ISGP archive back on-line

[Peter Presland]

For information of DPF member:

The archive is back on-line following a major re-vamp with many new and updated articles

[Lauren Johnson]

For information of DPF member:

The archive is back on-line following a major re-vamp with many new and updated articles

Peter, I re-read your Three Establishment Model again. I am coming to conclude that there is a New Synthesis amongst the three united against Putin and the Islamic State. References to neo-cons vs. the adults seem to be vanishing.

[Magda Hassan]

For information of DPF member:

The archive is back on-line following a major re-vamp with many new and updated articles

Excellent! Thank you Peter!

[Anthony Thorne]

The JFK page says updated August 15th, but the text simply reads 'Article updated...', with nothing else, unless there's a browser issue at my end.

https://wikispooks.com/ISGP/Kennedy/John_F_Kennedy.html

[Malcolm Pryce]

For information of DPF member:

The archive is back on-line following a major re-vamp with many new and updated articles

Thanks Peter. I see he has posted a list of 400 suspicious political deaths around the world. I'm intrigued to see that death by 'auto-erotic asphyxiation' appears to be a British cottage industry. There are four listed from the UK, and not one elsewhere in the world. It's good to see that there are still a few things in which Britain leads the world!

[Peter Presland]

For information of DPF member:

The archive is back on-line following a major re-vamp with many new and updated articles

Thanks Peter. I see he has posted a list of 400 suspicious political deaths around the world. I'm intrigued to see that death by 'auto-erotic asphyxiation' appears to be a British cottage industry. There are four listed from the UK, and not one elsewhere in the world. It's good to see that there are still a few things in which Britain leads the world!

I think it has to do with "British values" - or something close.

[Peter Presland]

The JFK page says updated August 15th, but the text simply reads 'Article updated...', with nothing else, unless there's a browser issue at my end.

https://wikispooks.com/ISGP/Kennedy/John_F_Kennedy.html

Not your browser. Joel tells me he's working on it. No doubt he'll have a fix/update shortly

[Tracy Riddle]

I really value all of the work he's done on that site, but I'm not impressed by his article trying to prove that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

https://wikispooks.com/ISGP/911/more/pen...ns_est.htm

It was written in 2005 and updated in 2007, so it is really dated. Barbara Honegger's recent video pretty effectively demolishes the idea that a commercial airliner piloted by a human hit the Pentagon. She points out that the wings would have been sliced when hitting the steel light poles, and the fuel inside the wings would have exploded before the plane even reached the target. And why would Hani Hanjour perform this ridiculously difficult maneuver to hit the west side of the Pentagon, instead of the offices of the Joint Chiefs and Rumsfeld on the other side? Or simply dive down into the roof?

He doesn't seem to consider the possibility that a modfied, remotely-piloted military plane that resembled an airliner may have been used. In fact, he seems to ridicule the whole idea of remote control. He quotes Daniel Hopsicker: ""Instead, what we got was the recent 9/11 Conference in San Francisco, where you could hear all about the Bush's links to the Nazis... find out that the hijacked planes were operatedLook Ma! No hands!by Remote Control."

No, what should be ridiculed is the idea that the facilitators of 9/11 would rely on a bunch of Arab patsies who could barely fly a plane to successfully carry out the attacks. If you've really studied the 19 Arab suspects, I wouldn't rely on any of them to operate a lemonade stand.

[Malcolm Pryce]

Tracy, I totally agree. I've read Joel's articles on this issue a number of times in the past and, because I respect his work so highly, I have really tried to see it his way. But I just can't. If you believe 9/11 was an inside job, and that some of the perps were sitting in the Pentagon that morning, simple common sense insists that they must have had total control of whatever was heading their way. The idea that they would sit there and trust their lives to a man in a hijacked plane on a suicide errand, trust him to keep his word and stick to the plan, is completely unbelievable.

[Tracy Riddle]

Tracy, I totally agree. I've read Joel's articles on this issue a number of times in the past and, because I respect his work so highly, I have really tried to see it his way. But I just can't. If you believe 9/11 was an inside job, and that some of the perps were sitting in the Pentagon that morning, simple common sense insists that they must have had total control of whatever was heading their way. The idea that they would sit there and trust their lives to a man in a hijacked plane on a suicide errand, trust him to keep his word and stick to the plan, is completely unbelievable.

It's like those people who can't get over the idea of Oswald-as-shooter ("maybe the mafia hired him to kill JFK"). No one would hire Oswald to shoot anyone because he was a mediocre shot at best. The hijackers couldn't fly the planes. You use them as decoys and fall guys, and for nothing else.