Wednesday, November 27, 2013

Lawsuit Against NIST On the Way

A small group of engineers is planning to sue NIST for the fraudulent 2008 report that was supposed to explain the 9/11 collapse of WTC7, in an effort that will presumably involve AE9/11Truth. Kevin Ryan exposed the fraudulent non-explanation in 2011, and newly uncovered data confirms Ryan´s conclusion: NIST´s progressive collapse theory relies on a "girder walk-off" premise that is demonstrably false, and without the toppling of the first domino, the theory is invalid.

NIST´s suspicious computer animation depicts thermal expansion of five floor-beams (under the north-east corner of the thirteenth floor) pushing one end of a girder off the seat that attaches it (and the floor that rests on it) to the critical vertical column (#79); This small section of the floor then collapses and takes down with it a few floors below it, which leads to the failure of column #79 because it is lacking the horizontal support from those floors (stop Ryan´s video at 2 min. to see the girder/column); The failure of this single column (#79) then allegedly leads to a domino-effect that results in the incredible implosion of WTC7. You will have to have faith in NIST, because no-one is allowed to verify the model input data.

NIST´s initial failure mechanism requires the heated floor-beams to push the critical girder 6.25 inches. To understand what happens at 6.25 inches it is important to note that the girder is an I-beam, and that the central vertical element is the "web", while the horizontal elements are the "flanges". NIST assumes that the girder falls off the seat because 6.25 inches is enough to move the web past the seat, and the flange alone is too soft to support the weight -  see video.

Kevin Ryan pointed out in 2011 that NIST omitted the fact that it had calculated the maximum possible heat-expansion as 4.75 inches, and Kawika et al. are now revealing that the girder "walk-off" cannot happen, even given the impossible 6.25 inches: NIST omitted the stiffener plates at the end of the girder, which stiffen the bottom flanges and prevent this type of failure!

NIST has responded by stating that it was legit to omit the "web crippling plates" because analysis did not indicate web failure, which of course omits the fact that the plates also stiffen the flanges.

For more information about the debunked 2008 NIST report, read Chris Sarns´ 5-part article for AE9/11Truth:

Part One: No evidence for the fire responsible for the thermal expansion

Part Two: Magical Thermal Expansion

Part Three: Omitted Girder Sheer Studs

Part Four: Debris Damage Fiction

Part Five: Non-Existent Diesel Fuel Fire

Saturday, November 23, 2013

JFK: A Conspiracy Theory

Everything you wanted to know about the JFK assassination in under 5 minutes. The Warren Commission: connecting the dots so you don't have to!

A brief Corbett Report summation of Oswald, the assassination, the Warren Commission investigation and the media.

Friday, November 22, 2013

Proving a JFK Conspiracy Without Debating the Magic Bullet


From the reviews:

"Definitive, documented, incisive and dead-on analysis in 5 volumes, - Doug Horne's scholarship is so far beyond the ken of his critics that they would do well to read his books, learn from them, and apologize to him. His work should, and I believe eventually will be, recognized as the most comprehensive, definitive and documented collection of 'what we know' about the hijacking of the American government in the 1963 tragedy we refer to as 'the Kennedy assassination.' The truth will out." - Steven Kossor 

"Doug Horne's Inside the Assassination Records Review Board (IARRB) is the most important book to be published on the assassination of President Kennedy in decades, not only because it changes the way we look at that murder, but in showing how the remaining issues can be resolved by determining the truth.

All the debates end here, and the arguments are replaced with questions that were posed but not answered when the Assassination Records Review Board was alive and ostensibly overseeing the declassification and release of the government's JFK assassination records... "
- Bill Kelly


The Kennedy Assassination - Jim Marrs Interviews Doug Horne 


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...

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

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 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 and they’ll print it upon demand within one day or day and a half at the most of when you order it at 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


Proof of a JFK Assassination Plot Without Debating a Magic Bullet

Thursday, November 21, 2013

Debunking 'JFK: The Smoking Gun' - A Response to Questions about the Film

In an online discussion I was told to watch the documentary JFK: The Smoking Gun which some friends thought provided a good explanation to the killing - that Secret service Agent Hickey accidentally fired the fatal head shot . Having some understanding of the case I ventured the following reply:

I just watched the doco and I have report it is another railroading of material. You can check what I am saying by Googling the Warren Commission testimony to see if the doco is being truthful. It's not all bad because the show states that the official account cannot be true. That's a good starting point.

The present McLaren case is based closely on the work of the Howard Donahue hypothesis. McLaren claims he 'forensically' examined the Warren Commission data but this looks to be false because he should have recognised multiple witness testimony to 4 shots - whereas he says there were only three in the scenario presented. He tells us the witnesses should lead us to solving the case but I don't think he followed his own advice. Implicitly he also fully believes much of the official account - key aspects of which have been shown to be highly improbable, if not false. [like the Magic bullet theory]

At the start of the show we see that both McLaren and CBS TV (via their shooting recreation) doubt Oswald could have fired the three shots that the Warren Commission says were fired. The CBS recreation itself has problems because their 'car' does not slow down during the test firing. Anyway, like the testimony in the WC, the doco says that two of the shots were fired in quick succession - too fast for Oswald. The problem we face is that the show wants us to think that Oswald only fired twice and the Secret Service guy once. It says one shot missed because all researchers agree, including the WC - that a bullet struck the sidewalk. Consequently we are now stuck with ONE bullet hitting both JFK in the back and then Connelly - the magic bullet - to cause all the injuries.

McLaren and Donahue believe the magic bullet tale and that the bullet, Exhibit 399, smashed through tissue and bone to be only slightly deformed. E399 is clearly planted evidence. There is no way that bullet broke bone. Watch Mythbusters shooting stuff with various rounds, or even water with a high powered rifle, and see what happens. That slug didn't hit anything like bone.

Also, Governor Connelly clearly recalls that he heard gunfire, that the President had already been hit, when he was turning in his car seat and was THEN hit. The Zapruder film actually backs up his account. This means there were at least two separate hits and the miss into the sidewalk (3 shots) up to this point.

Furthermore, Oswald could not have shot Kennedy in the back and Connelly with the same bullet.

The actual location of the wound in JFK's back was at least 5 inches below the bottom of his collar, NOT in his lower neck. Even [with JFK] leaning forward Oswald's shot could not possibly line up with Connelly. Google image JFK jacket and then JFK shirt. It has been claimed that JFK's jacket rode up so that it only looked like he was struck low but his shirt could not have performed the same manoeuvre if it was tucked into his pants. In any event the folding -especially the shirt- cannot make up four or five inches of distance.

The show has serious problems with how it handles the witnesses they highlight and how they don't fully relate what they say to railroad their hypothesis.

The testimony of James Humes M.D. represents the material put out by the Bethesda examination that was by all accounts very poorly handled - it appears to be a fraud. The show mentions the gag order placed on people in attendance which the radiologist later in show, Jerrol Custer, recalls. Custer in other interviews points to a cover-up of the forensic data and indicates a large wound to the rear of JFK's skull.

Humes' account conflicts with those at Parkland who saw a large exit wound in the right rear portion of JFK's skull. This is one of the main problems with the show in relation to the forensics - it takes the overall WC conclusions at face value in terms of vetting/accepting evidence. It ignored conflicting testimony and photographs including those conflicting pictures from the autopsy (ie the shirt and the head taken from the side pic). 

The show completely ignored what occurred at Parkland beyond the argument with the Secret Service. No mention is made of the accounts by the medical staff who viewed the body of the President.

When it came to linking the head shot to Secret Service agent Hickey the show makes only one claim it supports with testimony - that of Sam Holland who said he saw the SS agent pull a weapon after the first shot. The show leaves out the fact that this is the same Sam Hickey who stood on the overpass with other witnesses and stated he saw a white puff of smoke coming from the grassy knoll. The affidavit read by the actor playing Hickey only spoke the last three or four sentences from his Dallas testimony. They left out the fact that he said he heard 4 gunshots and saw the smoke from the knoll.

The other two witnesses appearing in the show, the police officer and Senator Ralph Yarborough say they saw the SS gun pulled at a time after the last shot. These people do not say they saw any gun before this point. We are then told that there are other witnesses to the gun being pulled before the final shot. This is not a convincing argument in light of these examples.

One point that comes out in the doco is the fact that gunsmoke was smelt by many at ground level - indicating at least one shooter in relatively close proximity.

Final point. All the evidence coming directly from the authorities, who were shown in the doco to be involved in a cover-up of some kind, must be suspect and their material treated carefully. Even the Zapruder film appears to be altered. A witness to an early screening before it was confiscated says that their was white spray all over the place during the head shot and that it lasted for a while - much longer then the red blotch we see today. Also the cop on the bike got blasted with brain matter and so did the SS agents in the car behind (the latter example clearly mentioned in the doco). This seems indicative of a substantial rear exit wound.

The 'JKF: Smoking Gun' doco does not substantiate its hypothesis. Some its claims are refuted or are impossible considering a fuller account of the specific points it raises. Apologies for the long winded reply, but if I just made a short retort that would not help much in understanding the problems with such a slick production. 

I found a very short and concise refutation of the Howard Donahue hypothesis that can be found at the following link:

Did a Secret Service Agent Accidentally Shoot JFK in the Head?

It's a quick read that respectfully addresses the failings of Donahue's analysis. Thanks for making it this far if you have read to the end! :) 

Related Info:

The Men Who Killed Kennedy - Part 7 - The Smoking Guns
Excellent eyewitness recounting of the evidence of multiple shooters and frontal shots plus the cover-up.

JFK: The 'Official' Conspiracy Theory
Why is the establishment so desperate to reinforce the official narrative behind the assassination of JFK 50 years later?

The truth about JFK will open a very large can of worms - and has already done so to a degree.

Wednesday, November 20, 2013

Conspiracy to Tell the Truth: Interview with Lance deHaven-Smith [MUST SEE CLIP]

Abby Martin talks to Lance deHaven-Smith, Florida State University professor and author of 'Conspiracy Theory in America', about some the US' most controversial events and how labeling truth-seekers as 'conspiracy theorists' damages democracy.

Awesome history lesson on disinformation and a discussion about applying logic to suspicious circumstances. Everyone can ask questions, what is important is seeing what evidence there is that either supports or refutes the suspicions. Provable facts count, on a case by case basis, not generalisations. However, when we have a record of State criminality then it is rational to be immediately suspicious of many terrorist events.

Just remember the term 'State Crimes Against Democracy'. High level corruption doesn't just happen in third world dictatorships. A basic lesson for those unaware of the propaganda and corruption that surrounds us.

Friday, November 15, 2013

A Cheap and Effective Way to Spread the Word about the Campaign

These ReThink911 stickers are effective, inexpensive ways to get 9/11 into the minds of everyone you know – and don’t.

Price $0.99
5 or more $0.80 each
10 or more $0.70 each
20 or more $0.55 each

Find this and many other great items in the store. I myself just chipped in with a friend on 500 of the ReThink911 Street Brochures, after having previously purchasing 100 myself. 

My friend can be seen handing them out in a video on my previous post, "Help to Spread the Word About With This Street Brochure," while in front of the NY Times building in NYC. Which as many readers know currently has a 29-foot by 13-foot billboard directly adjacent to it, that calls out the Times for their lack of coverage of the campaign (which thus far has resulted in exactly the same amount of non-coverage, see related link below).  

I on the other hand opted to just to hang my fliers up about my area like so. There is no shortage of creative ways to use these tools to inform people once you get to brainstorming, so please consider doing your small but important part in raising more awareness to this important and historic effort. The Times isn't doing their job so we have to continue on being the media and change we want to see.



No catch whatsoever, just a free bumper sticker at below link. I've gotten several other free bumper stickers from this site in the past and just finished the short form to receive the one above. There are seven others to choose from.


Petition: Join the Now Over 584,000 Others Asking the NSA to Stop Watching Us

Read the following article and then answer the question at the end: Do you still believe that the government is only spying on bad guys in “targeted” searches?

Security Expert: “We Have To Assume That The NSA Has EVERYONE Who Uses Electronic Communications Under CONSTANT Surveillance”

Thursday, November 14, 2013

Conspiracy theory FAQ, part 2

The previous essay in this series examined a wide variety of the 'skeptical' claims which deny government involvement into the 911 attacks. Most of them folded like a cheap stack of cards once subjected to rigorous, informed scrutiny. More arguments will be addressed in this essay, and be warned, some of the answers will be jarring to those who identify as american nationalists. Very distasteful (but entirely deserved) comparisons will be drawn between modern america and nazi germany. As before, this essay will deal with some historical nuances, engineering know-how, and human behaviour during times of crisis. First off is a claim that sees universal usage amongst the debunkers, one which has (in the interest of fairness) been strengthened to make for better fodder.

The discovery of molten steel at ground zero does not by itself contradict the official collapse hypothesis: Obviously, fire CAN melt steel - blacksmiths have been doing it for hundreds of years! In fact, they don't even need high temperature fuel like kerosene to do it - simple coal will suffice!
This is a double pronged claim, which alleges that not only can ordinary fires generate temperatures hot enough to melt steel, but that such temperatures were present at the WTC complex. For this, we need to draw a distinction between open air fires and a blast furnace. Melting large quantitys of steel requires a fire pit with excellent thermal insulation, a gigantic fuel supply, and massive amounts of forced air (three pre-requisites that the WTCs simply did not have). Even then, heating the material to the necessary temperature can take hours! Anyone with a basic understanding of metallurgy knows this. Although with that being said, what matters most in this triangle is the sum total of BTUs your fire generates, which can be satisfied without having all three conditions in perfect balance: By massively overcompensating with fuel load, for example, you can potentially melt very small quantitys of steel with merely an okay air supply and insulation. We actually saw this happen in the 1987 kings cross fire, and again in the 1991 oakland fire. These frightening blazes were largely the result of flashover, air currents, unsafe quantitys of combustibles, and the trench effect. On the other hand, burning down an entire house or neighbourhood just to melt a few pounds of steel is a lousy trade off, and in no way comparable to the conditions of ground zero, where many tons of molten steel were being found in the days, weeks, and even months following the 911 attacks. Steel does not have a thermal inertia high enough to remain molten for more than a few hours after the initial heat was supplied.
Hence, the persistent flow at ground zero is a question which goes even beyond the ability of a controlled demolition to explain: We are talking about energy output on the scale of a nuclear reactor. While further experiment is required to determine exactly what caused this staggering heat, we can safely rule out the notion that it was the result solely of smouldering hydrocarbons! As a final nail in the coffin to the debunker argument (that open air fires were responsible for the rivers of molten steel seen pouring from the twin towers), we can sidestep the need for idle speculation by going directly towards the existing literature. This includes two very relevant sets of stoichiometric calculations done by 911 researchers *. In them, a wide array of variables are taken into account, and every benefit of a doubt is given to the official story. We can confidently gauge the average temperatures in the impact zones as hovering at 120 celsius, with even the hot spots not exceeding 260 celsius or so. This isn't even sufficient to melt lead, let alone the aluminum which debunkers insist was systematically identified as steel! More damaging yet, temperatures of 260 celsius are totally unable to bring about a creep failure of the twin towers, even given the most pessimistic interpretations of the plane impacts. While some may deride the two sets of calculations as mere hypotheticals, their predictions are firmly backed up by the thermograms of both towers taken shortly after the crashs of flights 11 and 175. Theory manages to connect firmly with reality for once, which is more than we can say for our debunker friends.


Two other excellent articles on this subject are:

Here's another reason the 9/11 fire-mediated collapse theory has to be wrong, by Joseph Smith.
Simple calculations showing that the official story of 911 is false, by James Madison.
Explosives are not needed to explain the twin towers collapse. Even if the upper block had fallen by just half a meter, it would have generated enough kinetic energy to result in a global collapse.
The validity of this claim is dependant on a number of unspecified factors. Assuming a piledriver mass of 45,000 tons for WTC 1 and 86,000 tons for WTC 2, this motion would yield a KE of only 220.43 and 421.26 megajoules, respectively. This is a stress level well below what is needed to buckle the buildings supports. Thus, a typical column on column collision would result in only minor damage to the towers. In order to get something more destructive, the debunker must specify one of two conditions: Either the upper block fell from a greater height than half a meter, or the columns of the two opposing structures somehow missed each other. The former would require suddenly voiding an entire floors worth of beams and columns from existence, which simply can't be done by an asymmetric process like office fires. The latter would require the presence of some angular motion which would tilt the upper block before (not after) its impact with the lower structure, so that the load is redistributed onto the towers flimsy floors. But other than having the entire north or south face of the building blown out with explosives (thus clearing a path for the piledriver to descend through), no one knows how the block could be made to tip over like that. Suffice to say, collapse initiation is a major problem for the official story of 911. So despite the predictions made in professor bazants work, global collapse resulting from office fires is far from inevitable. It needs to be kept in mind that many falsitys have been inserted into this discussion via his papers. For example, because the core columns were ten times less stiff than bazant estimated, dynamic loads would be absorbed by the structure over a longer period of time, leading to less damage. This, when combined with the buildings high reserve capacity, would make a 31 G load amplification very unlikely. Even with an intact block exerting its full weight on the lower structure, the resulting collapse (for WTC 1) would take 31.29 seconds to reach ground level.

There is no need to get into the specifics of the alleged 911 conspiracy. The simple fact that truthers have not managed to get even one scientific paper published in a mainstream, peer reviewed journal is enough to fatally undermine the credibility of such fantasys.

Yeah, this is complete nonsense. Such statements attempt to create a fictional criterion, wherein the only way that government complicity in scenario x can be firmly established, is through the scientific method. This ignores the fact that such atrocitys were politically and ideologically motivated, and that the case could conceivably be proven through paper trails and death bed confessions alone. Thus, the privilege of passing final judgement on the issue should not be relinquished to those whose expertise lies only in the scientific medium: The burden of proof can span across numerous parameters. Moreover, even if we were to agree with the flawed premise of the debunker argument, it is still completely false! There are a half dozen such papers discussing physical evidence which have managed to gain entry into mainstream scientific journals, and even more entrys which have been published in open access mediums (even if we ignore those which focus on political and social science). A full listing of the most credentialed articles will be posted below.

-Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis, by Tony Szamboti. / International Journal of Protective Structures.
-Temporal Considerations in Collapse of WTC Towers, by Gregory Szuladzinski. / International Journal of Structural Engineering.
-Discussion of "Why the Observed Motion History of World Trade Center Towers is Smooth", by Crockett Grabbe. / Journal of Engineering Mechanics.
-Environmental Anomalies at the World Trade Center: Evidence for Energetic Materials, by K. Ryan, J. Gourley and S.E. Jones. / The Environmentalist.
-Discussion of “What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York?”, by Anders Bjorkman. / Journal of Engineering Mechanics.
-What accounts for the molten metal observed on 9/11/2001?, by Steven E. Jones. / Journal of the Utah Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters.
-Discussion of "Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Center: A Simple Analysis", by Crockett Grabbe. / Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

-Collapse Time Analysis of Multi-Story Structural Steel Buildings, by Robert Korol. / Open Journal of Civil Engineering (Bentham Open).
-Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction. / Open Journal of Chemical Physics.
-Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe. / Open Journal of Civil Engineering (Bentham Open).
-Calculations on the Possible Use of Thermite to Melt Sections of the WTC Core Columns,
by Derrick Grimmer. / Department of Mathematics, Washington University in St. Louis.
-The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training, by Nila Sagadevan. / School of Engineering, University of Edinburgh.

The reason why conspiracy theorys like this surface is because some people simply don't have what it takes to face up with hard reality. It is too frightening for them to believe that there are people on the other side of the world who will kill americans out of religious fervour.

Actually, the 'reality' broadcast to us by mass media outlets after the September 11th attacks is far less frightening than the reality which is more than merely hinted at by the existing evidence base. Instead of bearded time lords hiding in a cave, we have the daunting prospect of a government which can engage in outrageous crimes against humanity, and get away with them almost scott-free. Instead of wild-eyed terrorists hiding in our closets at night, we have an anti-human regime which exercises near absolute power over the world, and can literally rewrite history at the drop of a hat. Many facets of the state apparatus previously unknown to citizen dissidents made their debut on 911, including the existence of a domestic murder program. Humanitys greatest fear has never been of the distant other, but the distorted evil revealed in his own mirror-reflection.

"The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. The American mind simply has not come to a realisation of the evil which has been introduced into our midst. It rejects even the assumption that human creatures could espouse a philosophy which must ultimately destroy all that is good and decent."
-J. Edgar Hoover

"Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one’s self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all."
-Michael Rivero

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear."
-Marcus Tulius Cicero

Secrets this big can't be kept!

If giant secrets are impossible to keep, then why does virtually every nation in the world happen to employ at least one intelligence organisation? Why would politicians waste their blood money on funding such enterprises when they can use it to line the pockets of their corporate backers, and grease the skids for their next term in office? Obviously, organisations like the CIA and FBI do serve some integral purpose, one that goes beyond simple intelligence collection and analysis. In fact, covert action is their main selling point, the feature which guarantees continued funding from washington. This mission role takes on a broad spectrum, and can range from mere errand running for individuals (I.E, disposing of a dead prostitute as a favour to a senator, launching a sting operation against those accusing him of fraud), statewide operations involving the trafficking of drugs and dirty money, to massive works of deception like ultra, the manhattan project, and operation fortitude. So saying that 'big secrets can't be kept' isn't just bullshit, its dangerous bullshit. Out of these three categorys, the 3rd is by far the most pertinent to the questions surrounding 911, and the one which is conveniently never addressed by the debunkers. The only reason we even know about these intelligence operations today is because of their declassification in the years which followed their completion.

Let us never forget that in the realm of espionage,
the greatest spys are not those you read about in the
newspaper, but those whose existence is never known.

If an insider did not have the good sense to do this, these campaigns would still remain in the realm of 'conspiracy theory.' One cannot rely on the perpetrators having the conscience to confess to their actions, especially if it was a pre-meditated crime with a built in cover-up phase: Such operations effectively have an indefinite shelf life, and are meant to permanently stay out of the history books. Thus, when it comes to verifying the existence of any large scale intelligence operation, judgements of its plausibility which rest on whether or not the guilty party have admitted to staging the incident is a logically insurmountable catch-22 complex. Using this metric, how would law enforcement agencys be able to convict anyone? All the suspects have to do is claim their innocence, and unless they have an accomplice who says otherwise, no amount of eyewitness testimony or physical evidence would be able to put them behind bars. The debunkers are no doubt aware of this contrived no win scenario, as they do not hesitate to use it again and again in their debates with truth advocates. But the entire argument is basically a faith based assumption, which has no relevance beyond bolstering egos and fluffing out portfolios.

There is no way that people could be so evil as to stage such an attack, or be so arrogant as to think they could get away with it.

Newsflash: Not all psychopaths wind up in jail. Some of them are crafty enough to slip under the radar, find the company of like minded people, and get into positions of power. We need to accept the reality that such characters will make daring power grabs when the opportunity arises, and will attempt to dramatically expand their legal authority using clearly illegal methods. Even a cursory glance at the watergate scandal, iran contra, and the patriot act will confirm these transitional episodes in government. The powers that be are constantly testing the boundarys of what the public will tolerate. Unfortunately, the false lesson that some gullible individuals have drawn from this lineup of petty crimes is that, because many small conspiracys have been exposed to the public, so too will any conceivable SCAD (regardless of whether they were executed in the past or present tense). This is a wholly invalid conclusion to bring to the table. In the sphere of intelligence, we should never limit the boundarys of discussion to those conspiracys which have been wholly confirmed, while ignoring incidents which are merely suspected. This would be like an espionage agency basing its doctrine solely around the biographys of nikolai kuznetsov and richard sorge. Any conclusions drawn would contain deep and inherent flaws, because the operatives considered are those who eventually had their cover blown.

As nassim haramein stated: "Unless we have come to know what is correct, we cannot perceive what is incorrect." Whether we like it or not, acquiring broad knowledge on a subject requires looking at the winners as well as the losers. Measuring real spying finesse is difficult because in espionage, the winner is elusive. Thats not because success is rarely obtained, but because keeping ones identity secret is a key component of success. This is something our celebrity obsessed culture seems unable to comprehend. We must also be cognisant of the fact that, even if a SCAD could not be covered up in the classic sense, there is a specific strategy whereby most of the nations top officials can get involved, and exposure of the official story will engender irreparable social chaos, repulsing any would-be whistle blower. This could be termed as a 'too big to fail,' since it effectively holds the entire nations socio-economic stability as collateral, allowing the perpetrators to get away with egregious offenses without fear of exposure from insiders. One of the more famous (some would say cliched) examples of this is the holocaust: The removal of nazi germanys racial and ideological nemesis' saw the close involvement of nearly all the OKWs top officials. Why would they risk getting caught red handed in such a deplorable act? Because complete secrecy for such a large scale operation is utterly impossible (even in the age before cellphone cameras), and also because the greatest threat of exposure always lies within ones own borders.

A small scale incident like kristallnacht would eagerly be seized upon by german reporters, and the storys veracity would be accepted -if only reluctantly- by their fellow citizens. The same is not true of a human rights violation of the vast scale implied by postwar historians: Domestic whistle blowers would be faced with the terrible knowledge that if their report were to gain widespread acceptance among the german people, it would result in catastrophic social upheaval that would threaten the lives of even more people than were then being chewed up in the concentration camps. These individuals would understandably be reluctant to take the initiative in dropping the guillotine on the fatherland. No man works tirelessly to destroy his own career! Even more disturbingly, some ordinary germans who accidentally found out about the mass murder program are known to have helped cover up its existence, in the deluded belief that they were somehow protecting the nation. Here we see the cruel genius of the holocaust, and other state crimes against democracy: By immersing themselves so deeply into the extreme and the obscene, the ruling government creates an environment which is effectively impenetrable to the ordinary citizen. Even if joe average could break through the layers of secrecy surrounding the event, their minds would never be able to comprehend the sheer scale and savagery of the crime, leading them to engage in self gas lighting. This is, in essence, how the big lie principle works.

Another good kamerad forced to come face to
face with reality. Unfortunately, 'verschwörungs
theorie' just isn't going to cut it anymore...

If the US invaded afghanistan to build an oil pipeline, why has there been almost no construction on it in 10 years?
One possible answer has been provided by ryan dawson. / The wars in the middle east were for separate reasons, afghanistan was about a few pipelines as noted but more so about controlling large quantities of un-tapped uranium (a reason for both the russian and US invasions), and secondly for controlling opium as the CIA uses drug money to fund its off the book black operations. Like the now known massive secret prison systems, torture camps, and the human medical and scientific testing. Location-wise, afghanistan is coupled with other color coded revolutions to circle china and russia with US bases and puppets, add to that the lesser known negotiations with japan to allow nuclear subs into the japanese sea (pointed at china) in exchange for moving troops from okinawa to guam. The main goal however, which the PNAC think tank states, is to keep the eye on the pie: Iran, which afghanistan and iraq both boarder. The invasion of iraq was to solve israels oil crisis and stop the threat of a secular middle east, which would become a true economic player and threat to the aggressive state of israel. / While true, it needs to be kept in mind that military bases in afghanistan were not so much about ensuring a safe path for the pipeline to run through, as it was about guaranteeing control over the area. This includes the option of delaying or blocking construction if the plans didn't unfold according to the US' precise needs: Denying the safe flow of oil through this region was as powerful an incentive as any other.

Claiming that iraq was invaded for oil is nonsense, since the money we spent fighting it (and the WOT in general) could have been used to purchase all their oil fields 100x over.

Jeremy rys has this to say on the matter. / It is now public knowledge that cia director george tenet falsified the case for WMDs, and that the real reason for the invasion of iraq was oil. This is duly confirmed by the invasion strategy, and the construction of permanent US military bases positioned directly on the oil fields. Buts its not really that simple. You see, in late 2000 saddam hussein threatened to switch for the euro for trading oil, and was pushing to convert iraqs ten billion dollar reserve fund at the UN to euros. This information about iraqs oil currency has been censored by the US media for the interest of the white house, federal reserve, and most importantly, the international bankers. Heres why: A country cannot produce an economy without energy. If countrys are forced to trade in their money for US dollars in order to buy energy, the value of the US dollar is increased proportional to the price of oil. So by then increasing the price of oil, you increase the amount each person has to now exchange for the same gallon of energy through the petrodollar, and the transaction balances out the deficit in the currency. This gives the currency its intrinsic value: Moneys just paper otherwise. Meanwhile, the central and international bankers who without this artificial bubble in are all reality bankrupt can keep their currency from crashing. Now combine this with the fact that iran and north korea, the two other axis' of evil, were also planning to switch off the US dollar to the euro...

Economic warfare is half of why the WOT
is being waged with such persistence.
The picture starts to become clearer. The banking systems of the western world and most of the globe rely on the commodotisation of finite raw resources that are forcefully traded through the US dollar in order to keep their currency and economic frameworks afloat. Dishonest and corrupt banking practises around the world create an unnatural dependency on oil and other forms of energy. This is why economic hit men like john perkens say that their first job was to construct a power plant, and loan third world countrys the money at interest to pay for it, thereby enslaving them through debt and dependence on the energy and its infrastructure. / In short, saying that the US invaded simply out of a desire to suck iraqs oil fields dry is a retarded straw man argument. But lets return to the question of oil. Iraqs pre-war oil reserves were estimated at roughly 190 billion barrels. With the new millennium price of oil fluctuating around 85-100 dollars per barrel, this represents an absolute minimum of 16-19 trillion dollars at stake. Some estimate the oil fields may be worth closer to 30 trillion! The war on terror (which accomplished many other objectives both foreign and domestic) allowed america to gain control of this critical resource for a cost of just 1.5-2 trillion dollars*, a comparative bargain when considering the overall package deal.

*Estimates vary, ignoring hidden costs.