Say It Ain't So, Howard Zinn!

by Richard C. Cook


Global Research, May 4, 2009



Howard Zinn, 86-year old folk hero, activist, professor, historian, and author of one of the great books of American popular literature, A People’s History of the United States, is telling people that searching for the truth about what really happened on 9/11 "is a diversion."


Say it ain’t so, Howard Zinn!


He used the word "diversion" several times during an interview on The Real News Network with senior editor Paul Jay. http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=3553


Here are some excerpts:


"There are some issues that are interesting but are diversions from what we really have to do. This is one of them."

"Maybe there was a conspiracy. Who knows?"

"It’ll go on and on and on and people will write books and talk about it; it’ll be an enormous waste of good energy… I just don’t think that it leads anywhere."

....

Zinn: "It will never be clear. It will be one of those situations where nobody will ever be able to prove anything, and it will lead us nowhere."

To be fair to Zinn, he also states that "9/11 was used as an excuse by the Bush administration to go to war," but adds that what should be investigated is, "Why are there people in the world who want to blow up our buildings, who want to scare the American people, who want to do terrorist (things)," and who "are enraged by American foreign policy."

He says, "We should be concentrating on in what way is American foreign policy responsible for the terrorism that exist in the minds and hearts of so many people in the world and which in a small number of them results in violent acts."

...


http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13488



I have to think of Zinn, when he did the tour guide in the movie "The American Ruling Class (2005)" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0455906/

He said something like, "They will kill you" about the ruling class.

"Why are there people in the world who want to blow up our buildings, who want to scare the American people, who want to do terrorist (things)," and who "are enraged by American foreign policy?"

Good question. Thank you, Howard Zinn.

Many reasons, beginning with what the Bush administration felt was a good way to garner support to start wars of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq, and probably Pakistan next. Iran may be attacked by a U.S. proxy.

There may well be additional reasons, including political and monetary ones.

Millions have suffered. It is not a waste of time trying to figure out what really happened, so Zinn can go fly a kite. The babes of today need to know that the rich will eat them just as they've been feasting on innocents since 9/11.

What is a waste of time is dealing with the FOCTs here except to ruin their entertainment value they get here.

From now on, unless they really have something to say (ha!), they will be ignored as the useless discussion-phobes they are.

He's covering for Bushco, too? :eyes:

nt

What fantasies inspired you to say such a thing? It couldn't have come from my words.

There is a reason it is called "the dungeon".

:thumbsup: :hi: :toast:

As for Zinn, I refer him to the words of Michael Green:



Source: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Pardon-Our-Dust-or-Why-t-by-Michael-Green-090417-989.html

we thinks there are far simplier ways to accomplish this without destroying the WTC, and attacking the Pentagon.

I imagine some believed there was a simpler way than the burning of the Reichstag to kick-start the third reich as well. But boy did it work!

After 9/11, people commonly displayed bumper stickers and signs proclaiming, "Nuke 'em!" What are the "simpler" ways that would drive normally reasonable people to such insanity?

There are no other options to start a war of aggression than to destroy the WTC complex, kill 3000 innocent American lives, including children, and destroy part of the Pentagon (the home base for the folks supposedly trying to garner support for the war} and direct a hit on what was most likely to be the capital building.

After thinking about this, you're right there really was no alternatives. How could I have been so blind?

Alternatives that would cause a "Nuke 'em" mob mentality in so many Americans...

would be necessary in their opinion -- as I'm sure you recall!!!

They made clear that that's what it would take because the American
public wasn't going to buy an attack on Iraq.

They know exactly what you're talking about. That's why they play "hit and run hide" whenever things like PNAC are brought up. That is, if they can't somehow get your message deleted by claiming it's "hate speech" if you mention PNAC -- which to many of us, it IS!

"the highest hill" -- paranoia, warmongering -- they have it all!

And they've certainly been successful as seeing their wishes comes true -- coinicidentally...!!!!

Let me ask you some questions

1. Have you actually read the report. http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

2. The part of the report always referenced by CT'er is the "new Pearl Harbor" line.



Since you believe 9/11 was the "catastrophic and catalyzing event" created by "them" in order to execute a shortened "process of transformation" let me ask you a question; How have they done with the process of transformation since 2001. I would think a bright CT'er could read the goals outlined in the above link and point to progress in attaining these goals.

3. Can you point out where PNAC was advocating or even hinting that a war with Iraq was desirable?

Lared asks: ""How have they done with the process of transformation since 2001. I would think a bright CT'er could read the goals outlined in the above link and point to progress in attaining these goals.""

Your answer is in the PNAC..." the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.""

The goals outlined in the above PNAC quote got the jump start needed with the "New Pearl Harbor". It has been our argument all along. And here you post it and then ask if we could point to the progress made in a short period of time? WTF?

If anyone shows any silliness about PNAC it is you, Lared.

Within the PNAC document I linked to, there are specific goals laid out once the process of transformation is started. It supposedly started almost 8 years ago, so there must be some evidence of progress.

Please go back and answer the question.

There are new US military bases all over the middle East and right next to Russia. That's your progress.

""A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and
sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies.""

A strategy, they say, that projects force only from the US (homeland) without forward bases would be at odds with PNAC goals.

Pretty clear to me.

Your interpretation of a vague piece of boilerplate isn't what you are being asked to do. You are being asked to look at the specific goals laid out in the document and evaluate their progress.

Now you can keep playing games or not. It doesn't really matter. You have not done anything like what LARED asked you to do, and it is weird that you would pretend that you have.

the PNAC wrote a letter to Bill Clinton stating...

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

desirable.

Although I'm not sure I would wholly consider this as indicating desire.

This really sounds a lot more like believing Saddam was such a threat these actions were inevitable. Something lots of governments believed in 1998. We now know that was nonsense.

i'm proposing we send befree and nowhearthis to talk some sense into zinn. i'm thinking if they cannot get through to him. maybe nowhearthis can regale him with his fascinating theory that barbara olson didn't really die in a plane crash but was blown up explosives zinn apparently did not get the memo. we certainly cannot have zin going around ''suppressing the truth'', can we?

"Maybe there was a conspiracy. Who knows?" He apparently believes, conspiracy or not, time would be better spent on root issues. IMO he's mistaken about what those root issues are. Although the OCT consider anyone who doesn't see it their way to be an idiot, it doesn't sound like HZ thinks the official story is a slam dunk.

Has he ever denied it was?

There are far more important things to be doing than trying to out the perps you think did 9/11, he says.

I've been saying that last thing for quite a while. Many more important things to do than chase 9/11 fantasies, much more productive ways to occupy your time.

the attacks weren't Arab retaliation for US foreign policy, but an inside job designed to usher in the "new world order", both you and HZ are wrong about better ways to spend our time.

And it is rather amazing that the brutality and deception of our foreign policy

over 50 or more years -- more, that that's enough to deal with right now! --

hasn't actually lead to terrorist attacks on us.

Personally, I also think that the first attack on the WTC '93 was neo-cons pushing

for an attack on Iraq. They were pressing Clinton then to invade Iraq!

nt

And the author of the OP article is so desperately trying to not understand Zinn's very plain meaning.

ETA: And a quick search will reveal that Zinn has been saying this at least since November of last year.



No link because the place I found that Zinn quote isn't linkable here. But they are Zinn's words.

911 is just one rabbit hole but there's a whole bunch of bunnies running around down there and NOTHING is going to change if we don't get rid of them. JFK knew it and got himself killed for trying to cut off their rabbit food (Vietnam) and nobody since then has had any better luck.

People have defenses against too much horror, older people especially, and this really isn't his fight anyway -- it's ours. He's done his bit and deserves credit for it.

You're setting him on an ice floe to slowly drift away. What a difference!

I have no problem with that. He's done plenty already. This is more Fetzer's territory frankly, and I imagine others coming up we haven't heard of yet. Basically it's a kind of hybrid crime of state-sponsored terror and insurance fraud. It's kind of a newer phenom and not something Zinn would be up on.

Put the old geezer to bed with a bottle. He's done enough work. Rest his soul and let the younger bucks take up the charge.

:rofl:

Delusion is a sad thing. I shouldn't laugh. But when you won't listen to Howard Zinn so you can chase 9/11 fantasies, it's hard not to laugh.

It doesn't diminish his work in the areas he's been researching and writing about for years, but this simply isn't one of them.

That's Howard Zinn. Those are his words. You can pooh-pooh what he's saying, but he sounds pretty clear to me.

...that you, a person who appears to expend every waking moment on 9/11, should single out this quote.

If it's all so silly, why not let it go? Seems odd...

In the Asch experiments, participants were asked to say which of three lines was the same length as a fourth line. They were part of a group, but unknown to them, the other group members actually were confederates of the researchers, who deliberately gave a wrong answer. Over one third of participants were persuaded? bullied? to give the same wrong answer. But if a single confederate gave the correct answer, the error rate dropped sharply.

Many self-identified truth movement members live in a world where it's Obvious that the twin towers were brought down through controlled demolition, and/or that the Pentagon was hit by a missile, and/or that there were no plane crashes on 9/11 (etc., etc.). Their arguments often don't seem much better than the bald claim that two unequal lengths are equal, but they aren't worse. So, in order to make the most of the human capacity for reason, it is valuable to have at least one person arguing that those things aren't Obvious at all. People are more likely to come to the right conclusion -- whatever that may be -- if they hear both sides than if they hear only one.

I don't know if that is Bolo's reason. But it would be a pretty good one.

weight as truth, are you? It's a common mistake. Sort of like thinking that talking to a cop is "safe" if you don't have
anything to hide. It isn't. Savvy people know it's dangerous to do that. Likewise, giving equal weight to truth seekers
AND those whose (hidden, to one degree or another) goal is to undermine the truth is a game for chumps.

Of course, I can't guarantee that you will understand it any better then.

I have no way of knowing whether you believe any of your posts. Ultimately, it's immaterial.

Bolo is a confederate? Makes sense.

And I have to agree with you.

Tell lies and the people will follow. Obfuscate and the message becomes cloudy.

As an example, in this thread, your dear Bolo tried to make it seem I said throw Zinn under the bus. When it is quite evident that what I said was he could go fly a kite. Big dif, eh? You gonna call him on that? Haha. You won't. Why should you? You two are confederates.

Bushco was a master at those types of moves, were they not?

But there is no way for me to know that, either.

"Bushco was a master at those types of moves, were they not?"

Please read what Howard Zinn has said. I believe that you, too, are finding a way to avoid Zinn's clear meaning.

"Considering how the 9/11 tragedy has been used by the Bush administration to propel us into immoral wars again and again, I believe that David Ray Griffin's provocative questions about 9/11 deserve to be investigated and addressed." - Howard Zinn, on the back cover of 'Debunking 9/11 Debunking', published 2007.

Spin that, Bolo.

Now let's hear you say it.

Now let's hear you say it.

nt

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

what Noam Chomsky did re 9/11 which was shocking enough!!!

Zinn has at least not denied that this is probably a conspiracy . . .

I don't see that the investigators who are busy at this -- and like the JFK investigators
I imagine many do it in their spare time -- would be trying to change our foreign policy.
They would be people very concerned with those things, but with a talent for investigation
and what they are doing.

Among many of them there is certainly overall social conscience -- I think they intend their
work to STOP what has been going on with fascists intrusions on democratic government.
Again, I, personally, wouldn't fault Zinn for this -- I think he's quite frustrated that
Americans haven't come out into the streets. I agree. But, many have been awakened to this
reality by the challenges to the official story of 9/11.

And, btw, Michael Moore is working on a new documentary to come out next year on ...
"The Wonders of Capitalism" -- can't wait!

I love Howard Zinn -- and I love the investigators -- all of those who uncovered the truth
of the JFK coup -- and the other assassinations. Why would we ask William Pepper NOT to
investigate the what really went down in the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.???
And, for those who know the truth that William Pepper has revealed, IMO, we're much better off.

Americans have to begin to understand that the right only rises by assassination, political
violence, stolen elections. Would we ask others to stop investigating the rigging of computer
voting? I don't think so!

Everyone should be thanking the true investigators of 9/11 because the truth must be known - who is against the truth being known? Zinn? No, he just doesn't think it's a good way to spend his time. So what? With or without the approval of Zinn the search continues.

I believe it's a 100% safe bet that Zinn agrees with most people here except for the
tiny number (just kidding) of Untruthers.

Excellent post.

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2008/11/howard-zinn-noam-chomsky-daniel.html

by The Anonymous Physicist

Recently the outrageous comments from best-selling historian (“A People's History of the United States”) Howard Zinn, PhD have woken more people up as to the insidious nature of Zinn, and other alleged “anti-war” gatekeepers. Zinn (a former Rhodes Scholar) said that 9/11 “didn’t matter,” and that 9/11 truthers are “fanatics,” and other outrageous things. It is necessary to expose the little-known, deeper relationships, and reasons, involved in the gatekeeping of bogus, “leftist,” supposed “anti-war” personalities including Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Daniel Ellsberg, Gore Vidal, and Seymour Hersh. I will list the likely Op-Plan of each of these five individuals at the end of this article.

Zinn joins another celebrated, alleged “liberal,” “anti-war” public figure in disparaging the efforts, and people, involved in uncovering the facts of 9/11/01-- linguist Noam Chomsky, PhD. Both of these supposed critics of American Gov’t policies have also said similar things regarding the Assassination of President Kennedy. Either “Oswald alone did it” (Chomsky) or it doesn’t matter (Chomsky, Zinn). Of course, even the House Assassination Committee of the late 1970’s said there was a conspiracy, but Chomsky ignores that. I will now add another “celebrated anti-war activist” into this mix--Daniel Ellsberg, PhD-- and reveal one link amongst them. Ellsberg is famous for releasing the so-called Pentagon Papers, which purported to reveal the early history of the Vietnam “Conflict.” Ellsberg allegedly purloined/copied this “hidden history” from the Rand Corporation where he worked, and got it printed in the New York Times. Ellsberg was tried and acquitted for his actions. Many revere him for his “anti-war” efforts, as they do Zinn and Chomsky. Ellsberg claimed to have evaded the intelligence agencies’ desperate attempts to find him, by hiding out with, or being assisted by, his friend Zinn.

Now The Pentagon Papers are a clever mix of truth and lies. While it revealed that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was faked, it had ulterior motives. One was to pin the blame for the War on Vietnam on President Kennedy who, of course, was assassinated and could not defend himself. It became, in effect, a second assassination of Kennedy. He was killed in part for starting to withdraw the first 1,000 troops/advisors, and for revealing that by 1965, all U.S. troops would be out of Vietnam. And the Pentagon Papers are cleverly crafted to give the opposite impression. Again former Army Major John Newman’s book, “JFK and Vietnam” is definitive here. But, IMO, Wiki blows the long-term Op-Plan of these three, bogus “anti-war” activists, Zinn, Chomsky and Ellsberg, as here: “Daniel Ellsberg, a former RAND consultant who had secretly copied The Pentagon Papers, which described internal planning and policy decisions of the United States in the Vietnam War, gave a copy of them to Howard and Roslyn Zinn. Along with Noam Chomsky, Zinn edited and annotated the copy of The Pentagon Papers that Ellsberg entrusted to him. Zinn's longtime publisher, Beacon Press, published what has come to be known as the Senator Mike Gravel edition of The Pentagon Papers, four volumes plus a fifth volume with analysis by Chomsky and Zinn….” (See here) These three, I assert, have had a life-long Op of cleverly denigrating President Kennedy, and subsequently downplaying the regime’s assassination of him. The Pentagon Papers’ lies about Kennedy’s actions, and plans for Vietnam were an early part of Zinn’s, Chomsky’s and Ellsberg’s anti-JFK Op. So it is NOT a coincidence that these individuals continue to proclaim the Regime ’s 1963 stance on the Kennedy Assassination. And that the truth of JFK and 9/11 “doesn’t matter. Move on.”

But reading Ellsberg’s book, “Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers” only proved to me how blatant are the intel lies of Ellsberg. It’s funny how he claims to have given the slip to all the intel agencies while communicating with (phoning) Zinn, or hiding out with him. Knowing some of the technologies that the NSA, CIA, and FBI had only proves 1. He’s lying about this, and 2. That they knew everything, and that therefore he must be intel, along with Zinn. Ellsberg also brags about his far above, top-secret classification, greater than the President, while he was at the Pentagon and Rand. In the 1950’s, Ellsberg was a Marine Commander in Vietnam. Those who know the real history of the War on Vietnam know that almost all the first 15,000 “advisors” in Nam until after the JFK Assassination were CIA. Ellsberg, in 1962, received a Harvard PhD in Economics. Ellsberg began work at the Pentagon, in 1964, under Robert McNamara, the Defense Secretary. Then he returned to Vietnam, allegedly with the State Dept., but working under who he describes as his great friend-- Edward Lansdale. That despicable creature is well known as a CIA perp, exposed by Col. Fletcher Prouty for being in charge of the three tramps in Dallas, and who likely played a supervisory, Military Intel/CIA role in the Assassination.

Does any non-intel shill believe that it was a coincidence that Ellsberg’s very first day at the Pentagon was the day of the planned, bogus, intel Op that became known as the Gulf of Tonkin “attack.” Also note that the Gov’t’s highest civil service grade is GS-18, which is said to be the equivalent of a Major General in the Military. Ellsberg attained this level at the young age of 33 (naturally.) We have seen, even here at this blog, that when nefarious intel agents are involved in a treasonous crime, they are ordered to maintain their involvement for the rest of their lives. Their cover is often of a “liberal” or a “researcher,” or a “re-investigator.”

That Ellsberg book also has a quote from Richard Nixon, who was incredulous at his impending impeachment. Paraphrasing here, Nixon asked why they were going after him-- “I didn’t do anything as bad as Franklin Roosevelt, who knew the whole Pearl Harbor thing ahead of time.” But these three “musketeers'” role in creating the Pentagon Papers’ fiction of blaming the War on Vietnam on JFK, was an Op also shared with notorious CIA Assassin Eduardo Howard Hunt. One of his Plumbers’ jobs was to lie and and defame Kennedy as ordering the Assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem, and of planning to widen the Vietnam War.

Another celebrated, alleged anti-war author is Gore Vidal. He was an in-law of Jackie Kennedy. He takes every opportunity to denigrate JFK with the most corrupt, superficial lies on Cold War events. Again a book like, Newman’s “JFK and Vietnam” makes terribly clear how behind the scenes, Kennedy was desperately acting in secret for peace; while lying to his advisors, and sometimes to the public, about his plans. Gore forever ignores JFK’s firing the top three CIA perps after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, and Kennedy’s NSAM’s that emasculated the CIA and started the Vietnam withdrawal.

Similarly is celebrated anti-war journalist, Seymour Hersh. His first claim to fame was his being first to publicly report on the My Lai Massacre. http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2008/07/defeating-britishamerican-gestapo.html He was not “in-country”, contrary to misconception. One wonders if Hersh’s massacre numbers are downsized, as Hugh Thompson himself believed. Hersh is now known for also revealing details on the torture and rape of prisoners in the Abu Ghraib jail in Iraq. Again one wonders what, if anything, is still being held back by Hersh and the Gov’t? Perhaps a similar mass-murdering Phoenix-like Program? But Hersh’s Long-term Op is revealed with his JFK hit piece/book, “The Dark Side of Camelot,”. Some reviews of this book included, “In a Los Angeles Times review, Edward Jay Epstein cast doubt on these and other assertions, writing, "this book turns out to be, alas, more about the deficiencies of investigative journalism than about the deficiencies of John F. Kennedy." Responding to the book, historian and former Kennedy aide Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. called Hersh "the most gullible investigative reporter I've ever encountered." Hersh, of course, says Oswald alone did it, and JFK was responsible for the Bay of Pigs, and the Vietnam War. On the Bay of Pigs matter, a 2000 Washington Post article revealed that the CIA knew that the USSR knew the date and plans for the Bay of Pigs invasion; and did not call it off, or tell President Kennedy.

But such facts and findings rarely, if ever, cause the five “gentlemen” in this article to change their public denigration of Kennedy, or that “Oswald alone did it,” or that “it doesn’t matter.” So it is no surprise to honest conspiracy experts to see any or all of these five undercover gentlemen proclaim that 9/11 happened the way the Regime says it did -- even if physically impossible, and refuted by the evidence of nukes and China Syndrome Aftermath. See wtcdemolition.blogspot.com and wtc-chinasyndrome.blogspot.com

And this Ultimate Truth of 9/11 is, of course, also hidden/forbidden by nearly all the conspiracy, and 911-truther, websites, because they too are intel-controlled specifically for that reason.

Let me now summarize the Op-plan for each of these five insidious people--

Howard Zinn: The U.S. Gov’t did bad things IN THE PAST. Anything recent, JFK Assassination, 9/11 -- well those don’t matter, the Govt’ is mostly telling the truth about those. Forget about them, move on.

Noam Chomsky: The U.S. Gov’t does still do some bad things, but ONLY OVER THERE. Anything recent and IN THE USA, like the JFK Assassination, and 9/11 -- well they don’t matter, the Govt’ is mostly telling the truth about those. Forget about them, move on.

Daniel Ellsberg: JFK is responsible for the War on Vietnam. But Ellsberg’s Op is far more clever and covert than the two above. Ellsberg has come out for a new 9/11 investigation, and even that “the CIA may have been involved in the JFK Assn.” (Of course, it’s the entire top level of the Gov’t that was involved.) But his summary is always that “THE NEXT EVENT” will lead to this or that -- but it’s things that WE ALREADY HAVE -- like fascism. I could see Ellsberg being told to promote one of the intel agencies’ 9/11 Hangouts, like Thermite.

Gore Vidal: Oh, I knew JFK well. He was a terrible President, but a charming man. Oswald alone did it, and it doesn’t matter, because JFK was a terrible, sickly, drugged, corrupt President. Remember I knew him, I was an in-law. Vidal is in the new “Zero” 9/11 movie. I have not seen that, but was told it pushes the Thermite Intel Hangout.

Seymour Hersh: JFK was a terrible, sickly, drugged, corrupt President. Oswald alone did it, and it doesn’t matter. And 9/11: 19 Arabs did it, but our foreign policy response has been atrocious. The Gov’t has terribly over-reacted; we should stop doing those bad things overseas.

So this article has revealed the insidious, hidden nature of celebrated, alleged, anti-war activists. It even revealed how several of them have known each other well for decades, and the great likelihood that they were protected by the Gov’t in an Intel Op -- the Pentagon Papers legend -- as this legend is over the top for those in the know. The Regime does reveal its great fears when its deep undercover assets screw up and reveal themselves, as Zinn recently did. The two things that clearly worry the Gestapo Regime remain the truth of the Kennedy Assassination -- Secret Service Agent Greer’s shooting Kennedy in the head, and the truth of 9/11 -- the WTC was nuked and the China Syndrome Aftermath resulted. Therefore, these are the facts that we must promote far and wide!

I even recently revealed here http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2008/11/ultimate-truths-part-xiii-nuclear.html that the major reason that President Kennedy was killed may have been because he wanted to wrest control of nukes and ICBMs from the military.

Don’t you see one event that would never have occurred if JFK had lived, and had successfully wrested control of nukes from the Military/Intel? The nuclear bombing of the World Trade Center on 9/11/01! The two events are indeed linked at the deepest level. John Fitzgerald Kennedy knowingly died trying to prevent events like 9/11, and the ensuing bogus wars.

F'n interesting. And it makes sense. Man, I love DU. Where else can you get eye-opening exposures like this on a regular basis?

That thermite idea.... something to think about, fer sure. Hope is that people will read this with an open mind. If they can't, well screw 'em.

for example, the author claims that a secret service agent actually delivered jfk's fatal head shot. why, someone would have to be very ''closed-minded'' not to beieve claptrap like that, right? fucking unbelievable.

Gore Vidal for example mentioned the role of NORAD on 911, his father helped to set it up.
And he is not only featured in the movie "Zero", but in other 911 truth films also.

It's the old everbody is an agent, if he doesn't believe my version story

One way the perps do their magic is to keep everything in the box of "nothing conclusive can be determined." This prevents anything more than blathering on and on, arguing on and on, from ever happening. Works like a charm, too.

Although I don't disagree with the general thrust of laying the "gate keeper" epithet at the feet of those named and I don't necessarily disagree that they are "controlled" to one degree or another (my motto: Whomever controls your perception of reality controls you.), disinformation is always more true than not. It is the 'not so true' you have to watch out for.

So I ask, in what way is the thermite evidence a 'hang out'? What has been found and exposed is a highly refined nano incendiary. That is, something which could only be produced in a military run laboratory. More over, its existence is no longer hypothetical but has been clearly, scientifically established. So, in what since is this a 'hang out'? Who benefits from this disclosure? How does this disclosure get the US government and the deep state mechanisms behind it off the hook?

By comparison, has the "The nuclear bombing of the World Trade Center on 9/11/01" been proven? Hypothesized by some, yes, but proven? And yet this author holds this up as the litmus test and by doing so casts aspersions toward those whose research has shown the existence of nano-thermite. Who benefits from this unsubstantiated contention being cast into the information stream?

I'll also note that the author is, apparently, "anonymous."

So, who are the disinformation agents? Who benefits by degrading one line of inquiry that has substantial physical evidence to back it up over another line of inquiry which is more hypothetical? This divide and conquer tactic should be familiar to all by now. Don't play their game.


typo

Nah, but it was interesting. I try to keep an open mind and this was fairly new information (in the whole) to me. I guess some might feel that I was subscribing to the whole thing but that is their problem, not mine. Hell, I don't even remember most of it, but I do remember seeing that hang out thing and thinking it has problems.

The gist of it was that we should not trust anything or anybody without a thorough vetting over time. Believe me, on issues such as this I almost never do. Hell, I even suspect you sometimes,lol, even tho you've not given me much reason to not, it's just how I operate. Like a friend of mine says about me: "You don't trust anybody".

Could it be? Could it have happened that way? Those are the questions first and foremost to me. After passing that filter then available facts are weighed and only then on matters such as with 9/11 does my belief system begin to take shape.

I don't know what really happened. No one here does, but we are getting there. We may never know the whole shebang, but we're getting there. You need to post more.

Are they perfect - do I agree with them always -- NO!

Of course, JFK was killed because he was ending the Cold War in every way he could-

including by making it laughable. Yes, Hunt was working out of NIXON's White House

to create fake cables suggesting that JFK had ordered the assassination of the Diem

Bros. JFK did not -- but that event took place about two weeks before he was assassinated.

Meanwhile, re the JFK assassination, certainly Greer was responsibile for keeping the car

in the assassination zone until JFK was mortally wounded -- but completely disagree that

Greer fired a shot. But, they keep trying on that one!



Ellsberg was tried and acquitted for his actions.

I think you have to mention here that the charges against Ellsberg were actually dropped
because of the Nixon-ordered breakin to Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office...

Daniel Ellsberg: Biography from Answers.com
... illegal break‐in of Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office in Los Angeles in September ... but the charges were dismissed because of government tampering. ...www.answers.com/topic/daniel-ellsberg - 135k - Cached

It's equally likely, in my opinion, that the reason why Greer slowed down in the "kill zone" is because he panicked
whenever he realized that he might be driving into an ambush. Gunsmoke puffs were observed (by civilian eyewitnesses) coming from in front and to the right (from Greer's perspective) and it's possible that he and/or Roy Kellerman saw them. If so, that would
certainly add to his anxiety and understandable fear that he might be driving the president directly into the line of fire.

No one was supposed to have been allowed up on the triple underpass railroad tracks except for the two DPD officers assigned to
that location and though Greer claimed that he didn't notice the 10-12 civilians who were also there, it's likely that he actually did observe them and just said that he didn't (perhaps so as to not lend credence to the notion that shots were fired from in front of the limo).

The hole in the limo's windshield (described by some as a "thru
and thru hole that you could put a pencil thru" - and that hole was later examined and though it's disputed, it was asserted that the hole was made from an in-coming missile fired from in front of the limo) and the sound and site of that may well have been noticed by Greer and Roy Kellerman. Something else that would heighten his fear that
he was headed into a kill zone.

Because of the above, Greer's actions could be (reasonably) interpreted as innocent, in my opinion.

To Untruthers: yes, I'm aware of and have listened to the only known recording of an interview with Mr. Greer - and I'm aware that
he denies that he stopped the car, that he didn't notice the people on the triple underpass, and that he said he believes that all
of the shots originated from behind the limo. Mr. Greer was not generally regarded as being of a superior intellect, but he had been in Government service long enough to know not to make waves.

I'm open minded and could be persuaded that I'm wrong about Mr. Greer, but as of now, I don't believe he was a knowing actor who
played any intentional role in the conspiracy to murder President Kennedy.

The gun smoke was coming from the Grassy Knoll -- it shows up in some photos --
though I haven't seen them lately!

Yarborough comments on smelling the gunfire -- and it also drifts down to street level --
or it was the smoke from a gun by someone hiding in the sewer. A number of investigators
have shown that would be the angle required to reproduce one of the shots at JFK's head.

Different take on why Greer slowed down momentarily
It's equally likely, in my opinion, that the reason why Greer slowed down in the "kill zone" is because he panicked
whenever he realized that he might be driving into an ambush. Gunsmoke puffs were observed (by civilian eyewitnesses) coming from in front and to the right (from Greer's perspective) and it's possible that he and/or Roy Kellerman saw them. If so, that would
certainly add to his anxiety and understandable fear that he might be driving the president directly into the line of fire.

Greer would have likely been selected because he was NOT likely to "panic" --
they are trained to take off if there is shooting. PLUS there should have been Secret
Service Agents riding on the side of the limo - they are also missing -- making the limo
even more vulnerable. I'm sure Greer was aware that those agents were "pulled."

Jean Hill saw that the limo came to a complete stop -- I think for something like 10 seconds --
UNTIL the fatal shots were fired -- some say a number of them simultaneously.
Greer, then, supposedly looked back as if to check that JFK was mortally wounded -- and THEN
he took off.

If you track Greer, you'll find he has some very right-wing connections . . .
I'll see if I can find the info -- it's been a long time since I've thought about it.

No one was supposed to have been allowed up on the triple underpass railroad tracks except for the two DPD officers assigned to
that location and though Greer claimed that he didn't notice the 10-12 civilians who were also there, it's likely that he actually did observe them and just said that he didn't (perhaps so as to not lend credence to the notion that shots were fired from in front of the limo).

Shots have been tracked to the Grassy Knoll -- possibly to a low sewer location right there --
and to the TSBD -- and to the building behind it . . . I haven't heard that anything came from
the overpass.

The hole in the limo's windshield (described by some as a "thru
and thru hole that you could put a pencil thru" - and that hole was later examined and though it's disputed, it was asserted that the hole was made from an in-coming missile fired from in front of the limo) and the sound and site of that may well have been noticed by Greer and Roy Kellerman. Something else that would heighten his fear that
he was headed into a kill zone.

I agree that eye-witness evidence says there was a hold in the windshield made from the front.
However, Greer evidently didn't testify to the "incoming" damage to the windshield -- at least
not that I've ever seen mentioned.

LBJ was able to keep that well covered up by shipping the limo out immediately and having
the windshield replaced. LBJ also immediately had the entire limo washed out -- washing away
evidence.

The Grassy Knoll was "in front" of the limo.


Because of the above, Greer's actions could be (reasonably) interpreted as innocent, in my opinion.

From what I've read of Greer, I can't agree. I'll see what I can find on him and pass it along
to you.

To Untruthers: yes, I'm aware of and have listened to the only known recording of an interview with Mr. Greer - and I'm aware that
he denies that he stopped the car, that he didn't notice the people on the triple underpass, and that he said he believes that all
of the shots originated from behind the limo. Mr. Greer was not generally regarded as being of a superior intellect, but he had been in Government service long enough to know not to make waves.

And, yes, Greer can deny it because it looks like the "stop" was taken out of the Zapruder film.
I'll take Jean Hill's testimony as fact.

And, further, that he testified that ALL of the shots originated from behind!


I'm open minded and could be persuaded that I'm wrong about Mr. Greer, but as of now, I don't believe he was a knowing actor who
played any intentional role in the conspiracy to murder President Kennedy.

If what you posted is what you based your opinion on, it seems slim.
When I can, I'll check for more info on Greer.

it still doesn't give particulars on the private Greer . . .
I'll look for that when I can --

but it's interesting on the Zapruder film --
and evidently the STOP was taken out.

There's a lot at this website if you haven't seen it before --
I have seen it, but taking another look at it.

trying to defend what I've learned from many years of studying the case. If you feel that some or all of what you've said is
based on facts which are in the record or which can be inferred from the record, then I'd be happy to take a look at it.

so if there is something specific about a "record" say what it is you're interested in.

How important is it to you to defend Greer . . . especially after he denied that any
shots came from the front?

Again -- when I have time to run down the info on Greer, I'll pass it along to you.

:)

That had me rofl'ing because I've heard Vidal say as much many times, in interviews and articles, and the irony is that he's been dining out on his Kennedy connection for his entire adult life. Basically it's his calling card and claim to fame, much more so than his Gore connection, which was probably about as profitable as Billy Carter's was to Jimmy.

So I find this theory very plausible. Ellsberg, I dunno, Zinn, it's not too hard to imagine, but Hersh, Chomsky, and Vidal, it's pretty obvious. Maybe it's the pleasure they take in it.

On the other hand, the fact is that the intel guys are evil, unrestrained, and ruthless, and if you want to keep breathing, it's better not to point that out. That's probably why the Kennedys themselves have been generally pretty quiet about the assassinations, at least publicly. One exception was John Jr., who once put out an edition of George called the Conspiracy Issue, a tragic mistake as it appears.

He said, "Governments Lie" and he said, "If you tell the truth, they will kill you"

Something you could be doing instead of chasing 9/11 truth fantasies...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3862225&mesg_id=3862225

Single-payer on the table, single-payer now!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Zinn said there are more important things to concentrate on besides chasing 9/11. I provided an example of one. That is perfectly within the parameters of the OP.

For a new member here, you certainly do have an interesting take of what I've done "over the years."

Thin-skinned?

Especially about other DU members? Less attack and bickering, more dealing with real issues. It's what Howard Zinn is counseling us to do.

Unfortunately, the same can't be said about everybody here.

make a factually inaccurate statement. As the OP clearly states, Zinn wants people to stop chasing 9/11 and start concentrating on more important issues. I provided one. That's not hijacking at all.

it's silly to claim you don't.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

factually inaccurate statements?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You have no way of knowing who or how many (if any) people alerted on your post -- but you can be certain that Bolo did not have your post deleted. The decision whether to remove a post is the exclusive purview of the moderators.

Asking another poster "Why did you have my post deleted?" isn't even like asking "How long have you been beating your wife?" A poster can beat his wife, but no poster (other than a moderator) can have your post deleted.

If you're inclined to attack the moderators, you could at least criticize them directly. However, the appropriate way to raise concerns about moderation decisions is privately and directly with the moderators.

I'd be very surprised if that's the case. They'd go crazy. Most of the posts are little different from day to day.

Thanks for your concerned interest.

Your choice.

Paid to lead progressives away from unacceptable truths. Ask him who killed JFK. Chomsky's another one. They tell 3/4 of the truth to protect the remaining 1/4.