, set them alight and throw them out the window, I still will not get my fruit crumble.
Furthermore, physicist Steven Jones has pointed out:

"Wallboard has calcium and sulfur and they're very tightly bound with oxygen as well as calcium sulfate."

Now chemical signatures are one thing, but unignited explosive residues is quite another, and that is exactly what a team of scientists report to have found in WTC dust in April of this year. Specifically, they claim to have found a nano-engineered variant of thermite, that when heated exerted an energy/volume yield exceeding that of explosives commonly used in demolitions.
There has been debate as to how energetic this material was, and exactly how it would have been used for a building demolition, but during these discussions no argument was presented that the material was anything but nanothermite.

Their findings were published in a peer-reviewed journal and have yet to be refuted in any similar fashion. Attacks upon the journal they published in, The Open Chemical Physics Journal, published by Bentham.org, are unfounded. This is especially true considering that the NIST reports have not been independently peer-reviewed. Attacks upon the provenance of the samples are also unfounded.

So not only did the official investigators fail to do the proper forensic tests, but they also failed to independently verify the non-forensic tests that they did do.

Please take action on these matters.

Sincerely yours,
John-Michael P. Talboo

Related Info:

New Action Page at "BuildingWhat?"

BUILDING WHAT?! Day 4 (and Important Updates!)

BUILDING WHAT?! Day 3 (and Day 2 Recap)

BUILDING WHAT?! Day 2 (and Day 1 Recap)

Thank You Mr Curley: "Debunker" PROMOTES the "Building What?" Campaign & Pushes Discredited Material (again) to Discredit Himself.

Building What? is up...

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

'Sigh'... Here we go again.

Youtuber jawsfreak97 has, once again, made another video trying to debunk the WTC squibs.

He posted this as a response to my squib video (and it looks like he may have used some footage from my video as well). On his channel, he's posted the following statement: "Im going to debunk every 9/11 myth out there"
And he apparently wants to keep that promise. He doesn't seem to care what I think, so I'll let an actual scientist take it from here.

Direct Evidence for Explosions: Flying Projectiles and Widespread Impact Damage Dr. Crockett Grabbe

I'm not a social darwnist, but...

Anyone who can watch this disgusting crap and still support the makers of September Clues needs to do humanity a favour and remove themselves from the gene pool.

This is the most offensive 9/11 video I have ever seen. Now they're accusing the family members of being actors. It's crap like this that gives 9/11 research a bad name.

Monday, March 15, 2010

25% Scooped Out?... I THINK NOT!

At the Screw Loose Change blog, a few new pictures of WTC 7 are featured to back up the claim that the building was heavily damaged. Funny that they didn't show this one!

Looks like the building wasn't scooped out after all. Shyam Sunder's "25% of the building" claim has officially been put to bed. Although Pat ignores it, the investigation Sunder led already realized this claim was too dubious to try and hoodwink people with.

Related Info:

9/11 debunking arguments...

Fabled Enemies

Sunday, March 14, 2010

911 WAS an Inside Job: Proof versus Speculation

911 WAS an Inside job.

This is not mere speculation. It is proven fact.

Debunkers and defenders of the official 911 story imply that the "conspiracy theorists" have no basis to make this claim. However, the hard science has proven the case.

From the physical evidence we find at the World Trade Centre site we KNOW 911 must have involved inside help.

Why ? Because it is physically IMPOSSIBLE to find tons of melted steel, chemical traces of thermitic materials, the actual remains of high tech military explosives, and to see the freefall collapse of a steel framed building, WITHOUT employing incendiary or explosive devices.

The forensic material here represents hard SMOKING GUN evidence of the explosive demolition of these buildings.

On the other hand, the official 911 narrative deliberately avoids all of this damning forensic proof. The NIST computer simulations that form the "backbone" of the WTC investigation are built upon unverified and flawed speculation - especially in the case of WTC7 where we find that their collapse simulations diverge substantially with what was seen.

The key point to recognise here is that the computer modelling data NIST used to create their simulations has never been independently checked. These simulations may have the accuracy of a cartoon animation for all we know. No one can be sure. Consequently their simulations, that do not match with the video of the collapses, must be considered unconvincing and unproven hypotheticals- fanciful speculation in the face of the forensic proof of foul play presented by critics of official story.

Moreover, there are so many nonsensical and contradictory items appearing in the NIST version of the WTC collapses that it is obvious the official account constitutes a cover-up. Of particular note are the outright LIES highlighted by David Ray Griffin in this essay where he explains "Why NIST’s Final 9/11 Report is Unscientific and False".

911 WAS an Inside job. This is not speculation, it is fact.

Everyone must be made aware of the 911 evidence so that a real criminal investigation can be launched. If we accept the official lies we'll never see an end to the War on Terror ...

[Note: A criminal investigation should start with those who lied under oath at the 911 Commission, those who testified behind closed doors (Bush and Cheney), and with those at NIST who are involved in covering up clear evidence of Treason. ]

By Spookypunkos

Criminal Investigation of NIST/Sunder for Fraudulent Reports into the WTC Collapses.

Deliberately hiding evidence of a crime is a crime. Don't let them get away with it ! Donate what you can !

Thursday, March 11, 2010

The Washington Post Was Right About a Few Things...

...And the sooner the 9/11 truth movement can admit it the better off we will be.

A few days ago The Post stated:

YUKIHISA FUJITA is an influential member of the ruling Democratic Party of Japan...

He questions whether it (9/11) was really the work of terrorists; suggests that shadowy forces with advance knowledge of the plot played the stock market to profit from it; peddles the fantastic idea that eight of the 19 hijackers are alive and well; and hints that controlled demolition rather than fire or debris may be a more likely explanation for at least the collapse of the building at 7 World Trade Center, which was adjacent to the twin towers.
First off, terrorists were involved, but the evidence indicates that in one way or another they were patsies. Secondly, the insider trading has pretty well been debunked (granted, I just accepted this myself). And as the Screw Loose Change blog had the extreme pleasure of pointing out today, so has the idea that some of the hijackers are still alive. Good call on WTC 7 though.

Dear 9/11 truth movement,

Learn the truth and focus on key points of evidence or we are going nowhere.


John-Michael P. Talboo

Scum of the Earth 9/11 Twoofers Vs the Sweetest Smelling Government That Ever Existed

By: John-Michael P. Talboo and AdamS

Welcome to Need To Know, with your host, me, Moe King-Bird.

It's over eight years since the 9/11 attacks, but still there are a lot of people who say they have unanswered questions about what really happened that day. They tread a fine line - what is just harmless curiosity, and what is mocking the terrorist murder of 3000 Americans? To discuss this we are joined by Judas Goat of Citizens Against Questioning 9/11, caq911.blogspot.com, a grassroots organisation known for its simple message: Support our Government.

So, the study that the '9/11 truthers' say proves there was a conspiracy by our own government to carry out the 9/11 attacks, which was published in a scientific journal, claims to have found thermite amongst the wreckage of the World Trade Center. Is this credible to you?

Judas Goat:

Nothing done by these Jihadist supporters is credible. They actually purport to have found a make believe explosive variant of the incendiary that they call super-duper-uber-magico-nano-thermite. They say that if we are going to debunk their peer-reviewed paper (and this part cracks me up) that we have to do it with a peer-reviewed paper of our own! They claim that science has proceeded through peer-reviewed papers since the time of Sir Isaac Newton. But if this were true then why was the official government investigation conducted by the esteemed National Institute for Standards and Technology not peer-reviewed?! Troothers.

Moe King-Bird:

Now something I find when I am listening to what 9/11 truthers have to say, is they are not very consistent. They disagree and fight amongst themselves over whether there were planes, some even say the towers were brought down using, and I am not joking here, 'space lasers'. Is this something that is simply to be expected when dealing with conspiracy theorists?

Judas Goat:

Indeed, they have not formulated a coherent theory in the least. Whereas, the official account of the 9/11 attack has remained consistent. Now some of these people argue that things like "space lazers" and and "cartoon planes" are Trojan Horses, but horses aren't the problem here; birds of a feather that flock together are. In other words, they are all nuts. Twoofers.

Moe King-Bird:

I would also like your thoughts on the reasons 9/11 'skepticism' is quite widespread. Because with most theories like this, i.e., Elvis still being alive, their appeal is only to a fringe minority. But many people may have questions about 9/11, in fact a sound majority of people in numerous polls have said they feel the government has not told the full truth about the attacks. Countless '9/11 truth' books, films, and other items have been marketed, aimed at these people. Is there a danger here of some people simply spreading hype for selfish reasons?

Judas Goat:

Let's see here... (thumbing through the debunker's handbook) Ah! Here we are... People like conspiracy theories because they make sense out of an otherwise messy and coincidence filled world.

I must contest that the 9/11 conspiracy theory is a more popular theory than Elvis being alive. When Rep. Mike Thompson (Dem CA-1) was asked whether he thought 9/11 might be an inside job he informed the nutbar asking the question that 70% of the country thinks that Elvis is still alive. I'm sure he did exhaustive research on this percentage.

And yes, these people are obviously doing this for selfish reasons. Conspiracy theory is an industry. The conspiracists argue that the distribution of their material on the internet for free largely exceeds their sales as a means to getting people brainwashed into believing their ideas. Clever marketing indeed. Bottom line is, if any money is made from this stuff it automatically disproves their theories. Troofers.

Moe King-Bird:

What was the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings? Because, and maybe it's just me, I saw huge planes hit those buildings. Are my eyes deceiving me? And, have the government reports provided enough proof to put the controversy to rest?

Judas Goat:

Your eyes did not deceive you and yes they have. Some of the nutters point out that WTC Building 7 also collapsed that day, but wasn't hit by a plane. However the government also explained this in August of 2008; their report states:

The collapse of WTC7 can be explained thanks to a recently discovered physical property of the universe that causes fire to intelligently seek out and destroy the one vital column that stops a building from imploding in on itself at the rate of gravity.
They like to say "Ask Questions, Demand Answers," but then they never accept the answers. Toofers.

Moe King-Bird:

Thank you for joining us, that's what we need to know.

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

The Kennedy Assassination - Jim Marrs Interviews Doug Horne

DREAMLAND with Whitley Strieber
February 20, 2010

The Kennedy Assassination

Doug Horne was the Chief Military Analyst for the Assassination Records Review Board that was delegated to study the Kennedy assassination by Congress in 1992. Here, Jim Marrs interviews him, and he says, quite frankly, "there was massive fraud in the evidence," and that the autopsy results released after the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital are false, and conceal an exit wound that prove the fact that he was struck by a bullet from the front, as well as the ones that hit him in the back of the head.

This will be the most extraordinary interview about the Kennedy Assassination that you have ever heard. Listen as a man in a unique position to know the truth talks about how the real autopsy reports have been destroyed, and the available documents are forgeries.

He outlines exactly how he discovered this, and creates an airtight case, and we have this message from Whitley Strieber: "Please, folks, do not let the Kennedy Assassination go. Listen to this and continue to demand that your representatives take action. The Review Board came about because of public pressure on Congress. Demand the truth!"

Jim Marrs's website is JimMarrs.com.

Jim Marrs Interviews Doug Horne

Bill Kelly
February 21, 2010

JFK Assassination researcher Jim Marrs interviewing Doug Horne, Chief Military Analyst for the Assassination Records Review Board - in operation from 1994 –1998

JM: = Jim Marrs
DH: = Doug Horne

[ 00:00 - 00:32 – announcer lead in...]


JM: Howdy, I’m your host today here on Dreamland, on a very special occasion because today we’re going to hear from Doug Horne. Doug was the chief Military analyst for the Assassination Records Review Board, and to just set the stage, let me explain that in the wake of the Kennedy Assassination, of course, within a week the new President, Lyndon Johnson hand picked a committee headed by Chief Justice Earl Warren and called the Warren Commission - prominent people on there such as John J. McCloy, Allan Dulles, who I found particularly interesting since Kennedy had fired Dulles from his position of CIA director in the wake of the failed Bay of Pigs invasion and Gerald Ford, our only unelected President and some others - and they concluded after about nine months that the assassination was the work of Lee Harvey Oswald who acted alone.

This was called into question almost immediately and a few years later we had the Jim Garrison investigation in New Orleans and the jury who was polled afterwards, unanimously said that Garrison had convinced them that there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy, but they could not bring themselves to believe beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt that Clay Shaw was part of it, so they found him not guilty. But this raised even more questions particularly with some of the witnesses and information that came out in the Garrison trial. So then in the mid 70’s Congress founded the House Select Committee on Assassinations, and they went through a lot of turmoil, changed leadership, and Blakey, the new Chief Council started off by saying they weren’t going to consider any new evidence. Anything new they didn’t want to hear about it, but they would re-examine some of the old evidence, well that forced them into considering the Dallas Police radio tape which according to two separate sets of acoustical scientists showed clearly that there had been shots not only from the School Book Depository but from the infamous Grassy Knoll.

But, the House Committee said well we’re out of funds, we’re out of business, and they encouraged the Justice Department to continue their investigation. This was not done, in fact all the Justice Department did was convene a handpicked committee of National Science Academy people who tried to call into question the Dallas Police tapes. A few years later, in a peer reviewed paper in England they called into question the conclusions of the National Academy of Science Committee. So the whole thing has been in controversy and turmoil ever since. And finally, in the early 90’s we had the Oliver Stone film “JFK” which was based on Jim Garrison’s book, and my book “Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy”. And in the wake of the controversy that stirred up - Congress then named the Assassination Records Review Board.

And this was a group of citizens who were tasked to go into government files and find anything that pertained to the Kennedy Assassination Unfortunately, they were also instructed NOT to do anything with it, don’t make any conclusions, don’t present any of their findings or conclusions to the public, just put all the stuff in the National Archives and maybe twenty or thirty years later some diligent researcher might actually find something.

Well Doug Horne is the man. He is not only a diligent researcher, he was the Chief Military Analyst for the Assassination Records Review Board which put him right in the thick of what they were finding out about the Kennedy autopsy, which of course was done at Bethesda Naval Hospital.

And he even had opportunity to speak with and interview some of the people involved in the autopsy, and he was also privy to the examination of one of the most critical pieces of information – evidence – the famous Zapruder film taken by Abraham Zapruder.

So Doug, I apologize for that long-winded introduction, but now that we’ve laid the groundwork, tell us what you found in your work for the Assassination Records Review Board.

DH: Well, thanks Jim, it’s a pleasure to be here, and don’t apologize, the case IS a mess and it’s been made into a mess by all those investigating bodies, so –

What I found Jim, was that, and these are my conclusions, you know, after working for the Review Board for the last three years of it’s four year lifespan and my conclusions after researching and writing this book for thirteen years, this book “Inside the Assassination Records Review Board”, available on Amazon.com. It’s my conclusion that the reason the case has never come together like a normal homicide case is because there’s massive fraud in the evidence. And, it’s a pretty strong statement to make, but it’s backed up in my book by overwhelming evidence, of not only fraud in the evidence. But what that means is a massive cover-up of the medical evidence by the U.S. Government. And, specifically a cover-up of the fact that the President was killed by a crossfire and that evidence of shots from the front was suppressed and only evidence of shots from the rear was admitted into evidence. So the listeners may be wondering – well, wat do you mean by fraud in the evidence – and to summarize very very briefly, without getting inside baseball too much – there are three skull x-rays of the President, and those three are not originals in the national archives, they are copy films. They are altered copy films made from the original skull x-rays and altered in such a manner that the blowout in the back of the head, the exit wound behind the right ear, seen in Dallas by all the Doctors and Nurses has been hidden in the x-rays, it looks like solid bone, but we know they are forgeries.

Number Two: The autopsy report’s been rewritten at least twice, so the version in the archives now is the third written version, and the - particularly disturbing to me is the fact that the brain photographs in the archives, purported to be of President Kennedy’s brain cannot be of his brain as proven by the testimony of two key witnesses. The - one of the FBI Agents who was at the autopsy, Frank O’Neil said - they cant be of President Kennedy’s brain because there is way too much mass present, there is too much tissue present in the organ in the photographs. And, the photographer who took the pictures said - No these can’t be the pictures I took, because they’re taken on the wrong kind of film and they are taken from the wrong angles. And they also don’t show the sections that were made of the brain.

So those are three key areas where there is fraud in the evidence, there are others, but that’s it in a nutshell.

JM: Okay, so in other words what you are telling me, is that when someone steps forward and says – yes but look, this government document states thus and so, you cannot take that to the bank, can you?

DH: That’s correct Jim. Normally the autopsy report is THE medical legal record of someone’s death. In this case, it’s not true since we know at least two written versions of the autopsy report, a typed first draft, and the first signed version, have been destroyed. The autopsy report cannot be used to describe how Kennedy died.

JM: Right, Okay. Well that’s Step Number One. We’ll go to step this up to Number Two, right after this.

[- to 8:50 - commercial break]


JM: Howdy, We’re back here today, this is your host Jim Marrs. We’re talking with Doug Horne, Chief Military Analyst for the Assassination Records Review Board and he’s just informed us that the autopsy on President Kennedy has been altered, fabricated, changed, at the level of the Federal Government. So, Doug, tell us how you KNOW this.

DH: Sure Jim, we know from the testimony taken of Doctors Humes and Boswell – there were three pathologists and President Kennedy’s autopsy, two of them were Navy and they were the lead doctors at the autopsy Doctors Humes and Boswell. The third guy was kind of an outsider, Dr. Finck worked for the Army and he arrived late after the autopsy had started and he was basically a consultant, advising the other, the two Navy men. So we took the testimony of all three...

JM: Excuse me had any of these military doctors had any kind of extensive experience with gunshot wounds?

DH: Almost no, no, almost no is the answer. Doctors Humes and Boswell, the two lead pathologists had no practical experience in forensic autopsies of people killed by trauma, by gunshot wounds. They had only done autopsies of people due to natural - death due to natural causes. And Dr. Finck, the consultant, was a board certified forensic pathologist, but number one, he arrived late, after much of the work had been done Number two, he did not do this every day, he only reviewed reports written by other people. So there was almost no practical experience in forensic pathology during the autopsy on the 35th president, which is really appalling. In retrospect I believe this was intentional. You can steer the conclusions of people who aren’t really qualified in the first place not only because they are in uniform and are following orders but because they’re not forensic pathologists, the two lead pathologists were not , so...

JM: Is it true, that they were – when - I think it was Finck, or one of the autopsy doctors – there was some argument going on about what to do, how to do it – and he said – Well who’s in charge here – and a military officer said – I am – is that true?

DH: That’s correct. During the Shaw trial, Dr. Finck had a rough time on the witness stand and the first day he testified he made that statement under oath, he said – I said, Who’s in charge here – and Dr. Humes – Dr. Finck recalled that Humes the lead pathologist had said – Who’s in charge here – you know, irritated with all the interference during the autopsy and the people giving orders and that - Finck said under oath, an Army General said – I am. He tried to back away from that during his later testimony at the Shaw trial but it was too late, he had already said it under oath, and in fact we know he was being coached – I mean, he was doing so badly on the witness stand that - in terms of telling the truth that other people didn’t want him to tell that, they called Dr. Boswell down and had him waiting in the wings to take over and to get up there and rebut Finck if necessary, so Boswell revealed to us under oath something we didn’t know, that he was called down there by the Justice Department to help with the defense team, and was waiting in the wings because Pierre Finck was doing so badly...
JM: So [... -ive ?..] testimony..

DH: Yeah, so to make a long story short, yeah, Dr. Humes admitted in 1964 to Arlen Specter - To Assistant Council Arlen Specter on the Warren Commission - admitted that he burned the first draft of the autopsy report in his fireplace on Sunday, the weekend of the assassination.

JM: Um,hm

DH: The problem for Humes is that during the House Committee period in the mid 70’s he changed his story, and he said – Well I destroyed the notes in my fireplace, I destroyed notes - because they had the blood of the President on them and he thought it was unseemly. Well, that’s a conflict right there, so when he testified before us General Council Jeremy Gunn really bore in on him on this subject and Humes finally admitted that he destroyed both, the first draft, and notes. So that’s the first – and by the way, Dr. Boswell told us under oath that the first draft was actually typed and it was prepared on Saturday. Boswell told us [..?..] it was prepared Saturday and reviewed by he and Humes, and we also know the third party, Dr. Canada, commanding officer of the hospital portion of the Bethesda complex, those three men reviewed it on Saturday, Humes destroys it in his fireplace the next morning, early Sunday morning. So that’s the first version that’s been destroyed. The second version was a signed version that was given to Robert Kennedy in 1965 by the Secret Service at his request. He was a Senator at that time, from New York and then a year and a half later, when he was required to turn over all the autopsy materials he had in his possession back to the Government so they could be put in the archives – he returned the photographs and x-rays but he did not return a signed version of the autopsy report, along with the - what was left of the brain and other biological specimens. So he kept part of these materials and they’ve never seen the light of day again. So, ah….

JM: So what you’re telling us is, is that standard operating autopsy procedures were NOT followed in the case of the JFK Assassination.

DH: Certainly not with the evidence. I mean the evidence was made by the Government, it never should have been turned over to someone’s family. And when they returned it to the Government, and the Government knew immediately that he had not returned all the materials and that he had kept biological materials, tissue samples, the brain, plus a signed autopsy report. They didn’t go after him, they just let it go, which was appalling. So we know that the next year in 1967, the year after the Kennedy’s returned the materials to the archives - The next year the Secret Service turned over an original autopsy report to the National Archives, and that’s the one we have today, and that’s the third version. In other words Jim, if you – if there’s only one autopsy report, no one can give it to someone else twice. See, you have the Secret Service on record giving a signed autopsy report to Robert Kennedy in 1965 and then he keeps it and doesn’t give it back. And then the Secret Service turns over ANOTHER signed autopsy report two years later to the archives, and that’s the version that’s on file now and therefore I conclude that’s the third written version. So that’s just completely unacceptable.

JM: You think the third version which is now the official Government version, do you think it accurately reflects what was actually found at the Kennedy autopsy?

DH: Oh, no. It is the version that concludes that a bullet transited the body And that was not a conclusion, you know, from back to front, from the upper back at the throat That was not a conclusion of, at the autopsy, the FBI agents were there and they wrote their own report and they know that was not a conclusion during the autopsy itself and I don’t believe that was the conclusion in the version that Robert Kennedy sequestered either. So that was one conclusion that evolved and of course there is no mention of any shot from the front in the autopsy report that exists today and I don’t believe there was in the earlier versions either because that evidence was surppressed during the autopsy itself. I mean, the cover-up began the moment the body arrived. So no, the conclusions were evolving, and that’s why you have different versions, and all that’s all laid out in Chapter Eleven of my book.

JM: Okay so they altered the autopsy report. What about the President’s body, there has been some speculation there may have been alteration actually to the body. Do you have any knowledge of that?

DH: There was, Jim. I consider it a certainty, now. This concept was first raised in 1981 by David Lifton and his outstanding book “Best Evidence” which he worked on for fifteen years. By the way it was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, it didn’t win but it was nominated, which is remarkable…

JM: Um, hm

DH:...and given the subject matter - and Macmillan at the time was very brave to publish that book. So Mr. Lifton believed that the body, the wounds on the head, had been altered before the body had arrived at Bethesda and my conclusion is that he was close but he wasn’t really correct, and I’ve altered my view of this because we just know more now than we did in 1981. We know a lot more, based on the ARRB’s depositions and interviews. I’ve concluded that, yes, the head wounds were altered by surgery, by post mortem surgery after death but it happened at Bethesda before the autopsy began. You see, there was a long period of time, Jim, between the body actually arrived and the time the autopsy started, the body arrived at 6:35 p.m. we know that because of a report written by a Marine Security Guard, Sargeant Boyajian and so it arrives at 6:35 p.m., the autopsy doesn’t begin until 8:15. 8:15 p.m.

And there is a lot of time there for shenanigans to take place, and the shenanigans WERE taking place. We interviewed Tom Robinson, one of the morticians, who prepared the body for burial after the autopsy. He was there for the whole period, he was there for the whole autopsy. We also deposed the two x-ray technicians and one of them, Ed Reed - Ed Reed the autopsy tech and Tom Robinson, the mortician they [.. bo....surgury...] to the President’s skull, done by Dr. Humes. And from the way they described the details of that surgery it’s clear that what Dr. Humes was doing was expanding the exit wound that was seen by the Dallas doctors and nurses, expanding that wound dramatically to five times its original size so that now there’s a large defect on the top of the President’s head and on the right side – which was not present in Dallas.

The reason for him doing that, the primary reason, was to get to the brain and remove evidence. Remove evidence of the shot from the front. Remove the entry wound in the upper right forehead with an incision, remove the entry wound in the bone. Remove part of the skull plate, and remove bullet fragments from the brain, and along with it a lot of brain tissue was removed. So this is – and the process of doing this, you’ve got a much larger skull defect when you are finished with this illicit surgery and that large skull defect is misrepresented by the camera, and in the autopsy report, and this represented to history as – quote - damage caused by an exiting bullet – unquote. So this [...] large defect done by the doctors which Tom Robinson was adamant about. He looked at the autopsy photos and said - Oh all this damage at the top of the head, he said – this is not what the bullet did, this is what the doctors did. He was there, he knew that.

JM: So what you are telling us is that these alterations, these shenanigans as you called them, they certainly could not have been done by Lee Harvey Oswald, or by the Russians, or the by the Mafia, or by the anti-Castro Cubans, right?

DH: Exactly, and to prove that point, Jim I will make if brief here but – the body left Dallas in an ornate bronze viewing casket very heavy, over four hundred pounds, made of bronze, with the top half that opens up for viewing, and it arrived at Bethesda in a different casket and in different wrappings. It arrived in a cheap aluminum shipping casket and instead of wrapped in sheets, wrapped in a body bag with a zipper. So the body was not only intercepted in route, where I believe the throat wound was - there was an entry wound in the President Kennedy’s throat seen in Dallas by all the doctors. And that was tampered with before the body arrived at Bethesda. But after the body arrived, the skull wounds were tampered with by the pathologists themselves. So that makes it very clear that interruption in the chain of custody makes it very clear that it was an inside job by the Government.

JM: Right, that’s amazing. Okay, well, we’ll proceed along to Step Three of the analysis of the Kennedy Assassination, when we return right after this.

[- to 25:15 - commercial break]


JM: Howdy, This is Jim Marrs. We’re back here again on Dreamland, and we’re talking today with Doug Horne, Chief Military analyst of the Assassination Records Review Board an we are learning some amazing things, that the basic evidence in the Kennedy Assassination cannot be trusted. Doug lets move on to the Zapruder film, what can you tell us about the Zapruder film which has been called “the clock” of the assassination.

DH: Right,you know for the first thirty years or so, after it was taken by Mr. Zapruder, that one preeminent film of the assassination, the only one of the films that really shows detail of any kind. It was studied – the image content was studied for the first thirty years and people wanted to know what can it tell us about what happened. So for the first thirty years the debates about the film were about the image content.

For the last fifteen years or so, the debate has been, really, is the film authentic or not. The whole territory of the debate, the structure of the debate has changed dramatically and it’s my conclusion, after working for the review board, after we commissioned a limited, I add, I emphasize, LIMITED authenticity study of the film by Kodak. And after studying his report, his report raises more questions than it answered – it’s a very biased and flawed report. And I write about that extensively in my book in Chapter Fourteen. And it’s my conclusion today for two reasons which I’ll enumerate in a moment that the film is an altered film. Altered to hide evidence of an exit wound on the back of the President’s head. It’s been blacked out on the film, and altered to actually paint on a false exit wound in the right front of his head, which mimics, not perfectly either, which generally mimics the enormous damage in these fraudulent autopsy photos which show really, the results of surgery. So the real exit wound behind President Kennedy’s right ear, in the back of his head has been blacked out on the film, a false exit wound has been painted onto the right front and the top of his head, to mimic the autopsy photos – and because those alterations are so apparent now for reasons I will explain in a moment, they are so apparent.

All the other things, Jim, that we thought we knew about the film for thirty years are suspect now. So, the first generation researchers who studied the film and who spent countless hours, hundreds of hours, studying this thing frame by frame concluded there was a timing problem. And that President Kennedy and Governor Connally were shot too close together to have been done by the same rifle and that therefore, their reactions to two different shots occuring very close together was evidence of multiple shooters from behind. That was the original conclusions of the first generation researchers. But I got to tell you, Jim, there are some fifty witnesses or more - that the limousine came to a complete stop during the motorcade, for an instant - for a second or two, and that’s not seen in the film today. So if a car stop has been removed as well, and by the way – something else is not present in the film that should be. Everyone in Dealey Plaza who had their eyes focussed on the President the moment he was killed, the one thing they all described that was common was massive amount of exit debris leaving the back of his head and traveling to the rear. Everybody that watched the murder described that one thing. Their descriptions were different in other ways, but that was the one thing the descriptions had in common. You do not see any exit debris leaving the back of President Kennedy’s head and traveling to the rear in the Zapruder film. So if the car stop has been removed which it may have and if the, if the exit debris leaving the back of his head has been removed, I should say that they’re not present, so therefore I suspect they’ve been removed. I mean I know that the head wounds have been altered in the film, so I don’t necessarily trust the early conclusions of the research community if there’s a timing problem in the film, if time has been removed from the film by removing frames, to remove a car stop and to remove exit debris traveling in the wrong direction then the old argument about the timing problem it’s just suspect, and I submit to you that it’s no longer the primary evidence in the film of conspiracy. The primary evidence in the film, in the film of conspiracy is the alteration of the head wounds. That’s the big story now and that’s the new story that’s in my book. And...

JM: That’s true, and you know the thing that proves that to me is the testimony of not only the police officer Bobby Hargis who was riding to the immediate left rear of Kennedy but also witnesses who saw him that day and he was spattered with blood and brain matter, and he told, he told people that he was so hit with debris that he thought that he had been shot.

DH: That’s right he thought he had been shot, and both he and Martin both of them, to the left rear were covered with blood and gore, and so was the rear of the car, the trunk lid. So the listeners may be wondering why am I so certain that the film has been altered. The primary reason is because a patriot named Sydney Wilkinson, the lady in the film industry in Los Angeles, purchased from the National Archives a 35mm duplicate negative certified to be accurate, certified to be gold standard, the real deal, from the National Archives last year. She then assembled an ad hoc research group in Los Angeles - people from the motion picture industry. Nobody, Jim, had ever done that before. It’s remarkable that it took forty six years for someone to do this, but she did it, and…

JM: These people in the film industry, they had no real knowledge and no real particular concern about the Kennedy Assassination.

DH: They had no vested interest, they were not researchers who had staked out a claim for or against authenticity, they hadn’t written any books on the subject. Most of them hadn’t thought much about it in decades, but these are people that know motion picture films. They had no axe to grind. And Jim, seven out of seven people now that have viewed the digital scans that she made – she made high definition scans of each frame of the Zapruder film from her dupe negatives, Seven out of seven experts, now, experts in the post-production of pictures, people who know what special effects look like – Seven out of seven people that have viewed it now say that the film – the head wounds are not only altered, but they are badly altered. The alterations were very poorly done – and...

JM: They were probably done very hurriedly.

DH: Very hurriedly, in fact I know how hurriedly because the other part of the story proves that the chain of custody found wasn’t what we thought it was and instead of being sent directly to Life Magazine the day after the assassination like we thought it was for years, instead the film went to Washington DC to the CIA’s primary photo analysis facility, the NPIC, National Photographic Interpretation Center. And briefing boards were made Saturday night, the 23rd of November, ’63 from the original eight millimeter film. That’s what you would expect. The problem is, that the next night at the same facility – another Zapruder film was brought,– this is Sunday night, now, the Sunday night before the funeral – another Zapruder film was brought, 24 hours later to the NPIC and those controlling that evolution, brought in a whole different group of workers, not one single person who had been present the night before was present Sunday night, a different group of workers and the film presented was no longer an eight millimeter film it was sixteen millimeter wide double eight film, but it was as yet unslit. So this was an altered film, Jim, masquerading as a camera original. And the Agent that delivered it to the NPIC the second night for a second set of briefing boards to be made said it came from the CIA’s secret photo lab at Kodak headquarters in Rochester NY called Hawkeye Works. So that’s a heck of a story, that a second original film that was developed at a place where we know the original really was not developed. The original was developed in Dallas, Jim, and it was slit from eight millimeters on the day it was developed, so a second Zapruder film was brought to the CIA’s lab in Washington Sunday night, it’s double the width it should be - it’s masquerading as right out of the camera just developed in the wrong city, in Rochester. So what you have, I think, is an authentic set of briefing boards that what the film really showed, made Saturday night. And then you had a sanitized set of briefing boards made Sunday night in the same building by a different group of people sanitized group of briefing boards made from an altered film. And that’s a heck of a story so we have a...

JM: How difficult would it have been to take these, we say briefing boards, I’m assuming your talking about like, they could photograph each frame and blow it up to like an eight by ten, or whatever, they could then mess with it, how difficult would it be then to photograph each of those doctored frames and shoot ‘em frame by frame with the Zapruder – camera, and then be able to argue that it came from his camera and therefore it was in an authentic film.

DH: Yeah the alteration question is one that’s still being researched. The Hollywood experts - there were two ways, Jim, to do a visual effect in a motion picture in those days, of course we didn’t have any digital technology yet, so the two ways to do it were by traveling mattes or by aerial imaging. The people that believe the film was altered, the seven Hollywood experts who have seen it so far, they believe aerial imaging was probably the technique used, its much simpler than a traveling matte, and it’s my personal opinion after reading school text books from 1965, talking to these people in Hollywood is that it WAS possible, that’s my opinion. It was possible to alter the head wound images within one day using aerial imaging. Now if...

JM: Can you explain aerial imaging? What are we talking?

DH: Yeah, very simply I’d love to – if you take a film – Aerial imaging Jim, let me start over, Aerial imaging is done by - with a device called an optical printer. Optical printers are used to copy motion picture films by projecting the original image though a lens and then recording it in another camera. So optical printers are almost always customized and if the – many of them were customized by to handle aerial imaging. So in aerial imaging you had this big Rube Goldberg contraption about six feet tall, very heavy, bolted to the deck and you’re gonna project the original film from below, it bounces off a mirror at a forty five degree angle and comes straight up through the air through a condenser lens. On top of the condenser lens is a glass plate on which you can do animation, so if you are projecting an original film from below frame by frame it’s coming through condenser lens through a glass plate about seven and a half by ten inches. You have acetate frames laid on top of the glass plate. You do your artwork – you block out part of the head, and you paint on a false wound on each acetate frame and you re-photograph this composite image from above in a process camera. So you have a playback camera down below, the process camera up above. But the aerial imaging only requires one pass through the new camera so you retain a good visibility, good resolution, it doesn’t take as long that way and you don’t have registration problems because it’s self matting. Now that’s a little bit of inside baseball, but it’s all explained in Chapter Fourteen. So aerial imaging was, I believe was feasible to have been done within a twelve hour period providing you used a Bell and Howell eight millimeter home movie camera as the process camera and I believe that’s what happened...

JM: Yeah since they had the Zapruder camera then you could use that as the processing camera, right?

DH: Well it - Jim, I don’t recall sitting here right now, when the Government took the camera whether it was that weekend or a week or two later but, yes, as long as you had a Bell and Howell camera, well as long as you had one you were set.

JM: Okay.

DH: So if other things were altered in the film, if time was removed, by removing frames, if the car stop were removed if exit debris was removed coming out the back of the head, which I think it surely was, some of those things may have taken additional time but we do know that the first alterations were done by Sunday night because it’s the Sunday night version of the film from with the NPIC employees made their briefing boards, the second set of briefing boards. We know from examining a surviving briefing board from Sunday night that the blowups they made of the Zapruder frames are the same as the crude pictures in Life the next week – the black and white pictures published by Life the next week, so the initial set of alterations was done by Sunday night rather hurriedly, I do believe, and the pictures in Life that week and the pictures in the second set of briefing boards are identical, so it’s clear that all – many alterations probably the principle ones were done on Sunday, November 24th and I think that’s why they’re crude and their not well done and I think that’s why Life Magazine surpressed the film or the motion picture for twelve years...

JM: I wanted to point out that as far as the public is concerned no one actually got to see the Zapruder film run as a film for a dozen years.

DH: That’s right, it was only shown to the Warren Commission on a shakey movie screen, you know the old fashion movie screen with an eight millimeter projector – the original was looked at three or four times and the rest of the time the Warren Commission had to use a copy and Life Magazine after spending an extra hundred thousand dollars basically tripling the price to buy the second time. They bought it Saturday for fifty thousand for print rights only. They bought it two days later on Monday for a hundred fifty thousand, they paid an extra hundred thousand bucks in 1963 dollars for motion picture rights and they never once in twelve years displayed it as a motion picture for profit. Once the bootleg copy of the film was shown by Robert Groden and Geraldo Rivera and Dick Gregory on television in 1975, Life said forget it, and they sold it back to the family for one dollar. So, because the heat was on them at that point, is why did you surppress this, this back and to the left motion on the President’s body. So they said – Oh we don’t want anything more to do with this. But I believe that’s one of the main reasons it was suppressed for twelve years is because the alterations were so poorly done that if it had been loaned or used to show it as a motion picture that those using it and showing it may have detected the fraud.

JM: Exactly, let me add this quick, here’s a little coda, just a few days ago I received an email from a fellow who’s the nephew of a man who was an investigative reporter for Life Magazine and he was telling me how his uncle suspected conspiracy in the Kennedy Assassination and was trying to pursue that angle when he was called off, told to forget it by his immediate superior at Life Magazine who it turns out – and he was told - was a close friend of Clay Shaw. The man who was prosecuted by Jim Garrison. So we see the inner connections that were taking place at that time, which of course the public has never been privy too.

DH: Wow, you know, Jim, that’s amazing – I’m speechless...There’s one other thing I should point out about the film – I think the head explosion, the infamous head explosion in frame 313 is artwork. I don’t think it’s real. It only lasts for one frame that film was running at eight – over eighteen frames per second on the average. It was running two frames per second fast. A real head explosion would have registered on at least four or five frames of movie film. Maybe seven or eight frames – half a second. That explosion only lasts for one frame – it’s impossibly short and it actually – if you look at the scans made by the Hollywood group – it actually occurs – the explosion is centered forward of the President’s skull, actually outside of his head. So the artist that did that head explosion did a lousy job and they painted it in the wrong place on the frame. And it just doesn’t fly – that dog does not hunt, Jim.

JM: Just does not hunt. That’s amazing. Okay, we’re gonna take a short break and when we come back, Doug I’m gonna ask you – What do we do about all this now? We’ll be right back.

[ to 46:11 – commercial break]


JM: Howdy, this is your host for today, Jim Marrs, we’ve been talking to Doug Horne, Chief Military Analyst for the Assassination Records Review Board who has just blown us away with his knowledge and his conclusions that the Kennedy Assassination was an inside job and that the most basic evidence the body, the Zapruder film has all been altered by elements within the Federal Government of the United States. Doug, where to we go from here?

DH: Well, there’s two possible avenues, I mean, the one is to do what we’ve always been doing, for people that are fascinated and sometimes even obsessed with this evidence to keep studying it and keep writing about it and that’s what I’m doing and the other...

JM: Tell us where we can get your book.

DH: Oh sure, you know I had to go the self publishing route because I wanted to publish a two thousand page book so my book is five volumes. But I don’t want people to be afraid of that, it’s very accessible, it’s written for the ordinary person, so you can get it only at Amazon.com and they’ll print it upon demand within one day or day and a half at the most of when you order it at Amazon.com. They’ll print it and it’ll be in the mail to you. And each volume is very reasonably priced. So you can buy one at a time, two at a time or all five. Just put in my last name Horne and word JFK – Horne JFK – HORNE JFK and all five volumes will pop up.

JM: That’s great. I’ve noticed already that there are the debunkers, the naysayers, yes even perhaps, the hired minions who are on the internet saying - Oh, well Doug Horne he’s just fantasizing and he’s just drawing bad conclusions and, yada yada – how would you respond to them?

DH: Well, no, I’m not a medical doctor, Jim. but I’ve been studying the case since 1966 when the first critical books came out and I had a man who’s an MD review the work, he did peer review of my book while I was writing it, learned a lot from him, I learned a lot from the five medical consultants hired by the review board staff during our – while we were in session during the 1990’s - and I had a board certified radiologist peer review my chapter on the x-rays, so I’m pretty confident that I am not blowing smoke. And I would invite anyone who isn’t sure or even someone who is skeptical. Read all the books. Read the Warren report, read the House Committee report and read my book and make up your own mind. Don’t fall into the trap of allowing someone else to characterize my work. Their goal is to get you not to read it. So make up your own mind. I believe that extraordinary crimes require extraordinary evidence. And I have provided the evidence. That’s why the evidence is five volumes, and eighteen hundred and eighty pages of text and ninety pages of illustrations. So people can decide for themselves whether I am qualified or not.

JM: Well, that’s certainly reasonable enough. At this point I – go ahead and give us your bottom line, so what are we talking about here, are we talking about coup d'état?

DH: Yeah, we are Jim, it’s not a pretty story, it’s an ugly story. I don’t think the Government will ever admit to this, because it’s just too unpleasant. And, unfortunately the people in succeeding administrations, they always seem to think the American people can’t handle the truth. In my view, what the American people cannot stomach the most is lies. I’ve pursued this case for decades because I hate being lied to. I just hate it with an intensity that I cannot describe. So I think people can handle the truth particularly forty six, forty seven years later and if we’re gonna understand our real history, you know, we need to come to grips with what really happened to JFK, and Martin Luther King, and Bobby Kennedy, and the nation hasn’t done that yet, you know, as a whole. So, yeah I believe we had a coup d'état. And I believe it was over the....go ahead, Jim...

JM: We’ve kind of been all in the state of denial, haven’t we?

DH: We ARE a nation in denial. We’re a nation that’s a little bit naive, we should be ashamed of ourselves, so if we’re more interested in our mythology, about ourselves in believing in our mythology, about us being the greatest democracy on earth and, you know, bad things don’t happen in our country, they only happen in other countries. That mindset is one I cannot tolerate, after having studied all this evidence. This evidence, the evidence, everything is wrong with this case, it’s what drove me to conclude there was a coup. I didn’t start in 1967 with the conclusion there was a coup, and I’m gonna go cherry pick the evidence that said there was. It was the other way around, the evidence drove me toward my political conclusion which I reached about ten years ago. And this coup d'état in America, Jim, occurred at the height of the cold war and it was engineered by a consensus, I hate to say this, a wide consensus of people in the national security establishment within the Pentagon and the intelligence agencies, that President Kennedy was weak on foreign policy, they thought he was dangerous, and that they were very upset that he wanted to end the cold war and not win it. To these people, winning the cold war not only meant winning the space race or the peace race, it meant winning hot wars, like Viet Nam, Laos, Cuba. It also meant possibly even nuking the Soviet Union, a first strike, preemptive first strike against the Soviet Union. This was the mindset that was confronting JFK, who these people viewed President Kennedy by the third year of his administration as a very dangerous change agent...

JM:...and if he had ended the cold war, not only just think about the the billions and billions of dollars in defense that they would not have made...

DH: Okay, you’re not a kidding, so the – I view the the intelligence cold warriors and the high level people in the Pentagon who all opposed him, so vociferously to his face, quite often, who opposed him as Jihadists. They were our holy warriors of that time who wanted to defeat Communism on the battlefield. I mean, a cold war wasn’t good enough for these people. They wanted victories on the battlefield because of the frustrating stalemate in Korea in 1953. And when they realized he wasn’t going to give it to them in Laos, he wasn’t going to give it to them in Viet Nam, and he wasn’t even going to invade Cuba. These people were absolutely fit to be tied and when he began, you know, to formally try to end the cold war in 1963 with the Peace Speech, in June ’63 and the successful sponsorship of the Test Ban Treaty and getting that through the Senate at the end of that summer. That was it, I mean, and the final straw was probably the fact that he was negotiating back channel with Castro to try to reestablish diplomatic relations with Cuba, providing the Russians would leave, so they did not want to see this man reelected.

JM: Right. Okay, look Doug, let me ask you this – do you feel like those same forces, maybe not the exact same people, but their families, the power groups, the financiers, the bankers, behind them, their minions, are they still in power today?

DH: The same mindset is certainly in power, the mindset that, the simplistic mindset that says the best solutions are military solutions. I don’t believe that myself, but there are people around as we know, from studying the last decade, that the Neocons certainly believed that. And they’re still around, they’re waiting to take power again, as soon as Obama leaves office, so, yeah, that mindset is still with us, that military solutions are the best ones, and that we want to – we not only, this – people with this mindset don’t really care whether people like us or not. They want people to fear this nation. And of course, they have plenty of support from all the corporate interests who want to continue to make money hand over fist from money pissed away on arms programs.

JM:Right. And the occupation of other key countries that may be sitting on oil deposits or gas pipelines or even the poppy fields. Right?

DH: Yeah, that’s right.

JM: Amazing. All right, Doug Horne. Thank you so much, this has been extremely enlightening discussion and I personally appreciate what you’re saying. As far as I know you are one of the first government officials who is seen the inside information and who’s come out with the courage to say, Hey, this is an inside job, this was a coup d'état which of course fits all the known facts. I certainly appreciate that, particularly myself because, of course, you know, going back to, oh I think I published an article in 1975 that said that said this is a coup d'état and of course I was the conspiracy theorist. But it turns out that the conspiracy theorists were more right than wrong.

DH: They certainly have been, and I – in the 60’s Mark Lane, and Josiah Thompson blazed the trail and and they were followed by, you know, along with Jim Garrison, and they were followed by you, and David Lifton, and many others, and I’m standing on the shoulders of you people. So, we have to keep fighting the good fight, Jim.

JM: Well, truth will out, and I’m like you, I haven’t been in it because I had any preconceived ideas. I’ve been at the Kennedy Assassination because from the gitgo because I realized something was not right about all that and all I wanted was the truth and I submit and I reinforce and I reiterate what you said which is – Don’t believe us, just study the facts, and study the material, come to your own conclusions.

DH: Right.

JM: Doug, thank you so much, I appreciate you being with us today and this is your Dreamland sporadic host, Jim Marrs saying – Adios.

[ To 57:11 ] [ announcer tag to end – 57:36 ]

Transcribed and made available by Jerry Ellis.

Thanks JE


Related Info:

Alex Jones interviews Jim Marrs about JFK, the parallels to 911, JFK the Directors cut, and what went into the making of the movie

Debunk This! Part 6: J.F.K Conspiracy - Second Shooter

Conspiracy Theory With Jesse Ventura, Season 2 Episode 5 (JFK) 4 PARTS

The History Channel: JFK and 9/11

Bill Hicks on JFK: Two Critical lessons for the Citizens of the USA

Jim Garrison's (Kevin Costner's) Closing Argument / Final Speech - JFK

The JFK Assassination Autopsy Cover-up; Only One Picture is telling the Real story here:

This should be a laugh...