Mysterious Deaths of 911 Witnesses

[23]

[AlicetheKurious]

This is just incredible. The video should get more circulation.

[pepsified thinker]

(bump)

Am I remembering correctly that there was a news reporter in Arkansas who was killed--and did someone say she'd been digging into the story of the guy who was poisoned?

I don't want to create rumors by asking about that, so if someone thinks I'm confusing info from another thread with this thread's focus, please don't hesitate to post to that effect.

I recall something about the news reporter (a woman) being somehow the victim of a stalker . . . I think.

[slomo]

This video has been removed due to terms of use violation.

[Laodicean]

...

[Laodicean]

This one hasn't been censored...yet.

[norton ash]

INTERESTING that it's been removed. I watched it earlier today. Nothing I hadn't known about before (death reports and 9/11 connections posted here at RI, I believe, in most cases) but more startling and dramatic when placed back-to-back.

I wanted to slap the film-maker for the bad spelling and grammar in the title-text frames, however.

[jingofever]

This video has been removed due to terms of use violation.

I don't have flash (and I don't think I can get it very easily, if at all, on this operating system) so I need to download YouTube videos to watch them. In other words I have this video on my hard drive. Maybe I'll upload it to one of them file sharing websites if anyone wants it.

[JackRiddler]

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.

[thatsmystory]

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.

To be fair the dramatic music was incredible.

[AlicetheKurious]

Sure, it's amateurish, and it doesn't by itself constitute an open-and-shut-case. It's not an investigation, either, and doesn't claim to be. But it's valuable nonetheless, for what it does: shine a spotlight and sound the alarm on all these very, very suspicious and improbably coincidental deaths. The next logical step would be detailed investigations and publicity surrounding them. You set the bar too high, Jack.

[MacCruiskeen]

You set the bar too high, Jack.

It can't be set high enough, Alice. Anything that badly made discredits any serious evidence it might contain. The spelling mistakes are already enough to make it quite unusable. That's not snobbery; it's plainly true. It's as inexcusable as an out-of-focus camera or an inaudible soundtrack. Imagine somebody sending that video to their Congressperson or professor or local newspaper editor and expecting them to take it seriously. (Not to mention the various other sloppinesses pointed out by Jack.)

"9/11 truth" has suffered very badly from that kind of thing over the last eight years, and especially over the last five. "Progressives" spend a lot of time laughing at the "morans" on the right, and not for no reason:



But "Stundents 4 9/11 Truth" is no better.

[parel]

here is a copy of OP video.

[23]

You set the bar too high, Jack.

It can't be set high enough, Alice. Anything that badly made discredits any serious evidence it might contain. The spelling mistakes are already enough to make it quite unusable. That's not snobbery; it's plainly true. It's as inexcusable as an out-of-focus camera or an inaudible soundtrack. Imagine somebody sending that video to their Congressperson or professor or local newspaper editor and expecting them to take it seriously. (Not to mention the various other sloppinesses pointed out by Jack.)

"9/11 truth" has suffered very badly from that kind of thing over the last eight years, and especially over the last five. "Progressives" spend a lot of time laughing at the "morans" on the right, and not for no reason:



But "Stundents 4 9/11 Truth" is no better.

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.

[MacCruiskeen]

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

Sure, 23, but it's not the only choice available to us, is it? If "the 9/11Truth movement" had chosen to stick with a single brilliantly-presented truthful film (9/11: Press for Truth), and really pushed it, then that movement would be in far better shape than it is today.

Instead, we now have hundreds if not thousands of slapdash productions with spooky soundtracks, truths blithely mixed in with half-truths, inaccuracies, wild speculations and plain falsehoods, and an unfortunate obsession with loud bangs. The spelling mistakes are bad enough, but they're the least of it.

When you're trying to compete with the most sophisticated & powerfully effective propaganda apparatus in recorded history, it's not advisable to cut corners and hope the recipients will view your efforts charitably. A delicious gourmet meal with a dead mouse in it will be remembered only for the mouse.