Kennedy Assassination, 9/11, and other jokes

[TripleSkeet]

I was 60 miles outside of DC, and my phone worked fine all day. My brother was inside the Beltway. His worked fine, too.

You are the first person Ive heard say they had cell phone service that morning after the towers were hit. And thats the Gods honest truth.

[PapaBear]

You are the first person Ive heard say they had cell phone service that morning after the towers were hit. And thats the Gods honest truth.
There's a first time for everything. Especially when it comes to secret conspiracy theories.

[StanUpshaw]

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/American_Airlines_Flight_77_Calls

It's the staggering ignorance that really gets to me. You evidently believe your government murdered thousands of its own citizens, but you don't care enough about it to actually learn about it? You're either too stupid to understand the evidence, or too lazy to seek it out. I'm not sure what's worse. Either way, I feel sorry for...well...I won't say it.

[TripleSkeet]

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/American_Airlines_Flight_77_Calls

It's the staggering ignorance that really gets to me. You evidently believe your government murdered thousands of its own citizens, but you don't care enough about it to actually learn about it? You're either too stupid to understand the evidence, or too lazy to seek it out. I'm not sure what's worse. Either way, I feel sorry for...well...I won't say it.

Yea smart move. I think me and you went through that before, no need to get personal with me.

I tried reading all of that but then it went into all kinds of shit on when planes are removing phones and how much they plan to save. Im not interested in reading how airplane companies plan to save money. Are they trying to say she used an air phone? Ok then.

I just remember seeing the interview where he said she called from her cell and was like WTF???? Then I saw they didnt have seatback phones on the flight and thats when I got skeptical. I mean, I think its safe to say her call was one of the most important ones of that day, no? I would figure they would at least have a definitive answer on how she called, not "I think". But thats reasonable.

[TripleSkeet]

Just another quick question, was I the only one on here that had no cell service for hours after the planes hit the towers? Because what Papa said is the first Ive heard. Just curious.

[PapaBear]

Just another quick question, was I the only one on here that had no cell service for hours after the planes hit the towers? Because what Papa said is the first Ive heard. Just curious.
Keep in mind, you live closer to NY than I do (I'm assuming you did at the time). There were massive cell phone problems. But there wasn't a complete national loss of cell service.

[TripleSkeet]

Keep in mind, you live closer to NY than I do (I'm assuming you did at the time). There were massive cell phone problems. But there wasn't a complete national loss of cell service.

I was in Philly. But I had friends in Dallas TX and Hollywood Fl that had the same problems.

[PapaBear]

I was in Philly. But I had friends in Dallas TX and Hollywood Fl that had the same problems.
That means nothing. There are (and were) many cell providers, satellites, networks, etc. Not every cell phone in the country stopped working.

[TripleSkeet]

That means nothing. There are (and were) many cell providers, satellites, networks, etc. Not every cell phone in the country stopped working.

Right, Im not talking about the phones, Im talking about the service. Where we were at least, service was completely cut off. Thats why Im asking if anyone else on here had service that day.

[StanUpshaw]

I didn't own a cell phone until a few years later.

[TripleSkeet]

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/American_Airlines_Flight_77_Calls

It's the staggering ignorance that really gets to me. You evidently believe your government murdered thousands of its own citizens, but you don't care enough about it to actually learn about it? You're either too stupid to understand the evidence, or too lazy to seek it out. I'm not sure what's worse. Either way, I feel sorry for...well...I won't say it.

Oh and for the record, Im not in the camp that believes the government performed 9/11 and murdered those people. I lean more towards the idea that certain government officials knew more about what was going to happen on 9/11 then they let on, and instead of just preventing it, came up with a way to use the tragedy to further their own agendas and to profit from it.

[PapaBear]

I didn't own a cell phone until a few years later.
Can you show me proof of this statement?

[TripleSkeet]

Edit. My bad. Read the wrong quote.

[StanUpshaw]

Can you show me proof of this statement?

If you want my number, all you have to do is ask. :wub:

[PapaBear]

If you want my number, all you have to do is ask. :wub:
Edit. My bad. Read the wrong quote.

[StanUpshaw]

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/74SGEEzYOPo?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/74SGEEzYOPo?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

[fezident]

I know this was a thread about Kennedy but, since we've segued into 9/11, I think this video is appropriate:
Here's an animated video that I always thought was interesting.

On one hand, it's a well made, seemingly scientific, logical, reasonable explanation of the damage at the Pentagon.
On the other hand.... it's a fucking cartoon.

It tends to polarize it's audience.
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YVDdjLQkUV8?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YVDdjLQkUV8?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[hanso]

I may as well add this then.

<embed id=VideoPlayback src=http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-4654097530930074938&hl=en&fs=true style=width:400px;height:326px allowFullScreen=true allowScriptAccess=always type=application/x-shockwave-flash> </embed>

This is Video #2 from department of justice pentagon strike. Released thanks in part to the public interest group, Judicial Watch. I stop framed the still where the object is behind the stanchion on the right. A smoke trail appears from the right then the stanchion somehow covers the entire American Airlines Flight 77. The smoke trail could be explained from bouncing off the lawn as claimed.However a jetliner that had just bounced would have shown up before impact. As the flight whould have been altered and slown down. Not covered entirely by the stanchion as shown. Very odd to say the least.

Video came out 2007.

[sailor]

What of aj's boss, who saw it firsthand? Has anyone addressed that?

[A.J.]

I tend to ignore most of the "plane didn't hit the Pentagon" bullshit, and I'm sure you've heard this question before, but...

If a plane didn't hit the Pentagon, where is it?

http://www.microscopics.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/close-encounters-of-the-third-kind_tuba.jpg

[A.J.]

I didn't own a cell phone until a few years later.

I still don't!

[Barnaby Jones]

First of all, maybe Oswald didnt have any beans to spill. Just proclaiming his own innocence and killed before he could prove it. Im not going by Oliver Stones word like its gospel, I just think it wasnt as cut and dry as they said it was.

Did you know the evidence that he shot the police officer after shooting JFK is even more conclusive? And that when he was arrested he tried to shoot another officer and the only reason he didn't is that in the scuffle the officers hand (between the thumb and finger) got caught between the hammer and the gun? If he's so innocent, then why did he murder a police officer and attempt to murder another??!?

And this is what I mean. So eyewitness tstimony isnt evidence? Because Ive seen interviews where people that were there swear the shots came from somewhere else and when interviewed were TOLD they were wrong. I guess that doesnt count as any kind of evidence to the contrary?

No, eyewitness testimony on its own is not conclusive evidence!!! No prosecution worth a damn isn't going to go into a case with only eyewitness testimony!!! There needs to be actual evidence to back it up!!!

When you've got dozens of eyewitnesses, you're going to then look for actual evidence that what they're saying is true!!! And with the witnesses that talked about shots coming from behind them/ from Oswald's building they find the rifle, they find the shells, they find all the evidence in Oswald's behavior and background, the medical data and forensic evidence all point to shots coming from Oswald's window...that's how you know you can dismiss conflicting eyewitness testimony as being the result of panic or confusion!!! It's nothing nefarious...it's just common sense and smart investigating!!!

And the people claiming they were "bullied" away from their testimony are, quite frankly, full of shit. That's a myth made up out of whole cloth by conspiracy theorists that they propagated when they selectively interviewed the eyewitnesses that backed up their personal theories!!! They basically stroked their egos and convinced them that they must have been right and that they were the victims of a grand conspiracy themselves!!! It's the same mentality that's so appealing to conspiracy theorists; the idea that they know what's REALLY going down and they're somehow unique or special because of it!!! It's human nature to want to be an important part of something this big and historical, but when there's not a shred of evidence to back up those conflicting testimonies then there's no fire or smoke with what they're saying, especially when they come out years or decades after the fact with their "damning evidence" that can't be backed up at all!!!

Do you think OJ Simpson is innocent?!??

[Barnaby Jones]

Right, Im not talking about the phones, Im talking about the service. Where we were at least, service was completely cut off. Thats why Im asking if anyone else on here had service that day.

And I was calling a friend who worked in DC on his cell phone that day, too!!! I'm sure a lot of people weren't able to get through, though!!! Think of how burdened the carriers must have been by the sheer volume of calls!!!

It's interesting how history repeats itself!!! You've got a similar myth with the JFK assassination, too, about how the phone system in DC completely went down for hours after he was killed!!!

[Barnaby Jones]

Oh and for the record, Im not in the camp that believes the government performed 9/11 and murdered those people. I lean more towards the idea that certain government officials knew more about what was going to happen on 9/11 then they let on, and instead of just preventing it, came up with a way to use the tragedy to further their own agendas and to profit from it.

So what would something other than a plane hitting the Pentagon have to do with this?!?

[thepaulo]

Did you know the evidence that he shot the police officer after shooting JFK is even more conclusive? And that when he was arrested he tried to shoot another officer and the only reason he didn't is that in the scuffle the officers hand (between the thumb and finger) got caught between the hammer and the gun? If he's so innocent, then why did he murder a police officer and attempt to murder another??!?



No, eyewitness testimony on its own is not conclusive evidence!!! No prosecution worth a damn isn't going to go into a case with only eyewitness testimony!!! There needs to be actual evidence to back it up!!!

When you've got dozens of eyewitnesses, you're going to then look for actual evidence that what they're saying is true!!! And with the witnesses that talked about shots coming from behind them/ from Oswald's building they find the rifle, they find the shells, they find all the evidence in Oswald's behavior and background, the medical data and forensic evidence all point to shots coming from Oswald's window...that's how you know you can dismiss conflicting eyewitness testimony as being the result of panic or confusion!!! It's nothing nefarious...it's just common sense and smart investigating!!!

And the people claiming they were "bullied" away from their testimony are, quite frankly, full of shit. That's a myth made up out of whole cloth by conspiracy theorists that they propagated when they selectively interviewed the eyewitnesses that backed up their personal theories!!! They basically stroked their egos and convinced them that they must have been right and that they were the victims of a grand conspiracy themselves!!! It's the same mentality that's so appealing to conspiracy theorists; the idea that they know what's REALLY going down and they're somehow unique or special because of it!!! It's human nature to want to be an important part of something this big and historical, but when there's not a shred of evidence to back up those conflicting testimonies then there's no fire or smoke with what they're saying, especially when they come out years or decades after the fact with their "damning evidence" that can't be backed up at all!!!

Do you think OJ Simpson is innocent?!??

If the glove don't fit, you must aquit.

[Barnaby Jones]

Adults are talking, Paul!!!

[TripleSkeet]

Im done arguing this back and forth dude. Nothings going to change. Youre not going to change my mind, I dont even care about trying to change yours. You believe what you want, Ill believe what I want.

You wanna believe one guy killed the president of the US by himself with no help for some crazy reason that makes no sense to me, so be it. I will believe he was killed as a conspiracy in order to escalate a war and make certain people LOTS of money.

You wanna believe everything that happened on 9/11 is the gospel truth, so be it. I dont care. I dont. Too many people made too much money directly because of 9/11 for me to think the whole stiory is that cut and dry. Either way I dont care or feel like arguing it anymore. Im done.

[Barnaby Jones]

You're done because you don't have anything besides vague assertions that people had "money to make" and you're basing your opinions on things that you simply choose to not educate yourself about when it would be a simple matter to do so!!!

You say Oswald killed Kennedy "for some crazy reason that makes no sense to me," which just makes it clear you've done zero research into this!!! Oswald's history is no great secret!!! He was a pro-Castro Marxist who killed Kennedy because of his policies towards Cuba!!! How is that so crazy to you compared to the idea that there was some gigantic conspiracy to murder the President that would have had to involve hundreds of people at the very least that has remained totally secret and unrevealed for 50 years now?!? You denigrate the reality of the situation while willfully embracing the scattershot absurdity of conspiracy theory!!!

And why do you act like a lone person murdering the President is so impossible? What about Presidents Garfield and McKinley?!? Do you not believe that they were murdered by solo assassins?!?

And don't play the card of how anyone who disagrees with your half-assed cospiracy theories as believing in the "gospel truth" of anything!!! That's some weak as shit WF-style spin right there!!! If you can't hang because you're too lazy to do ANY kind of basic research and only want to rely on half-truths and rumors and lies that you overhear then just admit you don't want to!!!!

[Barnaby Jones]

Why do you think anyone would have needed to kill JFK to escalate the Vietnam War?!?

Why do you think Kennedy would not have escalated it?!?

[TripleSkeet]

You're done because you don't have anything besides vague assertions that people had "money to make" and you're basing your opinions on things that you simply choose to not educate yourself about when it would be a simple matter to do so!!!

You say Oswald killed Kennedy "for some crazy reason that makes no sense to me," which just makes it clear you've done zero research into this!!! Oswald's history is no great secret!!! He was a pro-Castro Marxist who killed Kennedy because of his policies towards Cuba!!! How is that so crazy to you compared to the idea that there was some gigantic conspiracy to murder the President that would have had to involve hundreds of people at the very least that has remained totally secret and unrevealed for 50 years now?!? You denigrate the reality of the situation while willfully embracing the scattershot absurdity of conspiracy theory!!!

And why do you act like a lone person murdering the President is so impossible? What about Presidents Garfield and McKinley?!? Do you not believe that they were murdered by solo assassins?!?

And don't play the card of how anyone who disagrees with your half-assed cospiracy theories as believing in the "gospel truth" of anything!!! That's some weak as shit WF-style spin right there!!! If you can't hang because you're too lazy to do ANY kind of basic research and only want to rely on half-truths and rumors and lies that you overhear then just admit you don't want to!!!!

What part of "I dont give a fuck what you believe" arent you getting?

The fact youre comparing killing a president in 1881 to one in the 1960s is enough for me.

Im done dude. I DONT CARE.

[Barnaby Jones]

What part of "I dont give a fuck what you believe" arent you getting?

The fact youre comparing killing a president in 1881 to one in the 1960s is enough for me.

Im done dude. I DONT CARE.

Then why dive in to this in the first place?!?! Were you expecting everyone else to be as complacent in their willful ignorance of politics and history?!??!

And what about the President killed in 1901?!? Or is that too much in the past for you, too???? And why do you think killing a President in 1881 is so radically different than one being killed in 1963?!?? The protection of the President as we know it today only happened after Kennedy was killed because of his assassination!!! Why do you think killing a President in the 1960's was so remarkable compared to to the killings of Garfield or McKinley?!?

It's "enough for you" because you don't want to put any thought in to this!!! None!!! Your understanding of history is even worse than your rating of quarterbacks!!!! If you don't cae then GTFO and stop wasting our time!!!

[TripleSkeet]

Then why dive in to this in the first place?!?! Were you expecting everyone else to be as complacent in their willful ignorance of politics and history?!??!

And what about the President killed in 1901?!? Or is that too much in the past for you, too???? And why do you think killing a President in 1881 is so radically different than one being killed in 1963?!?? The protection of the President as we know it today only happened after Kennedy was killed because of his assassination!!! Why do you think killing a President in the 1960's was so remarkable compared to to the killings of Garfield or McKinley?!?

It's "enough for you" because you don't want to put any thought in to this!!! None!!! Your understanding of history is even worse than your rating of quarterbacks!!!! If you don't cae then GTFO and stop wasting our time!!!

No its enough for me because Im going in circles with you. Both sides ask questions, you choose to believe what side you want to.

I dont expect anyone to agree with me. But the difference between me and you is I respect the fact you have a different opinion then myself and Im not trying to change your mind. Where you write off my questions and what I think as "crazy conspircay theory". Then you keep trying to change my mind, which I keep telling you, wont happen.

Do you believe every part of the Kennedy assassination happened exactly as its been reported? If you do, great, good for you. I dont. If not then you are like me, you think somethings are being covered up. Same goes for 9/11.

Like spoon said earlier, it amazes me how people can be ridiculed for questioning events like this by people that werent even fucking there. You dont fucking know if Oswald killed Kennedy. You believe it because government officials tell you thats what happened. And they tell you what evidence they found. You have no fucking idea if he actually shot him from that window. You choose to believe the governments offical story and the evidence they tell you they have. Great, I dont have a problem with you believing that, but personally, I dont.

You also dont know what the fuck happened on those planes on 9/11. Or what the government knew and when they knew it regarding to it. You also dont know if they were caught off guard or knew it was going to happen and choose not to stop it. You believe what they tell you, but theres no way for you to know whats lies and whats the truth. So again, you believe them, I fucking dont.

God damn you for bringing back into this. Thats it. Im officially done.

P.S. Yes it was easier to kill a President in 1901 and 1881 then it was in 1963. Just like it was easier to kill one in 63 then it is now. Simply because we have much more advanced technology and protocol in place to prevent it. And yea if Obama was assassinated Id definitely think there was something going on behind the scenes because that motherfucker should be the most protected president in history.

Now Im done.

[A.J.]

Then why dive in to this in the first place?!?! Were you expecting everyone else to be as complacent in their willful ignorance of politics and history?!??!

And what about the President killed in 1901?!? Or is that too much in the past for you, too???? And why do you think killing a President in 1881 is so radically different than one being killed in 1963?!?? The protection of the President as we know it today only happened after Kennedy was killed because of his assassination!!! Why do you think killing a President in the 1960's was so remarkable compared to to the killings of Garfield or McKinley?!?

It's "enough for you" because you don't want to put any thought in to this!!! None!!! Your understanding of history is even worse than your rating of quarterbacks!!!! If you don't cae then GTFO and stop wasting our time!!!

TS has punched out twice now. Let it go.

[Barnaby Jones]

If he's done then he should stop spouting bullshit he can't back up at all and dismissing the people who can actually back up their points!!!

He's trying to make it sound like the people that don't buy into the conspiracy crap are just taking anything and everything the government says at face value, and that's a load of shit!!! He's also trying to dismiss it all with a "oh, everyone has their opinions and nobody knows who is right so it's all equal" attitude that's just patently false in the face of what we actually know!!! We don't have to play some game where we have to act like these are gigantic mysteries where most of what happened isn't known!!! The big mysteries are constructs by people who don't like or accept reality!!! That means you've got a fundamentally flawed ideology and intellectual approach smashing up against actual evidence, analysis and investigation!!!

It's just silly logic...if the standard for accepting the reality of what happens is that everything has to be 100% explainable and understood then almost nothing in history or criminal investigations is legit!!! He's putting out this absurdly high level of expectations so that he can dismiss the mountain of evidence that show his opinions on these matters to be wrong!!! If he wants to give up, fine, but don't tell me I can't respond when he keeps spouting this garbage!!! It's dishonest and a bunch of intellectual and logical fallacies!!! He's a big boy and if he doesn't want to engage in any type of actual debate then he can stop posting in this thread!!! Otherwise it's fair game for people to point out how he's wrong or has unrealistic expectations!!!

Look at the point about the assassinations!!! He doesn't explain at all why killing a President in 1963 would be so much more difficult or impossible compared to 1901!!! That's clearly the point he's trying to make, but there's zero reasoning or explanation as to why! Kennedy was in the open all the time!!! He traveled in open motorcades and greeted crowds all the damn time during his Presidency!!! Oswald didn't have to leap through any great hoops to break the circle of protection around the President!!! There's nothing extraordinary about how he killed JFK!!!

[TripleSkeet]

If he's done then he should stop spouting bullshit he can't back up at all and dismissing the people who can actually back up their points!!!

He's trying to make it sound like the people that don't buy into the conspiracy crap are just taking anything and everything the government says at face value, and that's a load of shit!!! He's also trying to dismiss it all with a "oh, everyone has their opinions and nobody knows who is right so it's all equal" attitude that's just patently false in the face of what we actually know!!! We don't have to play some game where we have to act like these are gigantic mysteries where most of what happened isn't known!!! The big mysteries are constructs by people who don't like or accept reality!!! That means you've got a fundamentally flawed ideology and intellectual approach smashing up against actual evidence, analysis and investigation!!!

It's just silly logic...if the standard for accepting the reality of what happens is that everything has to be 100% explainable and understood then almost nothing in history or criminal investigations is legit!!! He's putting out this absurdly high level of expectations so that he can dismiss the mountain of evidence that show his opinions on these matters to be wrong!!! If he wants to give up, fine, but don't tell me I can't respond when he keeps spouting this garbage!!! It's dishonest and a bunch of intellectual and logical fallacies!!! He's a big boy and if he doesn't want to engage in any type of actual debate then he can stop posting in this thread!!! Otherwise it's fair game for people to point out how he's wrong or has unrealistic expectations!!!

Look at the point about the assassinations!!! He doesn't explain at all why killing a President in 1963 would be so much more difficult or impossible compared to 1901!!! That's clearly the point he's trying to make, but there's zero reasoning or explanation as to why! Kennedy was in the open all the time!!! He traveled in open motorcades and greeted crowds all the damn time during his Presidency!!! Oswald didn't have to leap through any great hoops to break the circle of protection around the President!!! There's nothing extraordinary about how he killed JFK!!!

Theres a difference between knowing everything, and THINKING you know everything. You are the fucking latter.

Me? Im neither.

[StanUpshaw]

Theres a difference between knowing everything, and THINKING you know everything. You are the fucking latter.

Me? Im neither.

Exactly! We've been saying from the start that you know nothing!

[Barnaby Jones]

Theres a difference between knowing everything, and THINKING you know everything. You are the fucking latter.

Me? Im neither.

You're as bad as WF when it comes to making up shit that nobody is saying and spinning off onto unrelated tangents when you don't have any kind of answer!!! Where did I say know everything about anything??? My point is that it's weak to claim things along the lines of "nobody on any side will ever know the whole truth" (and I know you didn't say that exactly; I'm paraphrasing, something you would do well to understand!!!!) when the reality is we know a a ton of "truths" about both of these events!!! It's disingenuous to present a conspiracy theory on the same level as a theory that Oswald acted alone when the amount of evidence weighs so heavily in favor of one conclusion when the others are based almost completely out of conjecture!!! You get that, right?? You challenge ideas that people can back up with evidence but then don't respond or throw up your hands and say you don't care when people can legitimately challenge what you're claiming and act like their theory is on the same level as yours!!! If that's the case, why can't you argue your points at all when someone points how how flawed they are??? That's a reasonable expectation!!!!

[CountryBob]

I never understand why some people get pissed off and mad at an issue that has nothing to do with them. Let's agree that we all have our own ability to put together an opinion on something that we didnt witness. if it is not the same opinion then so be it.

BTW...someone always makes money off of anything and everything.

[midwestjeff]

we all have our own ability to put together an opinion on something that we didnt witness.

I disagree.

[CountryBob]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CountryBob
we all have our own ability to put together an opinion on something that we didnt witness.

__________________
I disagree.



Haha!

[thepaulo]

Adults are talking, Paul!!!
I like when you use the big words even though me don't understand when they all strung together. You must be smart.

[Barnaby Jones]

I never understand why some people get pissed off and mad at an issue that has nothing to do with them. Let's agree that we all have our own ability to put together an opinion on something that we didnt witness. if it is not the same opinion then so be it.

BTW...someone always makes money off of anything and everything.

It's such a cop out to make declarative statements about something there's a ton information available for and then act like the opinions that ignore most of the information and evidence are similarly sound as the ones that don't!!!! It's not like we're talking about vague philosophical debates or differing opinions about things we have very little understanding of!!!

[Barnaby Jones]

I like when you use the big words even though me don't understand when they all strung together. You must be smart.

Hey Paul, you want to pick up where TS couldn't and actually make some points as to why you think the Oswald alone theory doesn't fly???

Yeah, I doubt this goes anywhere!!!

[thepaulo]

Hey Paul, you want to pick up where TS couldn't and actually make some points as to why you think the Oswald alone theory doesn't fly???

Yeah, I doubt this goes anywhere!!!

One of the points TS is making is that we don't know. To pretend there are definitive answers is foolish. Almost every point can be argued back and forth. That's fine but you don't give me the impression you have an open mind. You are so certain you are right on everything.
My belief is we will never know the real truth. It's fun to speculate as long as people don't get TOO CRAZY!

[TripleSkeet]

Jackie Kennedy did it. The end.

[StanUpshaw]

Jackie not only killed John, she Tupac'd us and ended up orchestrating 9/11.

[thepaulo]

The current climate is a little bit troubling. Way too much anti-Obama stuff has been going on way too long. The partisan nature of the current environment is rife with wackos who just might do something stupid.

(Uh oh....I think I've opened a can of worms....oh yeah...I'm going fishing.)

[Zorro]

The current climate is a little bit troubling. Way too much anti-Obama stuff has been going on way too long. The partisan nature of the current environment is rife with wackos who just might do something stupid.

(Uh oh....I think I've opened a can of worms....oh yeah...I'm going fishing.)

I agree, wish we could go back to the good old days of g.w. love

[hanso]

<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/25vlt7swhCM&rel=0&hl=ru_RU&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/25vlt7swhCM&rel=0&hl=ru_RU&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

Here is a jet hitting a wall at 500 mph. There was nothing left of it.
The one in question was said to be going 550 mph, around 200 mph faster than the normal maximum speed.

[Chigworthy]

Every time Barnaby Jones uses an exclamation point, a douche get his wings.

[TripleSkeet]

Every time Barnaby Jones uses an exclamation point, a douche get his wings.

:lol::lol::lol::clap::clap::clap:

[sailor]

<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/25vlt7swhCM&rel=0&hl=ru_RU&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/25vlt7swhCM&rel=0&hl=ru_RU&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

Here is a jet hitting a wall at 500 mph. There was nothing left of it.
The one in question was said to be going 550 mph, around 200 mph faster than the normal maximum speed.

they also said that wall was designed to move and absorb energy. it wasn't a typical wall.

[Zorro]

One of the points TS is making is that we don't know. To pretend there are definitive answers is foolish. Almost every point can be argued back and forth. That's fine but you don't give me the impression you have an open mind. You are so certain you are right on everything.
My belief is we will never know the real truth. It's fun to speculate as long as people don't get TOO CRAZY!

Actually his point seems to be that he has formed an opinion and neither facts nor evidence are going to get in the way.

[TripleSkeet]

Actually his point seems to be that he has formed an opinion and neither facts nor evidence are going to get in the way.

No. Thats not what I said. Again, youre "facts" have holes. Like you keep saying that video shows proof the plane flew into the Pentagon. I say thats comeplete bullshit because you cant see an actual plane, you say Im ignoring a fact. That was the stupid kind of arguments that made me wanna just forget about the whole thing.

[Barnaby Jones]

No. Thats not what I said. Again, youre "facts" have holes. Like you keep saying that video shows proof the plane flew into the Pentagon. I say thats comeplete bullshit because you cant see an actual plane, you say Im ignoring a fact. That was the stupid kind of arguments that made me wanna just forget about the whole thing.

The video does show proof! The video is of something very large and very fast slamming into the building!!! The physical evidence from the very same spot indicates that it was a plane!!! Hence the the video shows the plane hitting the building!!! Unless you think the physical evidence was forged or falsified then where's the hole (besides the one the plane made in the building)???

You seem to believe that passenger planes hit the Twin Towers...so why would anyone fake a third passenger plane hitting the Pentagon? What happened to that plane since we know for sure that it was hijacked? What happened to those passengers? Are these stupid arguments, too? At what point does common sense rule out over paranoia????

[Barnaby Jones]

One of the points TS is making is that we don't know. To pretend there are definitive answers is foolish. Almost every point can be argued back and forth. That's fine but you don't give me the impression you have an open mind. You are so certain you are right on everything.

Again, where have I said I'm right about everything??? I'm just pointing out how some theories have a ton more weight to them other, and these repeated attitudes of "oh, we don't know, everything can be argued back and forth" like all the theories are on the same level is cop out bull shit!!!!! Why do you think some half assed conspiracy theory with absolutely no evidence to back it up holds the same weight as a theory that has a ton of evidence????

There's having an open mind and then there's being willfully ignorant in the face of very arguable and defensible conclusions that have a lot of evidence to back them up!!!

And it cracks me up when conspiracy theorists accuse others of being close minded and then turn right around refuse to accept sound evidence staring them right in the face and say that those that don't accept their flimsy theories are just being spoon fed what "they" want us to think, maaaaannnnn!!!! Ignoring a massive amount of investigation and research and evidence just to pontificate about some out there theory that has little to no basis in reality isn't being open minded!!!

If you're so open minded, how about you take the time to actually argue in defense for just ONE JFK conspiracy theory that actually has any legs!!! Shouldn't be a problem, right??? So many open minded people out there over the last 50 years, they must have found just a single piece of critical evidence that backs up their theory or busts up the one that has Oswald acting alone!!!

[TripleSkeet]

The video does show proof! The video is of something very large and very fast slamming into the building!!! The physical evidence from the very same spot indicates that it was a plane!!! Hence the the video shows the plane hitting the building!!! Unless you think the physical evidence was forged or falsified then where's the hole (besides the one the plane made in the building)???

You seem to believe that passenger planes hit the Twin Towers...so why would anyone fake a third passenger plane hitting the Pentagon? What happened to that plane since we know for sure that it was hijacked? What happened to those passengers? Are these stupid arguments, too? At what point does common sense rule out over paranoia????

Im not getting into this again. I was just responding to someone that put words in my mouth. I want to see a clear video of a plane flying into the Pentagon. Thats all. Im not asking or answering any other questions. The tapes are there, I want to see a clear one.

That video shows a building, a white speck, and an explosion. I want to see one comparable to the twin tower one I posted earlier. Thats all. Im not saying its proof of this or that that I want, just that I know the tapes are out there, and considering this was a large reason behind our country going to war, we deserve to see a clear, self explanatory video. Thats not what theyve given us. Ive seen clearer videos taken with a cell phone.

Even if I believed the governments story 100%, Id still feel the same way about wanting to see those tapes.

[StanUpshaw]

What evidence do you have that video like that exists?

[TripleSkeet]

What evidence do you have that video like that exists?

I dont. I just refuse to believe the Pentagon has less security cameras then my local 7/11.

[weekapaugjz]

I dont. I just refuse to believe the Pentagon has less security cameras then my local 7/11.

the thing with security cameras is that they are usually up high looking down at the ground, not pointed up at the sky.

[StanUpshaw]

I dont. I just refuse to believe the Pentagon has less security cameras then my local 7/11.

So you would say that on a personal level, you are incredulous.

[PapaBear]

I dont. I just refuse to believe the Pentagon has less security cameras then my local 7/11.
Which is why the terrorists haven't attacked a single 7-11. They're crazy, but they aren't retarded.

[TripleSkeet]

the thing with security cameras is that they are usually up high looking down at the ground, not pointed up at the sky.

Well from what weve been told the plane went straight into the side of the building, so I would think it would be right in the line of site.

[TripleSkeet]

So you would say that on a personal level, you are incredulous.

I would say some things are just common sense. If the Pentagon says that was the only security camera they had in 2001, you can believe them if you want. Doesnt bother me. Im just saying I would not believe that.

[StanUpshaw]

How many security cameras are there in Manhattan?

[TripleSkeet]

How many security cameras are there in Manhattan?

I dont know. Why does that matter? As week already said most of them point down towards the street while the planes in NY were what? 50 stories up? I think all the videos shown of the towers were actually people with camcorders also, or news cameras getting the 2nd plane, not security cameras.

Im not sure I get your point. This is the home of US military intelligence we are talking about right? Is it too much to assume they would at least have security cameras recording the entire perimeter of the building?

[thepaulo]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120660/
Back in 1998, Will Smith made a movie called Enemy of the State, in which the NSA could track his every move through sarelitte surveilence.
This was three years before 9/11
Discuss.

[A.J.]

Which is why the terrorists haven't attacked a single 7-11. They're crazy, but they aren't retarded.

They'd be killing their own.

[Barnaby Jones]

I dont know. Why does that matter? As week already said most of them point down towards the street while the planes in NY were what? 50 stories up? I think all the videos shown of the towers were actually people with camcorders also, or news cameras getting the 2nd plane, not security cameras.

Im not sure I get your point. This is the home of US military intelligence we are talking about right? Is it too much to assume they would at least have security cameras recording the entire perimeter of the building?

They do! I don't know why you're talking about the camera that recorded that crash like it doesn't work or doesn't exist! They're time lapse cameras, which are more than enough if you're you're guarding or monitoring the building from conventional attack or break-in or trespassing!

TS, it was total coincidence that the documentary crew was in NYC that morning to inadvertently capture the first plane hitting the WTC! If that footage did not exist, would you believe that a plane hit the first tower?

[Barnaby Jones]

I dont. I just refuse to believe the Pentagon has less security cameras then my local 7/11.

So because your local 7-11 has one or two CCTV cameras as their entire security camera system they have better security than the Pentagon?!?!?! You think it's reasonable to expect that the Pentagon be prepared ahead of time to capture clear footage of a fucking passenger plane slamming into it???

[Barnaby Jones]

Im not getting into this again. I was just responding to someone that put words in my mouth. I want to see a clear video of a plane flying into the Pentagon. Thats all. Im not asking or answering any other questions. The tapes are there, I want to see a clear one.

That video shows a building, a white speck, and an explosion. I want to see one comparable to the twin tower one I posted earlier. Thats all. Im not saying its proof of this or that that I want, just that I know the tapes are out there, and considering this was a large reason behind our country going to war, we deserve to see a clear, self explanatory video. Thats not what theyve given us. Ive seen clearer videos taken with a cell phone.

Even if I believed the governments story 100%, Id still feel the same way about wanting to see those tapes.

It's not just "the government's story!!!"

And what are you getting into "again?" You've never explained why anyone would fake a plane crash into the Pentagon when you think the other attacks actually happened!!! It's perfectly logical to expect someone who thinks that something other than a passenger plane hit the Pentagon has even a basic guess as to what happen to the actual plane and the passengers!!!

You've created a very bizarre scenario that just doesn't make any sense!!! Come on, man, is it really unreasonable for someone to ask why you have these very conflicting opinions of 9/11? I really want to understand, because it's very perplexing!!!

[CountryBob]

I would like to see Barnaby Jones and TripleSkeet in a "point - counterpoint" kinda of show. Maybe we can finally get to the bottom of what the hell happened.

[Furtherman]

I would like to see Barnaby Jones and TripleSkeet in a "point - counterpoint" kinda of show. Maybe we can finally get to the bottom of what the hell happened.

Yea, that would be great.

We could call it " The I'm Not Getting Into This Vs. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Show".

[Barnaby Jones]

I'm very passionate!!!!!

[thepaulo]

I'm very passionate!!!!!



!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????????????????????????????? ???

[Barnaby Jones]

Still waiting, Paul!!! Got nothing?? Was a Will Smith movie your only rebuttal???

[StanUpshaw]

Still waiting, Paul!!! Got nothing?? Was a Will Smith movie your only rebuttal???

I think you mean a Will Smith documentary.

[TripleSkeet]

It's not just "the government's story!!!"

And what are you getting into "again?" You've never explained why anyone would fake a plane crash into the Pentagon when you think the other attacks actually happened!!! It's perfectly logical to expect someone who thinks that something other than a passenger plane hit the Pentagon has even a basic guess as to what happen to the actual plane and the passengers!!!

You've created a very bizarre scenario that just doesn't make any sense!!! Come on, man, is it really unreasonable for someone to ask why you have these very conflicting opinions of 9/11? I really want to understand, because it's very perplexing!!!

I want to see a clear video of a plane flying into the Pentagon. Thats all. Im not asking or answering any other questions.

Even if I believed the governments story 100%, Id still feel the same way about wanting to see those tapes.

:wallbash:!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[StanUpshaw]

So when you were in school and they were teaching you about the Gettysburg Address and Hannibal crossing the Alps, were you like "BULLSHIT! Show me the video, dickwad!"?

[Barnaby Jones]

You think YOU'RE frustrated?!?!? The rest of us are trying to figure out why that is the one thing you need to see to be convinced and all that evidence is meaningless to you without it!!!! It doesn't make sense why you only believe things that you can see played out in front of you!!! Do you not believe in anything that you can't see live or clear footage of??? If a giant earthquake is reported on the news but there's no footage of it as it happens, do you believe that it happened??? If you think this question is ridiculous, why do you think it makes sense that you HAVE to see footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon to believe that it happened???

Why are you so scared about answering hypothetical questions??? Again, if the documentary crew hadn't happened to have been in Manhattan that morning, would you believe that a plane hit the first tower???

You're acting like you're making this sound, reasonable point, but everyone else should be banging their heads against the wall out of frustration for you having such unrealistic expectations that you refuse to explain!!!

[fezident]

There is a very real and logical reason for TS's argument.
The video of that plane slamming into the pentagon IS -without question- hard to make out. It is unclear. Nobody can say otherwise.
The lens is dirty, there are objects in the foreground, there's lens-flare, and it's a fish-eye
But the most troublesome factor is that it's time-lapsed.
The camera takes a picture every few seconds, and those pictures are then shown in rapid succession to simulate full-motion. (yes... I know you already know this).

THE PROBLEM IS:
The frame rate used by that camera was designed to monitor things that travel at much slower speeds than an airplane. That camera would've perfectly and smoothly captured any pedestrian or vehicle. THAT footage would be clear. THAT footage definitely WOULD satisfy people like TripleSkeet and others.
Sadly, the airplane was traveling at such an incredible speed... that it slipped through the gaps in the frame-rate.
What we're left with is "you can kinda see something riiiiight... THERE! Didja see it?!"

For what it's worth, I used to agree with TS.
When it all went down, I was like "wait a minute, what the fuck? Where's all the debris? I don't even see a plane! What the fuck?".
I did a little research, and learned more about the plane, the impact, and the damage... etc.


I don't think it's fair to act like this video is a slamdunk, crystal clear, "you're crazy if you don't see a plane" presentation. TS made a point earlier, and I think it's a good one.
If you had no knowledge of this event, and somebody showed you this footage, what conclusion would you come to? Would you say "obviously, it's a commercial airplane crashing into a building" ? I don't believe you would. I think you'd say "the building exploded" or possibly "I think something crashed into the wall".
I obviously can't read your mind and I don't wanna put words in your mouth, so.... I'll leave it to you to answer that question honestly.
What can you really see in that video, and that video only?


Having said all that, TS... there is some very simple research you could do that I personally believe would satisfy your skeptic nature. You are right: it hasn't been handed to you a million times over, nor as clearly as the WTC collision footage but, it IS out there.

[Zorro]

I dont. I just refuse to believe the Pentagon has less security cameras then my local 7/11.

Than my local 7/11...then it was 2001...back then things were different.

Seriously...whether or not you believe a plane hit the pentagon is inconsequential. I just find it frustrating that you came into the conversation with an opinion and no amount of evidence is going to get you to move from that opinion or even consider an alternative. It reminds me of my cousin the birther.

[CountryBob]

There is a very real and logical reason for TS's argument.
The video of that plane slamming into the pentagon IS -without question- hard to make out. It is unclear. Nobody can say otherwise.
The lens is dirty, there are objects in the foreground, there's lens-flare, and it's a fish-eye
But the most troublesome factor is that it's time-lapsed.
The camera takes a picture every few seconds, and those pictures are then shown in rapid succession to simulate full-motion. (yes... I know you already know this).

THE PROBLEM IS:
The frame rate used by that camera was designed to monitor things that travel at much slower speeds than an airplane. That camera would've perfectly and smoothly captured any pedestrian or vehicle. THAT footage would be clear. THAT footage definitely WOULD satisfy people like TripleSkeet and others.
Sadly, the airplane was traveling at such an incredible speed... that it slipped through the gaps in the frame-rate.
What we're left with is "you can kinda see something riiiiight... THERE! Didja see it?!"

For what it's worth, I used to agree with TS.
When it all went down, I was like "wait a minute, what the fuck? Where's all the debris? I don't even see a plane! What the fuck?".
I did a little research, and learned more about the plane, the impact, and the damage... etc.


I don't think it's fair to act like this video is a slamdunk, crystal clear, "you're crazy if you don't see a plane" presentation. TS made a point earlier, and I think it's a good one.
If you had no knowledge of this event, and somebody showed you this footage, what conclusion would you come to? Would you say "obviously, it's a commercial airplane crashing into a building" ? I don't believe you would. I think you'd say "the building exploded" or possibly "I think something crashed into the wall".
I obviously can't read your mind and I don't wanna put words in your mouth, so.... I'll leave it to you to answer that question honestly.
What can you really see in that video, and that video only?


Having said all that, TS... there is some very simple research you could do that I personally believe would satisfy your skeptic nature. You are right: it hasn't been handed to you a million times over, nor as clearly as the WTC collision footage but, it IS out there.

Alright - who hired Fezident to manage this arguement? BTW... well done!

[TripleSkeet]

Thanks fezident.

Im not saying a plane didnt hit the Pentagon. Im not even saying flight 77 didnt hit the Pentagon. What I am saying is there should be alot clearer video of it happening then this....and I would like to see it.

Its one thing if theres an earthquake and there is no footage of it. Its another when the goverment says there was an earthquake in a spot that should have hundreds of cameras filming it...and they say the only one you are allowed to see is one that doesnt really show anything.

Its not that there isnt a video of this that bothers me, its the fact that there should be ALOT of videos of it, and we arent being allowed to see it. THAT makes me skeptical that theres more to it then we are being told. And thats all that Im saying. That there are things that happened on 9/11 that we arent being told.

But as soon as I say that there are people that jump right down your throat and thats why I just get aggrivated talking about it.

[thepaulo]

Still waiting, Paul!!! Got nothing?? Was a Will Smith movie your only rebuttal???

I'm way too normal for you and TS

[A.J.]

TS has brought up the cameras at the Pentagon: at the time of the attack, the Pentagon was undergoing renovation as, and I can attest to this, the building was a dump and unsafe. Wedge 1, where the plane hit (and where my office is located -- on the A ring, thank God), was completed literally days before 9/11. It's what saved the whole building from going up in flames.

I'm not exactly certain but I think increasing camera capabilities around the building was part of the plan at that time. And since that was a work in progress, I think this may explain the lack of quality footage.

[TripleSkeet]

TS has brought up the cameras at the Pentagon: at the time of the attack, the Pentagon was undergoing renovation as, and I can attest to this, the building was a dump and unsafe. Wedge 1, where the plane hit (and where my office is located -- on the A ring, thank God), was completed literally days before 9/11. It's what saved the whole building from going up in flames.

I'm not exactly certain but I think increasing camera capabilities around the building was part of the plan at that time. And since that was a work in progress, I think this may explain the lack of quality footage.

This is a normal, feasible, acceptible explanation. If its true. :wink::tongue:

[A.J.]

This is a normal, feasible, acceptible explanation. If its true. :wink::tongue:

On the other hand I work for the government so naturally, I'm expected to lie!

[TripleSkeet]

On the other hand I work for the government so naturally, I'm expected to lie!

I dont think youre high up enough to be expected to lie. I think once you move past a certain position you would be forced to stop mingling with us low lifes on this board.

[Earlshog]

[QUOTE=TripleSkeet;2804924]
You wanna believe one guy killed the president of the US by himself with no help for some crazy reason that makes no sense to me, so be it. I will believe he was killed as a conspiracy in order to escalate a war and make certain people LOTS of money.QUOTE]

TS Check out Vincent Bugliosi Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Very good read.

I've read tons of books on the topic and this is by far and away the most insightful.

[Earlshog]

I think you mean a Will Smith documentary.

Documentary or rockumentary

[Earlshog]

So when you were in school and they were teaching you about the Gettysburg Address and Hannibal crossing the Alps, were you like "BULLSHIT! Show me the video, dickwad!"?

God damn that made me laugh, dickwad always = funny

[spoon]

God damn that made me laugh, dickwad always = funny

Let it be know, Earlshog is keen on dickwads!

[sailor]

Documentary or rockumentary

Mockumentary.

[Barnaby Jones]

Thanks fezident.

Im not saying a plane didnt hit the Pentagon. Im not even saying flight 77 didnt hit the Pentagon. What I am saying is there should be alot clearer video of it happening then this....and I would like to see it.

Its one thing if theres an earthquake and there is no footage of it. Its another when the goverment says there was an earthquake in a spot that should have hundreds of cameras filming it...and they say the only one you are allowed to see is one that doesnt really show anything.

Its not that there isnt a video of this that bothers me, its the fact that there should be ALOT of videos of it, and we arent being allowed to see it. THAT makes me skeptical that theres more to it then we are being told. And thats all that Im saying. That there are things that happened on 9/11 that we arent being told.

But as soon as I say that there are people that jump right down your throat and thats why I just get aggrivated talking about it.

Seriously, I'm not "jumping down your throat!!!" I'm curious as to what you think we're not being told, especially when it comes to the Pentagon crash since that's where you're focusing the idea that something is being hidden from us!!!

And people aren't jumping down your throat necessarily if they're just pointing out how you're mistaken or have unrealistic expectations!!! For example: why do you think/expect that side of the Pentagon to have "hundreds of cameras filming it???"

There's no reason we can't talk this out, man!!! I'm curious as to what you base your opinions on and what you think could be being hidden from us!!!

Your refusal to tell us makes me think that you're...HIDING SOMETHING!!!! :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::clap::clap::tongue::t ongue:

[Barnaby Jones]

There is a very real and logical reason for TS's argument.
The video of that plane slamming into the pentagon IS -without question- hard to make out. It is unclear. Nobody can say otherwise.
The lens is dirty, there are objects in the foreground, there's lens-flare, and it's a fish-eye
But the most troublesome factor is that it's time-lapsed.
The camera takes a picture every few seconds, and those pictures are then shown in rapid succession to simulate full-motion. (yes... I know you already know this).

THE PROBLEM IS:
The frame rate used by that camera was designed to monitor things that travel at much slower speeds than an airplane. That camera would've perfectly and smoothly captured any pedestrian or vehicle. THAT footage would be clear. THAT footage definitely WOULD satisfy people like TripleSkeet and others.
Sadly, the airplane was traveling at such an incredible speed... that it slipped through the gaps in the frame-rate.
What we're left with is "you can kinda see something riiiiight... THERE! Didja see it?!"

For what it's worth, I used to agree with TS.
When it all went down, I was like "wait a minute, what the fuck? Where's all the debris? I don't even see a plane! What the fuck?".
I did a little research, and learned more about the plane, the impact, and the damage... etc.


I don't think it's fair to act like this video is a slamdunk, crystal clear, "you're crazy if you don't see a plane" presentation. TS made a point earlier, and I think it's a good one.
If you had no knowledge of this event, and somebody showed you this footage, what conclusion would you come to? Would you say "obviously, it's a commercial airplane crashing into a building" ? I don't believe you would. I think you'd say "the building exploded" or possibly "I think something crashed into the wall".
I obviously can't read your mind and I don't wanna put words in your mouth, so.... I'll leave it to you to answer that question honestly.
What can you really see in that video, and that video only?


Having said all that, TS... there is some very simple research you could do that I personally believe would satisfy your skeptic nature. You are right: it hasn't been handed to you a million times over, nor as clearly as the WTC collision footage but, it IS out there.

Great post!!!

Though one thing: nobody is acting like the video is a slam dunk!!! TS wants a slam dunk video, and doesn't think the ones available are, and understandable so!!! The problem is that he's willfully ignoring everything else that are "slam dunks," like all the debris and evidence found at the scene and the black box and such!! Any video is just sort of a fucked up cherry on top of the gigantic sundae of evidence being served up!!!

[TripleSkeet]

Seriously, I'm not "jumping down your throat!!!" I'm curious as to what you think we're not being told, especially when it comes to the Pentagon crash since that's where you're focusing the idea that something is being hidden from us!!!

And people aren't jumping down your throat necessarily if they're just pointing out how you're mistaken or have unrealistic expectations!!! For example: why do you think/expect that side of the Pentagon to have "hundreds of cameras filming it???"

There's no reason we can't talk this out, man!!! I'm curious as to what you base your opinions on and what you think could be being hidden from us!!!

Your refusal to tell us makes me think that you're...HIDING SOMETHING!!!! :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::clap::clap::tongue::t ongue:

I dont think there are hundreds of cameras on that side, I think there are hundreds around the whole perimete of the building. And I would think there would be better shots and more videos then what theyve shown. I mean, like I said, this is supposed to be the home of US military intelligence right? I would figure security there would be top notch and nothing would be left unseen by cameras. I am assuming this of course. So when the public asked for the videos and thats what they gave, I was like WTF?

[Barnaby Jones]

I dont think there are hundreds of cameras on that side, I think there are hundreds around the whole perimete of the building. And I would think there would be better shots and more videos then what theyve shown. I mean, like I said, this is supposed to be the home of US military intelligence right? I would figure security there would be top notch and nothing would be left unseen by cameras. I am assuming this of course. So when the public asked for the videos and thats what they gave, I was like WTF?

Hey, it's cool, everyone makes mistakes!! Now I understand why you were mistaken; it's understandable for the automatic assumption would be that they would have a ton of cameras outside, but when you think about it for a bit it doesn't really make sense for that to be the case! It would most critical for their comprehensive surveillance to actually be on the inside as opposed to the outside, especially since the outside is primarily covered by actual patrols as opposed to dudes just sitting there staring at cameras or checking them after the fact!!! This is also a building that in terms of every day security was primarily designed to be secure against small break ins and infiltrations; in short they are focused primarily towards ground level to capture things at "low" speed (people and ground vehicles as opposed to aircraft slamming into the side of the building)!!!! Time lapse cameras like what we saw are more than enough to deal with such expectations!! Low frame rates allowed them to conserve tape when recording!! The bottom line is that there really wasn't a reason to have a comprehensive camera system set up that would be a lock to capture a clear image of a passenger plane slamming into the building since something of that scale was so unlikely to happen!! Understandable mistakes, though!

TS, you'll find a good discussion here over the camera issue at the Pentagon that has people arguing well for both conspiracy and non-conspiracy!!! It's a good example of how easy it is to get worked up over what looks like some big conspiracy (we all want to think we're in the know with someone we shouldn't know) and then how reality tends to be much more mundane!!!

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread395619/pg1

Don't get me wrong, it's not like we know ALL the answers and that the government doesn't hide stuff from us, but the government/military classifies a ton of stuff all the time, ESPECIALLY things that make them look bad! Remember, things like 9/11 and JFK getting killed are like their biggest possible fuck ups, so you willf ind people trying to hide shit...but the sad reality is it's usually people being very human and trying to cover their own asses!!!

Yeah, on the surface it seems weird that we can't just watch all of the footage from that day...but at the same time we have to keep a level head and look at the bigger picture!!! What would we possibly see that would be so different from the general accepted takes on the events of that day?? If it's not the plane, then there's a billion other unexplainable things that show up, like where did all the debris and physical evidence come from, and how was it all planted without all the local media (and the reporters who actually work at the Pentagon) noticing anything???

[StanUpshaw]

It might seem like the Pentagon should be wallpapered with cameras, but you have to remember that this whole scenario was made possible due to the fact that we were using cockpit doors significantly less sturdy than those used at the Ultimate Fighter training facility.

It was a pre-9/11 world...it's entirely possible that they were stupid and lax!!!!!!



Oh shit!!!!!!! Now I'm doing it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Barnaby Jones]

It might seem like the Pentagon should be wallpapered with cameras, but you have to remember that this whole scenario was made possible due to the fact that we were using cockpit doors significantly less sturdy than those used at the Ultimate Fighter training facility.

It was a pre-9/11 world...it's entirely possible that they were stupid and lax!!!!!!



Oh shit!!!!!!! Now I'm doing it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

See??? It's catchy!!!!

[PapaBear]

it's entirely possible that they were stupid and lax!!!!!!
Kind of like how banks are? So many retailers now have cameras, to catch shoplifters, that are fucking awesome. Yet, any time you see footage from a bank robbery, you can barely tell the suspect is human.

[thepaulo]

Still waiting, Paul!!! Got nothing?? Was a Will Smith movie your only rebuttal???

I'm interested but I am a little busy too devote much time to this.
There is one central question.
Did Kennedy say he would break the CIA apart?
He did fire three of it's top people. If that is true then any number of scenarios can take place from looking the other way to organizing a coup.
I suppose your argument would be that these were trained professionals who would never condone traitorous acts.
We can only look to the past and a long history of treachery.
or we can look to the present atmosphere of poisonous partisanship.
I simply do not know.
I do know that Bugliosi's arguments are biased and frequently flawed. If you don't admit that, there really is nothing left to discuss.
But I think there are no definative answers in the Kennedy matter because too many pieces are missing.

[Crispy_Mobile]

It reminds me of my cousin the birther.

Wow! from conspiracy theories to incest, who saw that one coming?
Tell us Z-man, how much birthin has your cuz done for ya? You sly dog!

[spoon]

Wow! from conspiracy theories to incest, who saw that one coming?
Tell us Z-man, how much birthin has your cuz done for ya? You sly dog!

Hot

[Barnaby Jones]

I'm interested but I am a little busy too devote much time to this.
There is one central question.
Did Kennedy say he would break the CIA apart?

Maybe!!!

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jfk_cia.htm

Even if he did, he supposedly said that early in his term, over two years before he was killed!!! Between when he supposedly voiced his dissatisfaction with the Agency he and his brother ended up embroiled in a relationship with the CIA that no President before or since has had in terms of support!!! This is why most JFK conspiracy theories are pure hokum; people take something they think they heard or something out of context and spin of some cockamamie theory that has no basis in anything!!!

Think about this for two seconds, Paul: why would the CIA kill the President that gave them the most support, political and financial, and the most leeway compared to any other President??? It makes no sense for them to kill him since the assassination of a President in such volatile times would immediately kill their leverage to continue going after Castro and other "unfriendlies" overseas!!! Kennedy being killed was actually BAD for the CIA!!!

He did fire three of it's top people. If that is true then any number of scenarios can take place from looking the other way to organizing a coup.

Huh??? Presidents fire or force out CIA directors and and assistant directors all the time; they're appointed positions that are typically stacked by sitting administrations!!! Kennedy fired who he did because they weren't aggressive enough by his standards in terms of combating Castro and the spread of revolution in the Caribbean and Central and South America!!! He appointed intelligence officials that would be on board with his pro-CIA, gung-ho black ops approach!!! Why would the more "conservative" former directors kill him over that??? What do they gain??? It's not like they get their jobs back!!!!

I suppose your argument would be that these were trained professionals who would never condone traitorous acts.

No, my argument is that these are nonsensical theories that don't make a lick of sense and fly in the face of reality and history!!!!

I do know that Bugliosi's arguments are biased and frequently flawed. If you don't admit that, there really is nothing left to discuss.

Everyone's arguments are biased, and any work as massive as Bugliosi's is going to have some flaws and inaccuracies! That said, it's not "frequently flawed" except form the standpoint of conspiracy theorists who think it contradicts their inherently flawed and unprovable theories!!! Bugliosi's book is by far the most accurate and comprehensive source of reliable information about the assassination besides the Warren Report!!! That's going to make conspiracy theorists bleed from the anus, but it's the truth!!!

But I think there are no definative answers in the Kennedy matter because too many pieces are missing.

That's your own mistake!!! You have to willfully ignore a ton of very valid and obvious information, investigation and evidence to make such a ridiculous and cowardly statement!!!

[thepaulo]

Maybe!!!

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jfk_cia.htm

Even if he did, he supposedly said that early in his term, over two years before he was killed!!! Between when he supposedly voiced his dissatisfaction with the Agency he and his brother ended up embroiled in a relationship with the CIA that no President before or since has had in terms of support!!! This is why most JFK conspiracy theories are pure hokum; people take something they think they heard or something out of context and spin of some cockamamie theory that has no basis in anything!!!

Think about this for two seconds, Paul: why would the CIA kill the President that gave them the most support, political and financial, and the most leeway compared to any other President??? It makes no sense for them to kill him since the assassination of a President in such volatile times would immediately kill their leverage to continue going after Castro and other "unfriendlies" overseas!!! Kennedy being killed was actually BAD for the CIA!!!



Huh??? Presidents fire or force out CIA directors and and assistant directors all the time; they're appointed positions that are typically stacked by sitting administrations!!! Kennedy fired who he did because they weren't aggressive enough by his standards in terms of combating Castro and the spread of revolution in the Caribbean and Central and South America!!! He appointed intelligence officials that would be on board with his pro-CIA, gung-ho black ops approach!!! Why would the more "conservative" former directors kill him over that??? What do they gain??? It's not like they get their jobs back!!!!



No, my argument is that these are nonsensical theories that don't make a lick of sense and fly in the face of reality and history!!!!



Everyone's arguments are biased, and any work as massive as Bugliosi's is going to have some flaws and inaccuracies! That said, it's not "frequently flawed" except form the standpoint of conspiracy theorists who think it contradicts their inherently flawed and unprovable theories!!! Bugliosi's book is by far the most accurate and comprehensive source of reliable information about the assassination besides the Warren Report!!! That's going to make conspiracy theorists bleed from the anus, but it's the truth!!!



That's your own mistake!!! You have to willfully ignore a ton of very valid and obvious information, investigation and evidence to make such a ridiculous and cowardly statement!!!

You are enormously biased. You are heavily invested in your beliefs. Again every point we could argue just leads us down an endless rabbit hole. There are two sides and they violently disagree.

I'm stuck in the middle

[Barnaby Jones]

You're spouting gibberish!! "Violently disagree???" What a nonsensical crock of shit!

There's no rabbit hole! You're pretending that everything is as ignorant as your own lack of knowledge when that simply isn't the case!!! Make an effort to learn something, anything about all of this and stop pretending like there's not a ton of information that you could actually consider and form an opinion around!!!

And like I said, everyone is biased in their beliefs!!! That's a silly observation, and you're a naive child if you think that you're not biased yourself!!!

Give me a call when you're ready to actually learn something, Paul!!!! Until then just wallow in ignorance on your own and stop pretending like everyone else is as willfully ignorant about this as you are!!

Not above how you yet again do not address any of the actual points brought up about this and instead blather on about nonsense semantics!!!

[StanUpshaw]

You are enormously biased. You are heavily invested in your beliefs. Again every point we could argue just leads us down an endless rabbit hole. There are two sides and they violently disagree.

I'm stuck in the middle

There are two sides to the debate on the heliocentric model, for fuck's sake.


Don't act like it's some virtue to be a fence-sitter.

[hanso]

I know this was a thread about Kennedy but, since we've segued into 9/11, I think this video is appropriate:
Here's an animated video that I always thought was interesting.

On one hand, it's a well made, seemingly scientific, logical, reasonable explanation of the damage at the Pentagon.
On the other hand.... it's a fucking cartoon.

It tends to polarize it's audience.


No it had video and pictures also. Well done.

they also said that wall was designed to move and absorb energy. it wasn't a typical wall.

The Pentagon isn't as well. Has something like that. And has thick walls like 2 feet thick every ten feet. If I remember right.

[hanso]

There is a very real and logical reason for TS's argument.
The video of that plane slamming into the pentagon IS -without question- hard to make out. It is unclear. Nobody can say otherwise.
The lens is dirty, there are objects in the foreground, there's lens-flare, and it's a fish-eye
But the most troublesome factor is that it's time-lapsed.
The camera takes a picture every few seconds, and those pictures are then shown in rapid succession to simulate full-motion. (yes... I know you already know this).

THE PROBLEM IS:
The frame rate used by that camera was designed to monitor things that travel at much slower speeds than an airplane. That camera would've perfectly and smoothly captured any pedestrian or vehicle. THAT footage would be clear. THAT footage definitely WOULD satisfy people like TripleSkeet and others.
Sadly, the airplane was traveling at such an incredible speed... that it slipped through the gaps in the frame-rate.
What we're left with is "you can kinda see something riiiiight... THERE! Didja see it?!"

For what it's worth, I used to agree with TS.
When it all went down, I was like "wait a minute, what the fuck? Where's all the debris? I don't even see a plane! What the fuck?".
I did a little research, and learned more about the plane, the impact, and the damage... etc.


I don't think it's fair to act like this video is a slamdunk, crystal clear, "you're crazy if you don't see a plane" presentation. TS made a point earlier, and I think it's a good one.
If you had no knowledge of this event, and somebody showed you this footage, what conclusion would you come to? Would you say "obviously, it's a commercial airplane crashing into a building" ? I don't believe you would. I think you'd say "the building exploded" or possibly "I think something crashed into the wall".
I obviously can't read your mind and I don't wanna put words in your mouth, so.... I'll leave it to you to answer that question honestly.
What can you really see in that video, and that video only?


Having said all that, TS... there is some very simple research you could do that I personally believe would satisfy your skeptic nature. You are right: it hasn't been handed to you a million times over, nor as clearly as the WTC collision footage but, it IS out there.

Like the Mike Tyson - James 'Buster' Douglas fight. Mike got hit so hard he went right out of frame.

[thepaulo]

You're spouting gibberish!! "Violently disagree???" What a nonsensical crock of shit!

There's no rabbit hole! You're pretending that everything is as ignorant as your own lack of knowledge when that simply isn't the case!!! Make an effort to learn something, anything about all of this and stop pretending like there's not a ton of information that you could actually consider and form an opinion around!!!

And like I said, everyone is biased in their beliefs!!! That's a silly observation, and you're a naive child if you think that you're not biased yourself!!!

Give me a call when you're ready to actually learn something, Paul!!!! Until then just wallow in ignorance on your own and stop pretending like everyone else is as willfully ignorant about this as you are!!

Not above how you yet again do not address any of the actual points brought up about this and instead blather on about nonsense semantics!!!

I'm not getting dragged down the RABBITHOLE.

You are ridiculously close-minded and biased.

I'm a fence sitter because too much of the evidence is gone or unavailable.
You criticize all conspiracy theorist with a broad stroke, but some are highly credible and some are wackos. (and then there is also the crazy, wacky possibility of planted disinformation.....and just the mere mention of such a concept is sure to ignite a plethora of exclaimation points).

[Barnaby Jones]

I'm not getting dragged down the RABBITHOLE.

You are ridiculously close-minded and biased.

I'm a fence sitter because too much of the evidence is gone or unavailable.
You criticize all conspiracy theorist with a broad stroke, but some are highly credible and some are wackos. (and then there is also the crazy, wacky possibility of planted disinformation.....and just the mere mention of such a concept is sure to ignite a plethora of exclaimation points).

Paul, the only "rabbithole" is the one you've made up to avoid having to do any kind of research into this or trying to have any kind of opinion!!! There's nothing brave or bold about being in "the middle" of debate where there's scores of evidence available!!! Throwing your hands up and saying "we'll never know" without any kind of exploration about what we do know isn't being reasonable or unbiased or whatever else you think it is!! It's just lazy!!!

It's funny how you say I'm close minded, yet I'm the one that's actually looking at all the various conclusions and then weighing them against the huge amount of evidence and information we have available!!! You're the one that's refusing to that and pretending like this is some great vague mystery where we'll never have any ability to examine what happened!!! Not so!!!

Paul, I've asked you several times to simply present one theory that has any kind of critical evidence behind it that supports it or that challenges the theories that present Oswald as the solo shooter!!! That's it!!! You keep mentioning "highly credible" conspiracy theories, so why not explain them to us and see if they stand up to scrutiny??? The honest truth is that I doubt you can do this since just above you lend credence to the idea that main critical evidence in the solo shooter theories are "disinformation!!!" If your "credible" theories rely on the idea that the evidence is faked then you've already debunked it yourself because already you're talking about a conspiracy that would require at least hundreds of people involved that hasn't been exposed, accidentally or on purpose, for 50 years now!!! Use some critical thinking, Paul!!!

[A.J.]

Did Kennedy say he would break the CIA apart?
He did fire three of it's top people. If that is true then any number of scenarios can take place from looking the other way to organizing a coup.

No. He fired Allen Dulles because he fucked up the Bay of Pigs.

If anybody destroyed the CIA it was Jimmy Carter when he appointed Stansfield Turner as Director. That and the Church Committee Hearings damaged intelligence gathering for years.

[A.J.]

The Pentagon isn't as well. Has something like that. And has thick walls like 2 feet thick every ten feet. If I remember right.

6 inches of limestone on the outside, 8 inches of brick and then 10 inches of concrete.

Also, the outer windows were being replaced with double-pane, blast-resistant windows.

[hanso]

So that is sorta right then. How about this? Is it true that an office destroyed that day held records of funds that were lost in the war effort?
Donald Rumsfeld had made that known just the day before in a press conference. Something like 10 billion dollars.

[A.J.]

So that is sorta right then. How about this? Is it true that an office destroyed that day held records of funds that were lost in the war effort?
Donald Rumsfeld had made that known just the day before in a press conference. Something like 10 billion dollars.

What war effort?

[hanso]

War in Iraq.

[Snoogans]

the war in iraq hadnt even started yet. They lost budget and finance documents

[thepaulo]

Paul, the only "rabbithole" is the one you've made up to avoid having to do any kind of research into this or trying to have any kind of opinion!!! There's nothing brave or bold about being in "the middle" of debate where there's scores of evidence available!!! Throwing your hands up and saying "we'll never know" without any kind of exploration about what we do know isn't being reasonable or unbiased or whatever else you think it is!! It's just lazy!!!

It's funny how you say I'm close minded, yet I'm the one that's actually looking at all the various conclusions and then weighing them against the huge amount of evidence and information we have available!!! You're the one that's refusing to that and pretending like this is some great vague mystery where we'll never have any ability to examine what happened!!! Not so!!!

Paul, I've asked you several times to simply present one theory that has any kind of critical evidence behind it that supports it or that challenges the theories that present Oswald as the solo shooter!!! That's it!!! You keep mentioning "highly credible" conspiracy theories, so why not explain them to us and see if they stand up to scrutiny??? The honest truth is that I doubt you can do this since just above you lend credence to the idea that main critical evidence in the solo shooter theories are "disinformation!!!" If your "credible" theories rely on the idea that the evidence is faked then you've already debunked it yourself because already you're talking about a conspiracy that would require at least hundreds of people involved that hasn't been exposed, accidentally or on purpose, for 50 years now!!! Use some critical thinking, Paul!!!

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0992a.asp


The FBI and CIA are part of our government. Could they or other parts of our government or rouge agents have had any involvement? This is the key question.
So I will try and research this issue fully.

[Barnaby Jones]

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0992a.asp


The FBI and CIA are part of our government. Could they or other parts of our government or rouge agents have had any involvement? This is the key question.
So I will try and research this issue fully.

I don't understand what amounts to little more than an op-ed piece from 1992 has to do with anything?!??

How about you just think for two seconds about what these "rogue elements" would possibly gain from JFK being killed???

Let's see, he was escalating the US involvement in Vietnam...he was letting the CIA go nuts trying to take out Castro and working around the world....what do you think they have to gain??? It only makes sense if you buy the garbage ideas that he was trying to reign in or shut down the CIA and was going to pull us out of Vietnam, both of which are obviously false statements!!! Again, the "rabbit hole" is constructed out of falsehoods that ignore history!!!

Best of all, the death of JFK brought in a president far more dynamic and radically liberal than him in the form of LBJ...you really think THAT was the intention of these "rogue elements????"

Are your elements really dumb as well as being rogue?

[thepaulo]

I don't understand what amounts to little more than an op-ed piece from 1992 has to do with anything?!??

How about you just think for two seconds about what these "rogue elements" would possibly gain from JFK being killed???

Let's see, he was escalating the US involvement in Vietnam...he was letting the CIA go nuts trying to take out Castro and working around the world....what do you think they have to gain??? It only makes sense if you buy the garbage ideas that he was trying to reign in or shut down the CIA and was going to pull us out of Vietnam, both of which are obviously false statements!!! Again, the "rabbit hole" is constructed out of falsehoods that ignore history!!!

Best of all, the death of JFK brought in a president far more dynamic and radically liberal than him in the form of LBJ...you really think THAT was the intention of these "rogue elements????"



Are your elements really dumb as well as being rogue?

Nothing you said was true. How can I prevail against someone with no shame?

[Barnaby Jones]

Nothing you said was true. How can I prevail against someone with no shame?

Hahahahaah!!! What??? You're not serious, right???

Please, explain how those points aren't true!!!

[thepaulo]

The real issue here is the CIA/FBI/NSA/etc. It is impossible to fully understand these organizations because they operate in secret. It will take forever to look into every allegation or conspiracy involving them. So rather than try I'll throw out one of the crazier ones.......................or is it crazy?

Now this particular blog is hardly the most credible but interesting anyway.

http://www.john-lennon.net/whoauthorizedtheassassinationofjohnlennon.htm

[StanUpshaw]

Every criminal operates in secret.

Or did Khalid Sheikh Mohammed have a newsletter I wasn't aware of?

[Barnaby Jones]

This is just getting silly!! Paul's defense of conspiracy theories...is to bring up other conspiracy theories!!! And he complains about other people trying to drag him into some kind of "rabbit hole!" What a depressing trap of anti-logic!!!

I'd like to just see Paul explain why the CIA/FBI/NSA or "rogue" elements of them would want Kennedy dead!!

[hanso]

The real issue here is the CIA/FBI/NSA/etc. It is impossible to fully understand these organizations because they operate in secret. It will take forever to look into every allegation or conspiracy involving them. So rather than try I'll throw out one of the crazier ones.......................or is it crazy?

Now this particular blog is hardly the most credible but interesting anyway.

http://www.john-lennon.net/whoauthorizedtheassassinationofjohnlennon.htm

Here is a crazy one. NASA and the moon shot. There are those that say going to the moon was faked.

This is not my deal BTW I'm just having fun with it.

JFK got the ball rolling on this. A lot of money had to be set aside to fund the Apollo missions. So if it was faked, he was in on it, And was going to spill the beans, or was to loose with it. Blackmail etc. For this he had to be taken out.

Here is your next movie Paulo.

[thepaulo]

This is just getting silly!! Paul's defense of conspiracy theories...is to bring up other conspiracy theories!!! And he complains about other people trying to drag him into some kind of "rabbit hole!" What a depressing trap of anti-logic!!!

I'd like to just see Paul explain why the CIA/FBI/NSA or "rogue" elements of them would want Kennedy dead!!

To explain why you would have to detail the entire history of the intelligence community and the way they operate. It is part of the rule book to use diversion and subterfuge. You constantly say it's not logical why something would happen. Intelligent strategies deliberately use moves that confuse and defy logic. Your main argument is that something doesn't make sense. IT'S NOT SUPPOSE TO MAKE SENSE. If you don't accept the nature of government intelligence is to decieve then we cannot proceed.

Can we seriously talk about the endless possibilities when many of them seem crazy by design.
I mean, The Manchurian Candidate...come on. We wouldn't even be able to begin a discussion of something like that. These are things we simply do not know about.

[cougarjake13]

manchurian is a good movie

[sailor]

Here is a crazy one. NASA and the moon shot. There are those that say going to the moon was faked.

This is not my deal BTW I'm just having fun with it.

JFK got the ball rolling on this. A lot of money had to be set aside to fund the Apollo missions. So if it was faked, he was in on it, And was going to spill the beans, or was to loose with it. Blackmail etc. For this he had to be taken out.

Here is your next movie Paulo.

except we can see equipment left on the moon.

[thepaulo]

except we can see equipment left on the moon.

You might want to check out the trailer for Transformers III

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H8bnKdf654

[hanso]

Ah he's already on top of it. Good on ya. Can run with it. Just ad me in the closing credits. :smoke:

[Barnaby Jones]

To explain why you would have to detail the entire history of the intelligence community and the way they operate.

No, it wouldn't!!! There's your rabbit hole again!!! It requires you to ignore common sense and rational thought!!! Just hypothesize why YOU think anyone in the U.S. intelligence community would want JFK dead!!! Quit being a wuss and give it a go!!!

You say you want to seriously talk about this yet insist on referring to the intelligence community like you're a scaredy-cat who thinks the movies are real!!! Why do you think the intelligence community is infallible??? Because that's what you're saying if you think they can pull of a conspiracy of this magnitude (and make no mistake, it would have to be gigantic and involve at least hundreds of people) and completely get away with it!!!

[thepaulo]

No, it wouldn't!!! There's your rabbit hole again!!! It requires you to ignore common sense and rational thought!!! Just hypothesize why YOU think anyone in the U.S. intelligence community would want JFK dead!!! Quit being a wuss and give it a go!!!

You say you want to seriously talk about this yet insist on referring to the intelligence community like you're a scaredy-cat who thinks the movies are real!!! Why do you think the intelligence community is infallible??? Because that's what you're saying if you think they can pull of a conspiracy of this magnitude (and make no mistake, it would have to be gigantic and involve at least hundreds of people) and completely get away with it!!!

It could happen in a countless number of ways especially in 1960's America.

[Barnaby Jones]

It could happen in a countless number of ways especially in 1960's America.

No, it really couldn't!!! You keep talking about the intelligence agencies like they're made up of comic book villains and movie baddies who can get away with anything!!! You really think a conspiracy to kill the president and cover up from within our government that would require at least hundreds of people to have incriminating levels of knowledge would stay completely covered up for 50 years???

Just use some common sense, Paul!!! I know you want the cool, sexy version of history to be reality, but 99.9% of the time it isn't!!!

Why do you refuse to offer even just basic explanations of your theories??? Why would the CIA or FBI want Kennedy dead??? Why would they want LBJ to be president instead???

[Dude!]

It could happen in a countless number of ways especially in 1960's America.

Paulo, you shouldn't even
try to argue with people
who only think
what they are told to think

[thepaulo]

Paulo, you shouldn't even
try to argue with people
who only think
what they are told to think

It's important. The fate of the free world hangs in the balance.

[thepaulo]

No, it really couldn't!!! You keep talking about the intelligence agencies like they're made up of comic book villains and movie baddies who can get away with anything!!! You really think a conspiracy to kill the president and cover up from within our government that would require at least hundreds of people to have incriminating levels of knowledge would stay completely covered up for 50 years???

Just use some common sense, Paul!!! I know you want the cool, sexy version of history to be reality, but 99.9% of the time it isn't!!!

Why do you refuse to offer even just basic explanations of your theories??? Why would the CIA or FBI want Kennedy dead??? Why would they want LBJ to be president instead???


Let's not get to the why just yet because that is honestly a tangled mess.

But the how is easy. Spooks and contract men are a weird breed. Not that goofball bunch of plumbers that did Watergate but serious guys. The order could come from one guy with the ability and did not tell anyone like minded for plausible deniablity. Then you would only need a few cells of core people with specific tasks and narrow focus, again for plausible deniability. Each cell might have had a patsy and Oswald was the lucky winner.

Then once the event has occurred, like-minded high level people will use the cloak of national security to cover. Key people will be killed. All other wittnesses can be easily dismissed.

[Barnaby Jones]

Let's not get to the why just yet because that is honestly a tangled mess.

But the how is easy. Spooks and contract men are a weird breed. Not that goofball bunch of plumbers that did Watergate but serious guys. The order could come from one guy with the ability and did not tell anyone like minded for plausible deniablity. Then you would only need a few cells of core people with specific tasks and narrow focus, again for plausible deniability. Each cell might have had a patsy and Oswald was the lucky winner.

Then once the event has occurred, like-minded high level people will use the cloak of national security to cover. Key people will be killed. All other wittnesses can be easily dismissed.

So you DO think a massive conspiracy is possible?? Come on, Paul, not even ONE person would slip up or intentionally spill the beans over 50 years??? Again, use some common sense!!! You're making up movie villains to justify this theory without any proof that such a thing would even be possible!!! All you'll point to are much, much smaller conspiracies that were exposed!!! That's backwards logic!!! NOBODY would use their clout to expose such a nefarious plot??? Nobody would screw up when at least hundreds are involved????

You're in complete denial if you think the Watergate guys weren't "serious guys!!!" Liddy and especially Hunt are EXACTLY the kind of guys you think could pull off this massive conspiracy!!! And no, it couldn't come down to specific cells!!! Again, why don't you realize the sheer number of people involved in this at critical points???

And the "why" isn't a tangled mess!!! The Kennedy Bros. were the most pro-intelligence black ops administration ever...why would the intelligence want to do away with that?? Black ops were fiercely reigned in BECAUSE of the assassination, not vice-versa!! There was no need to go for a more "pro-Vietnam" president because Kennedy was pressured to combat the Domino theory-perception of communism anywhere because of the complete failure of the Bay of Pigs!!! The only claim people have to him wanting out of Vietnam was a threat to start pulling troops out if Diem didn't start stepping out the South Vietnamese effort against the North. Kennedy was horrified by the assassination of Diem (just 3 weeks before his own) and resolved both behind the scenes and to the press to maintain U.S. support for South Vietnam (and to escalate U.S. control of the conflict if necessary) because of it!!! If anything, killing Kennedy THREATENS any fort to escalate Vietnam since Johnson isn't as tagged with the Bay of Pigs fiasco and because of Kennedy's anger over Diem's assassination!!! Is it because of Kennedy's "liberal" politics??? Oh, please!!! A rich, white, largely centrist member of the American elite who worked for Joe McCarthy and was terrified of being perceived as soft on communism was some kind of "dangerous liberal???" LBJ was MUCH more dynamic and to the Left than JFK could ever have dreamed to be!!! So, again, you dodge the question of "why"...

[thepaulo]

So you DO think a massive conspiracy is possible?? Come on, Paul, not even ONE person would slip up or intentionally spill the beans over 50 years??? Again, use some common sense!!! You're making up movie villains to justify this theory without any proof that such a thing would even be possible!!! All you'll point to are much, much smaller conspiracies that were exposed!!! That's backwards logic!!! NOBODY would use their clout to expose such a nefarious plot??? Nobody would screw up when at least hundreds are involved????

You're in complete denial if you think the Watergate guys weren't "serious guys!!!" Liddy and especially Hunt are EXACTLY the kind of guys you think could pull off this massive conspiracy!!! And no, it couldn't come down to specific cells!!! Again, why don't you realize the sheer number of people involved in this at critical points???

And the "why" isn't a tangled mess!!! The Kennedy Bros. were the most pro-intelligence black ops administration ever...why would the intelligence want to do away with that?? Black ops were fiercely reigned in BECAUSE of the assassination, not vice-versa!! There was no need to go for a more "pro-Vietnam" president because Kennedy was pressured to combat the Domino theory-perception of communism anywhere because of the complete failure of the Bay of Pigs!!! The only claim people have to him wanting out of Vietnam was a threat to start pulling troops out if Diem didn't start stepping out the South Vietnamese effort against the North. Kennedy was horrified by the assassination of Diem (just 3 weeks before his own) and resolved both behind the scenes and to the press to maintain U.S. support for South Vietnam (and to escalate U.S. control of the conflict if necessary) because of it!!! If anything, killing Kennedy THREATENS any fort to escalate Vietnam since Johnson isn't as tagged with the Bay of Pigs fiasco and because of Kennedy's anger over Diem's assassination!!! Is it because of Kennedy's "liberal" politics??? Oh, please!!! A rich, white, largely centrist member of the American elite who worked for Joe McCarthy and was terrified of being perceived as soft on communism was some kind of "dangerous liberal???" LBJ was MUCH more dynamic and to the Left than JFK could ever have dreamed to be!!! So, again, you dodge the question of "why"...

You mentioned a lot of things and there is an awful lot more to mention so yes I consider it a tangled mess. I'm busy watching the Golden Globes right now so I'll try tomorrow.

[Dude!]

Hoover knew that JFK
was screwing anything
with a hole in it

JFK knew that Hoover
dressed in pink tights
and sucked teen-cock

one of them had to go

[Barnaby Jones]

Actually, Dude! is helping me make my point!!! Hoover's private predilections were no secret amongst those in power...though they couldn't do much about it because he always had dirt on them and their falls would be much more scandalous and sensational!!! The last thing Hoover or the FBI would have wanted would be for JFK to be killed because he was a gold mine in terms of being able to effectively blackmail the White House to Hoover's whim!!! People bring up how RFK was "tough on crime," but the Justice Department wasn't able to do half of the things that RFK wanted them to do because Hoover kept leaning on JFK to reign in his brother!!!

[CountryBob]

Hoover knew that JFK
was screwing anything
with a hole in it

JFK knew that Hoover
dressed in pink tights
and sucked teen-cock

one of them had to go

Dude, are you writing in Haiku?

[keithy_19]

Dude, are you writing in Haiku?

An incorrect one, yes.

[TripleSkeet]

Here is a crazy one. NASA and the moon shot. There are those that say going to the moon was faked.

This is not my deal BTW I'm just having fun with it.

All the proof you need....

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GwQ-W-O0Co8?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GwQ-W-O0Co8?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[Barnaby Jones]

Still the best rebuttal to the fake moon landing loons!!!

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UUFO8AGMwic?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UUFO8AGMwic?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>