There never was a Prayer Man. He's just a fabrication; a smokescreen to draw attention away from the real Oswald in the doorway: the Doorman in the Altgens photo. 

The whole clip of Prayer Man is bogus. So, this is bogus:

It is supposed to be from the Darnell film, but like the Lovelady clip whish is supposed to be from the Martin film but can't be found in the Martin film, this clip cannot be found in the Darnell film. See for yourself. Here is the Darnell film. Check it yourself. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCHTdTF7YbE

That should settle it right there. But, when you analyze the story of the Prayer Man clip, you realize that it is ridiculous. It's supposed to be 10 seconds after the last shot, so who are all those people? And what happened to all the people who were there 10 seconds before? Where is Lovelady and Shelley and the other employees? And why are all these people filing into the TSBD at that time? You can't tell me they worked there. Were they seeking shelter from the gunfire? They don't act like it, and there are no reports of it. And why is the guy with the cowboy hat looking up? Is he looking for the source of the shots? That is ridicuous. There were no shots taken from up there. Here he is in the Wiegman film.

This was, presumably, a few seconds earlier, like maybe 5. Obviously, the people are aware that something is wrong. Attention is on what is happening west on lower Elm, including by that guy. So, why 5 seconds later would he be looking up? You can't tell me he heard a shot from up there in the interim.

I don't hear anything from the Prayer Man people any more, Greg Parker and them. And I have no respect and much contempt for them for being the fakes and phonies that they are. Not only was Prayer Man not Oswald, he wasn't anybody. There was no Prayer Man. Oswald was the Doorman in the Altgens Photo, and that is as certain as Christ on the Cross. 

 

This is Vincent Bugliosi waxing on about why Oswald supposedly killed Kennedy. Every bit of it is pure speculation and fabrication. He bases it on his interpretation of writings attributed to Oswald, for which we have no rason to be sure Oswald wrote them, and things that Oswald supposedly said that likewise are unverified. But, in the end, he decides that Oswald killed Kennedy not because he hated Kennedy but because he hated America and Kennedy was a proxy for America. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4dAkn839Ac

But, it makes no sense at all. Before killing Kennedy, Oswald would ask himself: "Who becomes President if Kennedy's gone? Johnson. Hmmm, let's see: he's more aggressive towards Cuba and the Soviet Union, further away from socialism, which I like. Therefore, I sure hope nothing happens to Kennedy." 

Oswald never said he hated America, and it is ridiculous to think he would have killed Kennedy because he did. 

Bugliosi's attempt to impart a motive to Oswald totally failed. It was just an exercise in imagination by Bugliosi. 

Oswald had a wife and two kids, and he was very devoted to them. Obviously, one's family should be more important to a person than one's political ideology. And that was true in Oswald's case. The bizarre satisfaction that Oswald supposedly got for killing Kennedy would have been at the cost of his family- him losing them. Warren Commission lawyer David Belin invented the idea that Oswald planned to run away to Mexico- using his gun as an ATM.  And then do what? Live happily ever after? How? The Stupid Belin didn't recognize that Oswald loved his family as much any man did. 

The whole thing is so bizaare, so totally divorced from reality, logic, and reason and even common experience of human behavior that it is astounding that they could say such things- let alone believe them.

People like Bugliosi and Belin just flipped a switch in their brains. Out of lawyerly inclination, they just started walking the walk and talking the talk, as if they knew what happened AND WHY.

In reality, nothing that they said made any sense at all. And do not doubt that both of them acted to a very great extent out of self-interest.  

Now, I am going to give you my take on the Gabby Petito tragedy. As soon as it broke that Brian drove home in her car, alone, I knew that she was dead. And that's because: it was her car. If they were going to split up, and she was alive, surely, she would have retained the car, since it was hers. The fact that he drove home alone in HER CAR, meant that he did away with her. 

I am going to share some information that I only heard from one source: the celebrated Dr. Drew. 

He said that both Gabby Petito and Brian Laundrie were on psychiatric medication, and that both vowed to come off it on their road trip. I don't know where he got that from. I haven't heard it from any other source.  

However, both of them admitted to Moab police at the infamous stop that they both had mental health problems.  Laundrie denied that either of them were on medication. 

Much has been made of the mistake of not arresting Laundrie in Florida. They could have done so. Not for murdering her, since at the time she was just missing, but how about grand theft auto? He was in possession of her car, and there was no reasonable explanation for it. If he tried to claim that she offered it to him, then he would have had to explain the circumstances of that, including their location, etc. They should have arrested him and let him be arraigned. A good judge would have known how to handle him. 

So, that was a huge mistake. But of course, it wasn't going to bring Gabby back because she was dead. So, the mistake that cost Gabby her life was the one made by the Moab police, and they will be living with it for the rest of their lives. 

They received a report that Laundrie was battering Petito, and more than once. And there was no reason to doubt it. When they got to them, they observed that Gabby was distraught and hysterical, and Laundrie they described as hyper. Because Laundrie had some visible scratches, while Petito, apparently, had no visible signs of trauma, they concluded that Petito was the aggressor. That was a mistake. For one thing, she was extremely flushed from the emotional upheaval, and that flushing could have covered up traumatic flushing, say, from a slap.  They may also have been affected by Petito blaming herself, but my Good God, that is classic for a battered woman. 

So, what should the Moab Police have done? They should have realized that she was in grave danger from him. And then, they should have done everything in their purview to protect her. 

They didn't let them drive off together. They assumed that if each had a cooling off period overnight that then it would be OK. So, they arranged for that. But, it was wrong.  They should have realized that the very next day, when they reunited, that the extreme danger to her would resume. 

So, what should they have done? They should have taken them both into custody and kept them separate. They could have charged them with something, if only reckless behavior. And once they got her separated from him, they should have had one or more female officers impress upon her that continuing this road trip with him was extremely ill-advised and dangerous. 

And here's what else they could have done: called her parents. Even though she was a legal adult, if she was behaving erratically and uncontrollably and clearly wasn't thinking straight and was a danger to herself, they could have contacted her parents, and I'm sure they would have flown out there and gotten her. 

In other words: they should have realized that the danger to her was great enough that it warranted pulling every trick in the book to detain her in order to protect her. She needed protective custody. Cops can arrest a person if only for her own good. And even if he knows that the charges won't stick, at least they will bide time. You do what you have to do. And you err on the side of caution. If their gut feeling didn't tell them that she was in great peril being with him, then they were incompetent. 

 Dirty Mudderrucker. He wanted to do to Julian Assange what he did to Qasam Soleimani. 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/kidnapping-assassination-and-a-london-shoot-out-inside-the-ci-as-secret-war-plans-against-wiki-leaks-090057786.html

Pompous Pompeo, who was CIA Chief at the time, followed in the tradition of the agency that murdered John F. Kennedy and numerous others. No law. No courts. You just kill who you want. They have no limits. They are the Executioners, and they decide who to execute at will. 

We tend to think that the CIA was "rogue" back in the day of Allen Dulles but not today. Actually, it's worse than ever today. Look at how many people we have killed with drones, including American citizens. 

The stuff that Pompeo did under Trump, like killing Soleimani, and I don't doubt that Pompeo was the prime mover on it, shows that the culture of killing ran rampant through the Trump administration. And, if Pompeo got his way, we probably would have invaded Venezuela, started a war with Iran, tried to kill Assange, and more. He, Pompeo, is just bad, and I mean as bad as Allen Dulles and J. Edgar Hoover, and that's as bad as it gets.  

  

 

The first image shows where Mary Moorman was according to the Zapruder film, which was directly across from Zapruder. 

But, Mary placed herself higher on Elm Street,  which was further east and closer to Houston Street. She was farther from the Triple Underpass. 

Here is a conservative estimate of where she really was, and I say conservative, because she may have been higher than this. 

And she certainly did not wait until they passed her and then shoot them from behind. She was interested in their faces, not the backs of their heads. In fact, if you look at the photo, you can see a car on the right edge, and it is approximately where the limo was in the Zapruder film when Mary, supposedly, took her picture. So, you would have to believe she waited all those hours only to let them creep by her and then shoot the backs of their heads. 

The picture that Mary took captured JFK when he was already shot in the back but not in the throat. So, his look was like nothing we see in the Zapruder film. It may have been like what the original Zapruder film captured, but they took 12 years to get it in condition to show the public. I suspect Mary's real picture showed JFK looking distraught and confused, and it looked nothing like the so-called "Moorman photo." So, how did they get Mary to accept it? 

Money. I'd be willing to bet that they paid her money; a lot of money, and I mean for damaging her historic photo with their thumb print.  They paid Marina Oswald a lot of money to spew their lies about Oswald.  They got an Italian film company to pay her $125,000 for the rights to make a movie that would include her story, but they didn't have to pay her anything. It was public domain. It was just an excuse to pay her. And they never did make the movie. And the company was a flash in the pan; it vanished. $125,000 in 1964 was like a million today.

Mary has always said that she took her picture at the time of the first shot and that she heard at least two more shots after she lowered her camera. The Zapruder film has her taking her picture at the time of the fatal head shot, with no other shots following. What a major discrepancy! How do they explain it? They don't! She's a nice lady. She's a loyal American. You be nice to her. You show her a lot of respect. So, you never say to her: "Mary, you've always said that you took your picture at the time of the first shot, but the Zapruder film shows you taking it at the time of the last shot. And since we don't doubt the Zapruder film, we have to doubt you. Therefore, you did NOT take your picture at the time of the first shot. You took it at the time of the last shot. You got that, Mary?" 

No, you don't say that shit to her. You just ignore it. Most people aren't awake enough to recognize the discrepancy anyway. So, just let the sleeping dog lie. Sit back and watch the green grass grow. No harm/no foul. 

But, for the record, I think she took her photo a little before the ice flechette hit Kennedy in the back.  Because: her picture must have shown his reaction to it. If it didn't, then it would not have been a problem. If it was taken before, then presumably, he was still smiling and waving, and all was well.  But, all was not well. She captured JFK doing something that was not part of the story: reacting to the back shot before he entered the Kill Zone. 

 

On the day of the JFK assassination, Mary Moorman said she took her photo at the time of the first shot. And she never wavered from that. She said over and over that she heard multiple shots after she lowered her camera. Yet, the so-called Moorman photo shows the limo past Zapruder already and after the final shot. So, if you take Mary at her word, as I do, how can that be her picture? It can't, and it isn't. 

Now, look at this. This is a diagram in which Jean Hill, who was with Mary, showed where they were standing on Elm Street. 

That looks maybe 40% of the length of the Plaza; closer to Houston than to the underpass. That was done at her testimony to Arlen Specter, who gave her a hard time because he wanted to place her farther down Elm- where we see her in the Zapruder film. But, she stuck to her guns. She wouldn't budge. She said they were higher up.

So, why do they look farther down in the Zapruder film? Because they were moved there. You can't go by anything the Zapruder film shows you. It was sewn together like Frankenstein. 

Jean and Mary were much higher on the hill than they appear in the Zapruder film, and Mary took her picture right when the Kennedys were alongside her, as she said. So, look at Jean's drawing again, and then ask yourself: What was going on then when Mary snapped her picture? What was going on was that JFK was shot in the back, and he was reacting to that and only that. And that's why they had to get rid of Mary's photo because it showed that JFK was struck much earlier than claimed. He rode down the hill having just been struck in the back. And they had to get rid of all that in the Zapruder film. And that's why in the Zapruder you see the limo pass the TSBD and then get immediately to the freeway sign. There was quite a bit of distance between the two, but they had to cut all that out because it showed JFK reacting to a separate shot in the back. They turned the story of the Zapruder film into JFK smiling and waving until he reached the freeway sign, and then it all happened behind the sign, where he emerged reacting to being shot in the throat. That's the big lie of the Zapruder film. 

Mary's photo must have shown JFK reacting to that first shot- looking stressed out- and Jackie realizing that something was wrong. They had to destroy it because, officially, that shot never happened. 

In this video, you can watch and hear Mary Moorman say, on November 22, 1963, that she took her photo at the time of the first shot. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEavxZReo84&t=90s

The first shot. The first shot, the first shot, the first shot, the first fucking shot. That's when she took her picture. 

And then she said that after that, the shots were still being fired. 

But, the "Moorman photo" was taken after the final shot, supposedly at Z-315 or Z-316. And notice that the limo is well past Zapruder. 

You see where Zapruder is, circled in pink, right? So, if Mary took her picture at the time of the first shot, and there is no reason to doubt her, how could this late photo be her photo? 

The pink diagonal line shows you the line of sight of the person who took this picture.  And that can't be questioned. That comes from a physics professor with a specialty in Optics. So, how could Mary, who waited for hours to photograph JFK and Jackie, wait until they past her and then turn around and shoot them from behind? She wouldn't. She couldn't  She didn't. 

Mary Moorman did not take this photo. Babushka Lady did. BL did not disappear. She was working for the plotters, and she turned her film over to them. Notice that this photo completely misses the downhill slope of Elm, and that's because it was a bigger photo, which they applied a cookie-cutter to, at an angle that completely nixed the downward slope of the road.

MARY MOORMAN DID NOT TAKE THIS PHOTO.  

Bernard Wild has put together a compilation of posts from this blog into a book called Oswald is Innocent.

I haven't read the book yet. I have ordered it from Amazon.

'https://www.amazon.com/OSWALD-INNOCENT-PROOF-WHOLE-NOTHING/dp/B09FSCF4LB/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1631886921&sr=1-1 

I am into my 11th year doing this, and I have dealt with quite a broad range of subjects, but not everything. For instance, I have never addressed who the real shooters were. It's an interesting question, but I would have to study it a long time to feel confident about saying. And even though it's interesting, it's not that important. 

Of cousre, it started with the issue of Oswald in the doorway. And as I think back on it, and remember, that in the beginning I was very involved with JFK forums, doing battle on them, which I don't do any more, and some of them don't exist any more. But, when I think back about the arguments that were made trying to refute me, it was ridiculous. First, he's obviously Oswald. You can recognize his face, his expression, his stare, his gauntness, his long neck, his slender build, and you can identify his clothes. The very idea that Lovelady looked that much like him and dressed that much like him is preposterous. It's actually insane. And all the things that were done to deny that Oswald was Oswald were an elaborate fraud, and never once were there any good intentions or honest endeavor. 

Today, the U.S. government admitted that in the drone strike that was done on August 29 in retaliation for the 13 Americans killed in the terror attack at Kabul Airport, that all of the 10 victims were innocent civilians, 7 of them children. They spoke of compensating the families of the victims, although I cringe when I hear that- because money can't bring a loved one back. And they have done it before, and many times, after killing innocents in Afghanistan, and typically they would pay a couple hundred bucks, and sometimes, a general would hand deliver a goat. Wasn't that special? 

But, the point is that if the U.S. government could admit that, then they could call a press conference and admit that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't kill President Kennedy, that he was standing in the doorway at the time, that the photographic evidence proves it, and beyond a  shadow of a doubt.   

State lies aren't forever, and this one, about Oswald killing Kennedy, is a dead man walking. 

Thank you, Bernard. 

Look at the freeway sign in the Betzner photo. Get a sense for the size of it and the angle of it. Also, be sure to observe Zapruder up on the pedestal. 

Now, here it is in the Zapruder film.

The most important thing is to determine the angle of the sign to the street. And we know what angle it was: 90 degrees. And that's how it looks. That's the most readable angle for street signs. 

But, the angle to the street is much less in the Zapruder film. It is facing the street more. 

So, which one is real? Betzner. The sign in Zapruder is bogus. 
 

The only thing good about Ed Brotherton is that he gets me to write more about 9/11. I consider him an Op, a troll, and he is like a cyclops because the fact is: you can't say that 9/11 was an inside job, as he supposedly does, but then support all the particulars of the official narrative, which he definitely does.

Imagine you are at the Project for a New American Century meeting where they decide that they're going to have a "new Pearl Harbor" in order to get the wars they wanted. So, they come up with 9/11. And they come up with the whole story about the Arab hijackers, and the boxcutters, etc. Why would they actually do it that way, especially when they didn't have to? That way was risky; extremely risky. It could easily backfire. It could easily go wrong. You couldn't just assume that 4 hijackers would be successful at overcoming 40 people on a plane and just because they had boxcutters. THAT'S A STORY THAT YOU TELL, NOT A STORY THAT YOU DO. They had the resources of the whole U.S. government and military at their disposal, and the cooperation of a compliant media. They didn't have to chance actually trying to take over planes. There is no reason to think that they did that. And it would be awfully stupid to think that it was a sure thing that couldn't go wrong.

Note first that even in 2001, it was mandatory to keep cockpit doors closed and locked. And it was for good reason because there were already cockpit incursions before 9/11 and plenty of them.

In August 2000, a man burst into the cockpit of a Southwest flight from Las Vegas to Salt Lake City. Passengers jumped to their feet and went after the guy, and they BEAT HIM TO DEATH. You hear that, Brotherton? They beat him to death.

In March 2000, a man burst into the cockpit of a Spanish flight, but the pilots and crew quickly overcame him.

Also in March 2000, a man burst into the cockpit of an Alaska Airlines flight out of Puerto Vallarta, and the pilots, with help from passengers, overcame him quickly.

In December 1999, a man with an 8 inch knife burst into the cockpit of a Japanese flight. He did manage to stab the pilot in the neck, but the co-pilot and another pilot who was a passenger overcame him. Did I mention that he had an 8 inch knife?

In December 1999, a guy bursts into the cockpit of a British Airlines flight from London to Nairobi and struggled with the pilots. The plane did plunge 1000 feet during the struggle, but they overcame him.

Here is a picture of the crash scene at Shaksville.

Now, anyone who defends the idea that a real 757 crashed there is not a real 9/11 truther; he is a dis-info Op. That's what the CIA does. They get ordinary-seeming people to infiltrate groups like this and then spread their dis-info. I've seen it countless times. They do it a lot in the JFK realm as well.

Bottom line is that you can't marry the inside job story with the official narrative. They don't go together like peas and carrots. They don't go together at all. Yes, 9/11 was an inside job, and therefore, the entire official 9/11 narrative is a crock of shit.

 

Ed Brotherton

Ralph Cinque I'm ex Air Force Security Police trained in anti-terrorism and anti-hijacking. I was also a member of our 60th Security Police Emergency Services Team.

It's very easy armchair quarterback a situation that you've had 20 years to think about. A convenience that the passengers on that tragic day didn't have.

The hijackers didn't ask the pilots to give them the controls. They murdered the pilots the moment they entered the cockpit leaving the pilots with no choice but to try and defend themselves instead of notifying anyone of a hijacking or changing the transponder to 7500 indicating hijacking.

Furthermore we know that the some of hijackers informed the passengers there was a bomb on board. This would have caused anyone who was thinking of taking on the hijackers physically to think twice since there is a chance of detonating the bomb. This is why the passengers didn't get all Die Hard on them.

It wasn't until flight 93 when the passengers discovered that other planes had crashed into the WTC that they decided to fight back.

There are literally thousand and thousands of data points to 9/11 and for you to say "it's all a lie" is lazy and a convenience that way you can just throw it all out and proclaim you figured it all out when in fact you don't shit.

I gave you the insight of two Air Force Veterans and you dismiss what we say. You clearly have no clue what you're talking about and you should be ashamed of yourself for putting out utter nonsense.

Ralph Cinque: Ed Brotherton You have no right to assume as fact that the pilots were killed- even though it's part of the official narrative. If it were true, Todd Beamer and the others surely would have "rolled" sooner, and I mean immediately- as soon as it started going down that the pilots were being attacked. And nothing the hijackers "announced" would have deterred them. Why would they believe anything the hijackers said? If hijackers were attacking the pilots on a plane that you were on, wouldn't you get up and fight? How could you not? And in this case, the pilots were bigger men, plus Todd and his chums were big men. Those hijackers would not have had a chance, despite their "boxcutters." The airline industry did its own security prior to 9/11, and they already prohibited bringing boxcutters on planes. So, the scanners would have picked them up and stopped it. EVERYTHING that is claimed about United 93 is a lie. It did not crash at that site in Pennsylvania. It was blown up. Debris from the plane was found 8 miles away. If the plane was intact until the second it hit the ground, how could that happen? And no debris was found at the crash site: just some skidmarks, scorched earth, and a hole in the ground. That is not a crash site. No jetliner crashed there. The black box from UA93 was found, but it's contents were never revealed to the public. The whole claim of cell phone calls from 33,000 feet in 2001 is highly suspect. We shouldn't believe anything about the official story of UA93 or any of the other 9/11 flights. Hani Hanjour did not do a 270 degree corkscrew turn and slam AA77 into the Pentagon. There was very little plane wreckage there either. The whole 9/11 story is a lie. It's not just that it was an inside job; everything about it is a lie.

Ed Brotherton

Ralph Cinque I believe 9/11 was an inside job but let's keep things in perspective. There were real hijackers and real planes involved. The US was complicit along with other foreign entities.

Ralph Cinque: If it was an inside job, say that originated at Project for a New American Century, as many believe, how could there be real hijackers? They weren't going to depend on real hijackers to take over planes with boxcutters. The whole idea is untenable. I don't know how big a man you are, but let's say you were a pilot on a 9/11 plane, and these guys demanded that you turn over the cockpit to them. Are you going to do it? Because of boxcutters? "Here. Take the controls. Just don't hurt me." You think the pilots did that rather than fight? And the same goes for the passengers. Those big guys on United 93 would not have waited to "roll." They would have rolled from from the start and taken it to the hijackers, whom they had vastly outnumbered. It was 40 people vs 4 hijackers. 40 people, which included men who were much bigger than any of the hijackers, could have and would have taken down 4 hijackers- no matter the boxcutters. It's not just that it was an inside job. it's that the whole story is a lie. And so are you, by the way because you can't be that stupid. And guess what? I'm making you famous.

Ralph Cinque: And Marc Sasseville really should be courtmartialed. We are a nation of laws and not men, and no one has the right to decide himself to kill 40 innocent people. And that's why the media has conveniently left out mention of the 40 innocent people that Sasseville and Penney would have killed, had they done what they intended.

Marc Sasseville should be courmartialed 

Now I have found frank statements showing there were no orders for them to commit suicide. 

Heather Penney said neither of them had second thoughts about flying their F-16s into the plane. "As the military, we don't send our service members on suicide missions. But it was clear what needed to be done that morning," she said.

That order did not come through the chain of command — the pilots had taken it upon themselves. "We didn't have any other choice. And we weren't going to be caught on the ground watching America get hit again," Sasseville said.

RC: So, despite vague references to it being an order, and the media reporting it that way, this is a frank statement showing that it was their idea: Sasseville and Penney. 

The order did not come through the chain of command. So, why is the media saying that it did?

US pilot ordered to go on 9/11 kamikaze mission to bring down hijacked jet

According to Sasseville, he ordered Penney on the suicide mission. He just went up to her and said. “Lucky, you’re coming with me,” barked Col. Marc Sasseville.

RC: Now, who would order anyone on a suicide mission like that? And why did he pick her, a young woman. Were'n't any of his old flying buddies around? 

They were gearing up in the pre-flight life-support area when Sasseville, struggling into his flight suit, met her eye.

“I’m going to go for the cockpit,” Sasseville said.

She replied without hesitating.

“I’ll take the tail.”

RC: Who implies suicide? Who talks around it? Who leaves it up to chance whether the person undertands that you mean suicide?

So, with no authority whatsoever- and you can't cite me any statue by which he was authorized to order someone on a suicide mission,- he decided that her life was worth ending.  But, wouldn't he be direct with her about it?  Didn't he owe her that much?

The way they have recalled the conversation, there is no way to assume that they talked directly about suicide. 

This is the most unAmerican thing I have ever heard. We are supposed to be a country that values life and the right to life. It's bad enough that we have a long history of a military draft that cost men their lives- by the millions.  Yet, there is a big difference between putting a person in combat, which is very dangerous, but where they have a chance to survive, and ordeing them to die; telling them that "It's your time to die. We need something from you- your life." That is unAmerican. It was Imperial Japanese. It's Talibanese. But, it is not American.  And we should not be celebrating it. 

So, despite the many headlines saying that it was an assignment, I am absolutely sure now that if you nailed it down with them, that they will admit, as they have, that NOBODY ordered them to die. 

So, it was a self-directed mission, but there are no self-directed missions in the Military. It's a top-down organization. Nobody just does what they want. Everybody follows orders. And I don't know how high up Sasseville was at the time, but I know damn well that he did not have the authority to order anyone on a suicide mission.

According to this statement, he did directly speak to her about suicide.

Sasseville told Lieutenant Penney Garcia that it could cost both of their lives to bring down Flight 93. 

But, that's bull shit too because there was no "could" about it. It was definitely going to cost them their lives. If you crash your plane into another plane, you're dead. 

And in absolutely none of the media reports about this, and I've read dozens, have they mentioned the fact that they would have killed all the passengers and crew on the plane. How smart do you have to be to realize that those people were going to die too? So, what gave Sasseville the right and the authority to decide that it was worth it to kill all those people? What gave him the legal right to do it? 

He had no such right. It wasn't his decision. And as I said, nobody is talking about the fact that they would have killed all those people. 

And frankly, I don't think they're even thinking about it. They're too fucking stupid to think about it.  You might say that they just forgot about that aspect of it. 

Those passenger and crew were innocent civilians. He had no right to take it on himself to decide to kill innocent civillians. He needs to be courtmartialed.  

Today is the 20th anniversary of 9/11. The 9/11 Truth Movement is, by far, the most prominent and successful and effective challenge to State lies in human history, although the U.S. Media completely ignores it.

The fanfare has begun, and I am startled to see what they have come up with this morning. They are claiming that a pair of Air Force pilots went on a suicde mission, in which they were going to ram their planes into United 93 to stop the terrorists. One of those two pilots, a female, Heather Penney, has become the face of it.

If you watch this video, you'll hear that "she was asked to give her life for her country."

 https://abcnews.go.com/US/video/remembering-911-fighter-pilot-suicide-mission-flight-93-79908880

But then, when she tells it, it sounds more like she and the other pilot weren't asked, that it was their own decision. 

"She went to arm her aircraft, but there wasn't enough time. She and another pilot, Marc Sasseville, had to get in the air.

"We did not have missiles. We were on a suicide mission. And in order to be able to take any airliner down, Sass would ram his aircraft into the cockpit where the terrorists were, to destroy the flight controls," she explained. "I would take the tail by ramming my jet into the tail of the aircraft, I would aerodynamically unbalance the airplane and tip it over so it would crash straight into the ground by targeting both ends of the aircraft. It was our plan to prevent any additional casualties."

RC: Prevent any additional casualties? What about the crew and passengers on the plane? Wouldn't they count as casualties?

First, the U.S. Military has never sanctioned suicide missions. That is a Taliban thing, for Christ's sake! And of course, the Japanese did it in World War 2 with their Kamikazi missions. 

The other pilot was Marc Sasseville, and he was just as vague about whether he was ordered to do it. 

In this telling of it, it was entirely their idea.

https://people.com/celebrity/911-f-16-pilot-marc-sasseville-was-prepared-for-kamikaze-mission/

In this telling, it was entirely his idea, where he just told her "to get her butt up there." So, that's how he got her to go on a suicide mission? No solemn, heavy, weighing of the matter, but just a quick, "Get your butt up there." ? That's all there was to it? Are you buying that? 

https://www.history.com/news/911-heather-penney-united-flight-93

But then, in this telling of it, it sounds like he was ordered, in so many words, to do it.

"We had gotten a call from the White House Joint Operations Center, and they could see the picture," Sasseville said. "They knew that Flight 93 had turned back. And they had basically asked if we had any airplanes that could go up the river." It made perfect sense what they were being asked to do, Sasseville said.

That is poorly worded because it changes abruptly from first person to third. But, "they" refers to Sasseville and Penney, and somehow "going up the river" was code for: crash your planes into United 93 and kill everyone aboard and yourselves. There is no other way to read it. 

I say this is a pile of horse shit, and I call on everyone to reject it. Not only has the U.S. Military not had a policy of suicide missions, but, the United States is not Afghanistan. Obviously, there are suicides in this country, but our culture does not embrace suicide. We don't celebrate it. We don't promise anyone dates and virgins if they do it. And that applies within the Military as well. Culturally, we value life. We value the life of the individual. 

Heather Penney was 27 years old in 2001, and she was still a rookie pilot. There is no reason to think she had given any thought whatsoever to suicide, and the idea that she would settle into doing it, in an instant, because this guy told her to get her butt up there is preposterous. People don't decide to kill themselves on that basis. It takes time to overcome the internal revulsion to it.  And especially in a 27 year old. She had a life and loved ones. She wasn't a combat pilot. She was a rookie in training. And the very idea that the United States government would send a 27 year old woman on a suicide mission is insane. If anything, we would send a man. Remember for how long that there were no women in the Military, period. And then it became that there were women in the Military but not in combat roles. She was in training as a fighter pilot, but she was never in combat. It would be a very heavy decision to send anyone on such a mission. But to send a 27 year old woman? And by way of a guy telling her to get her butt up there so that they could die?

Surely, if there were going to be a suicide mission, it would involve soliciting volunteers. No way would the Military just order someone, "You go die now. That's an order."

So, how could Marc Sasseville just assume that Heather Penney was willing to die? And how could he treat the matter of her dying so flippantly, as in:

Normally, preflight preparation for F-16 fighter jets takes a half-hour, allowing pilots to methodically work through a checklist. Being a rookie, Penney’s only combat experience was in training. As they ran out to their planes, she started going through the checklist. Sasseville stopped her and barked, “Lucky, what are you doing? Get your butt up there and let’s go!” She quickly climbed into her cockpit. As she powered up the engines, she shouted to the ground crew to pull the chock blocks holding the wheels.

Men protect women. In the Military, men protect women. They also rape women, and there has been an awful lot of that in the Military.  But, when it comes to war and combat, a male soldier will always seek to protect a woman. And a man would NEVER be presumptuous about a woman sacrificing her life. And he would never treat the matter as glibly and crudely as "Get your butt up there." We are talking about dying here, and people don't trivialize dying that way.   

But, here is another version of it by Heather, and it doesn't include anything about her butt. According to her:

Sass's locker was just three down from mine. And I'm trying to go through "Okay, don't forget anything. Okay, got my helmet, I got my lineup card, I got my DTC, I've got my harness," and I was zipping up my G-suit When Sass looked at me and says: "I'll take the cockpit," meaning that he would ram his aircraft into the cockpit of the airliner if we found it. And I would take the tail.

Nobody talks around suicide. He wouldn't just say to a 27 year old woman, "I'll take the cockpit" with the assumption that she's going to understand from that that she is supposed to crash her plane into the tail and die.  

You can read the whole interview if you want. I'm thinking she was pretty nervous because she talked too much. She concluded by saying that anyone, meaning any American, would have done it, been willing to commit suicide after seeing what happened on 9/11. Is she kidding? Does she really believe that? That everyone watching the smoldering towers was thinking, "If only I could give my life..." More horse shit. I was watching it on tv, and at the time, I didn't know what to think. I wasn't a 9/11 truther at the time, as I am now. But, I never once had the thought, "If only I could give my life..." You think I'm alone? 

https://www.msnbc.com/podcast/transcript-heather-penney-lucky-n1252273

Heather Penney has a husband and two daughters. I don't know if she was married in 2001, or if she had kids yet. But, even if she didn't have kids yet, she was a woman of child-bearing age, and the idea of her destroying not only herself but her future children certainly would have weighed on her, heavily. The idea that she could so easily and quickly accept death and negate the whole future she had planned for herself, including children, just because a guy told her to get her butt on a plane, or because he told her that he'd take the cockpit, like they were playing basketball and he was going to guard somebody- this is not how people talk about ending their lives.  

Now, please remember that the whole God-damn story is horse shit! United 93 never crashed at that spot in Pennsylvania to get swallowed by the Earth leaving nothing but skid marks and a hole. It's insane to believe such a thing.

And you should adamantly refuse to believe this bull shit story about these would-be American Kamikazis. To me, it is the icing on the cake of the whole fucking 9/11 lie.