Mysterious Deaths of 911 Witnesses

[JackRiddler]

I guess we dine with different menus, Mac.

I'd sooner choose a poorly presented truth over a brilliantly presented falsehood any day.

I guess we dine with different menus.

Then link to David Graham's own video statements, or the Sander Hicks complaint to DoJ with regard to opening a criminal investigation of his case, rather than this clumsy debased version of his story.

In the case of Beverly Eckert, there is no evidentiary basis for claiming she was murdered. Other than that she died. In a plane crash, with more than 100 other people. Many will take her inclusion in this video as an outrageous spiritual desecration. It turns the piece into a weapon for the other side, nothing more. The video is selling the metaphorical bullets with which all 9/11 skeptics are shot.

I don't know the details of all the cases, but that example should be enough, below anyone's "bar." (Tell me, do you watch this and say, "wow! how effective," or do you then research the cases yourself, before you recommend this video uncritically as a "must see"?)

Follow the link I provided above and read Beverly Eckert in her own words.

Then comes the part about the man who took pictures at the Pentagon. These photos are of people wandering or sifting through debris caused by the strike. The video labels them "perpetrators." No further explanation needed? (An endorsement of CIT then follows.)

Excuse me if I see a pattern I recognize from the "no plane crashes at WTC" group: If you were present at one of the crime scenes and you're dead, you're a murdered whistleblower. If you're still breathing, you're a perpetrator. In the case of the no-planes at WTC group, I judge this as a deliberate strategy to attack and inditimidate witnesses and invalidate evidence, or a post-modern attempt to corrode the very concept of "evidence."

In the case of this video, I reserve judgement on whether the maker is simply a fool.

Also, I dislike weepy television/ambient "sad and urgent" music and its transparent attempt to tell the viewer what to feel. I hope that didn't prejudice me! De gusto, or whatever the Latin is.

[norton ash]

It's an imitation of the music and style of "Loose Change." Which means our film-maker has a mentor in dodgy dramatics and cherrypicking facts.

[SomaFeelies]

For starters it wouldn't surprise me if relatives of Beverly Eckert demanded it be removed, because it misrepresents her and exploits her death in the February 2009 Buffalo plane crash, in which 100 people died. She was a truth seeker demanding disclosure and highly critical of the obviously compromised 9/11 Commission process. She knew there was a coverup. But she did not believe Sept. 11 was the result of a covert operation, never publicly doubted the hijacker story, never said the attacks were allowed on purpose, and distanced herself from those who did.

Follow the link for the transcript of a long interview with her. It's worth reading.

Beverly Eckert
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?sto ... 3154220896

The deaths of Palfrey and Graham are highly suspicious. Palfrey's case is painfully, tragically obvious, on a level with David Kelley's murder by "suicide," and stands as an indictment of the corporate media who had the spotlight on her when she died and faithfully transmitted the suicide story without the least bother or investigation.

In Graham's case, the presentation is embarrasingly amateur. The video maker shows that he didn't read enough about it. Dr. Graham did not simply and suddenly die of poisoning. He knew he had been exposed to toxins long before his death, and made video statements laying out the case that he had been poisoned because of his statements about his meetings with the alleged hijackers.

The rest of the examples give the impression that the video maker thinks anyone who died after 9/11 would qualify as a murdered whistleblower. Very sloppy, faux-ominous presentation. Like many members of the church of demolitions, unable to distinguish between "explosions" and "bombs." Typical overkill or "kitchen sink" strategy of diluting strong points with weak and weaker. No one ever seems to remember the old saying about a chain being as strong as its weakest link. This is a typical video for pleasing those who need no further persuading, and convincing no one else.

Dr. David M. Graham
http://www.ksla.com/global/story.asp?s=7229970

SHREVEPORT, LA - Thursday, October 18
Who Killed Dr. David Graham? Complaint filed with DOJ

Who killed Shreveport dentist and 9/11 researcher David Graham? That's the question at the heart of a complaint filed with the Inspector General's office at the U.S. Justice Department. It comes a year after Graham's death that was never investigated.
Up until his death in September 2006, Dr. Graham insisted someone poisoned him two years earlier, likely with propylene glycol (anti-freeze) as he tried to publish a book. That book claimed he met two 9/11 hijackers a year before September 11th and feared the men intended to target Barksdale Air Force Base.
Shreveport attorney John Milkovich, a friend of Dr. Graham, explained, "he documented in his book that he had reported them to the FBI some ten months before 9/11 and of course that you know, the FBI, federal authorities never detained these individuals, and that he had received a threat." Graham told those close to him that threat came from a federal agent.
Milkovich is the man who gave the eulogy at Graham's funeral. He said that there's no question about whether or not someone poisoned Dr. Graham. The question has always been who did it. Milkovich continued, "I personally don't know who poisoned him but I think that it's very important that the truth come out."
9/11 researcher Sander Hicks is the one who just filed a complaint with the Inspector General's Office at the DOJ, asking for an investigation into Graham's death because, among other reasons, those close to him still live in fear. Hicks told us, "the family has been worried that there's going to be some kind of reprisal."
Fear ran so high, said Hicks, that the family did not ask for an autopsy, even after Dr. Graham's 27-months of paralysis and organ failures before his death at a Shreveport nursing home. Hicks added, "If Dr. Graham can be taken out so easily without an investigation from law enforcement you know, people are scared."
The Department of Justice told Hicks to expect a reply within the next 6-months. I spoke by phone with Special Agent in Charge Mike Kinder in the Shreveport FBI office. He told me, there is no evidence those terror suspects, Nawaf Al-Hazi and Fayez Banihammad, were ever in Shreveport and said Dr. Graham only mentioned them after 9/11. Kinder also said the FBI did not investigate Graham's death because there was no evidence of any connection between Graham's writings and his illness.

I'm posting this at the risk of being considered a total lunatic by RI. So be it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol6wucJdBww

In the frames between :39 and :41, an off white / grey colored being with large almond eyes walks into the burning house in Buffalo, New York, turning it's face toward the camera while entering the flames. Right side of the screen.

Between the :46 mark and the :52 mark, the same grey being (presumably) can be seen exiting the flames on the far left side of the screen.

What does it mean? Is it an alien? I don't know, don't care to speculate, although I have to admit that it looks a whole hell of a lot like the traditionally depicted "grey alien".

[Nordic]

I'm posting this at the risk of being considered a total lunatic by RI. So be it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol6wucJdBww

In the frames between :39 and :41, an off white / grey colored being with large almond eyes walks into the burning house in Buffalo, New York, turning it's face toward the camera while entering the flames. Right side of the screen.

Between the :46 mark and the :52 mark, the same grey being (presumably) can be seen exiting the flames on the far left side of the screen.

What does it mean? Is it an alien? I don't know, don't care to speculate, although I have to admit that it looks a whole hell of a lot like the traditionally depicted "grey alien".

It's somebody far on the other side of the fire. The camera lens being used there is extremely long and zoomed in, which compresses perspective a LOT. Meaning someone far in the background won't look much smaller. It's most certainly not an "alien"

[thatsmystory]

Would a better video make a difference? This seems to be the implicit assumption. "If only the 9/11 truth movement had gone the way of Peter Dale Scott and not taken the easy route of Alex Jones." Peter Dale Scott has covered 9/11 and he has been ignored by the establishment. The Jersey Girls asked the right questions and they were told the information was classified.

Nobody wants to hear it but there are larger obstacles than sloppy videos.

[streeb]

But sloppy videos are also an obstacle.

[23]

I think that we may be confusing the needs of the choir with those of the congregation.

Presentation is certainly a legitimate concern for choirs.

Much less so, however, for congregations.

Who simply need to awakened from their seated slumber.

I can see how the video doesn't fulfill the needs of a choir.

But I can also see how it can effectively cause an eye or two to open in the congregation.

And that's where the seeds for a critical mass (pun intended) lay.

[thatsmystory]

But sloppy videos are also an obstacle.

I can't disagree. I know how pissed off people get when they are accused of being "sheeple" for not buying into some speculative bullshit.

[thatsmystory]

I think that we may be confusing the needs of the choir with those of the congregation.

Presentation is certainly a legitimate concern for choirs.

Much less so, however, for congregations.

Who simply need to awakened from their seated slumber.

I can see how the video doesn't fulfill the needs of a choir.

But I can also see how it can effectively cause an eye or two to open in the congregation.

And that's where the seeds for a critical mass (pun intended) lay.

The congregation is looking for a reason to dismiss, to tune out. Nobody wants to think about this stuff. This video gives them a reason.

[AlicetheKurious]

Not to belabor the point, but I didn't know about Palfrey, and regardless of how lousy the video is, facts is facts: the woman was privy to secrets about powerful individuals, she announced that she had some very explosive information that implicated powerful people in the government with the 9/11 attacks, she is on tape specifically declaring that she has no intention of committing suicide, and then, days before she was to reveal her information, her "suicided" body is found, with no subsequent investigation.

I don't care how annoying the sound effects are, or how careless the spelling: if the video publicizes this information only, let alone the other very suspicious deaths, that just might prompt other, more sophisticated investigators to dig deeper and to prevent these deaths from being forgotten. The key is to keep these crimes as a thorn in the perps' side, to keep the buzz going, to prevent sleeping dogs from lying, to preserve and expand the cloud of suspicion around the official story of 9/11.

To me, this kind of video is the equivalent of picketing a war criminal's speech: it is not so much intended to persuade as to call attention to certain incriminating facts and prompt more people to ask questions that they otherwise wouldn't. Which is always a good thing.

[Cordelia]

I had problems with the video too, and found it unconvincing. But I think Alice has a good point in that, if a viewer or even a potential investigator wasn't aware of someone (like Palfrey), a video like this could be very enlightening. I followed Palfrey when she first surfaced because she was such an interesting character and then was shocked at her death because it was so damn brazen. I mean, they really don't care how suspicious a 'suicide' looks and the message is clear that, if threatened, they'll kill whoever, whenever, and however. (Didn't one of Palfrey's escort employees also hang herself? I'll have to look that up.) I'm curious how professional suicides are executed and appreciated, FWIW, that 'Michael Clayton' showed (I assume it was accurate) one of the techniques of a 'suicide' by overdose.

Edited to add http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00654.html

and

"When a former employee of Palfrey's, Brandy Britton, hanged herself before going to trial, Palfrey told the press, "I guess I'm made of something that Brandy Britton wasn't made of." http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 87,00.html

[MacCruiskeen]

I didn't know about the circumstances of Palfrey's death and I had forgotten, god help me, about David Graham. So I'm grateful to be informed and reminded. Still, I'm more grateful for Jack's correction of the record than I was for the film's shocking but at times woefully inaccurate information.

It's quite a tough call, this. One of the things that has infuriated me most about the [non-]response to 9/11 by the Left "intelligentsia" (Cockburn, Taibbi, Monbiot, Corn, 'lenin', etc., etc.) has been this conceited and self-serving habit of disdainful cherrypicking. Send them a video like the one in the OP and they will respond by groaning about the soundtrack. If they do actually deign to watch it, in whole or in part, then you might be lucky enough to get a response from them. It will inevitably run along the following [tram-]lines:

Where to start with this trashy nonsense? Even five minutes' googling is enough to show that these conspiracy nuts can't even get the most basic facts right. Beverly Eckert, for instance, far from being a troofer herself, was in fact...[etc.] ... Now please spare me any more of your laughable 'evidence'. It's all of the same abysmal quality, and the left has more than enough REAL problems to contend with right now. In case you haven't noticed, there's an imperialist war on.

These thoughtful & conscientious scholars will of course ignore anything in the film that is in fact true and accurately reported.

By contrast, their response to 9/11: Press for Truth has been very, very different: complete and embarrassed silence, for the simple reason that no holes can easily be picked in it. And that refusal to respond to unwelcome and very significant truths is not just morally and intellectually defensible: it's disastrously bad politics, too.

So I have to say that one of the most inspiring and really pretty moving things about "9/11Truth" is that it has been an ongoing process of very stubborn and largely working-class self-education. It reminds me of my grandfather's generation struggling through Das Kapital or The Soul of Man Under Socialism at midnight, trying to acquire some real understanding of their situation after a day in the factory or down the mine, in the full knowledge that their daily newspapers were packed with murderous lies.

Back to "9/11Truth": A lot of egregious errors are in fact gradually getting rooted out, through a process of (no doubt imperfect and sometimes annoyingly slow) grassroots "peer review". Sheer nonsense is now not so easy to get away with as it was five years ago - and, most important of all: grassroots "9/11Truth" is in fact overwhelmingly a real leftist and anti-imperialist phenomenon. Many people (not all) who may have started off with Rense or Alex Jones or WhatReallyHappened.com have since begun reading Chomsky, Zinn, Parenti, Naomi Klein and maybe even Marx. Their perspective on the mass media has changed utterly since the summer of 2001. And, although innumerable soi-disant left pundits never cease scoffing and snickering at their efforts, they are refusing to shut up and stop thinking for themselves.

In short: they're learning by doing, while those who might easily help them choose to snigger while they stumble and fall (and get up again).

That's what makes even the clumsiest "troofer" (sic) admirable. And that's what makes the Cockburnite-Guardianista Left's response to the global mass phenomenon of "9/11Truth" so entirely despicable.

[nathan28]

moved to 9/11 and the Left thread to avoid thread hijack

[MacCruiskeen]

*picks up heavy load of text and follows nathan to that there thread*