JFK and 9/11

Which option best sums up your opinion?

  • Lee Harvey Oswald was the Lone Gunman, the US Government was involved in a conspiracy on 9/11

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    14
Well you MUST share it. It's pretty obvious this thread was created to draw people out to talk about this stuff and get made fun of, because we know of course that officials have never, ever, lied throughout history.
you asked.

building 7 contained highly sensitive government data, data that must never be allowed to fall into the wrong hands.
to combat this the government pre-rigged 7.
the resulting fires on 911 left the government no option but to "pull it" because the building was now not only unstable by the fires it was also armed to the teeth with explosives.

there is however a second possibility.
7 held not sensitive data but damning data.
flight 93 was destined for 7, not the white house.
building 7 was rigged to insure its destruction.
when the plane was forced down they were left with a rigged building that had out of control fires on at least one floor.
they had no choice but to "pull it".

the first possibility does not imply a government conspiracy, the second however does.
 
you asked.

building 7 contained highly sensitive government data, data that must never be allowed to fall into the wrong hands.
to combat this the government pre-rigged 7.
the resulting fires on 911 left the government no option but to "pull it" because the building was now not only unstable by the fires it was also armed to the teeth with explosives.

there is however a second possibility.
7 held not sensitive data but damning data.
flight 93 was destined for 7, not the white house.
building 7 was rigged to insure its destruction.
when the plane was forced down they were left with a rigged building that had out of control fires on at least one floor.
they had no choice but to "pull it".

the first possibility does not imply a government conspiracy, the second however does.

Yeah, basically building 7 has caused ALL my own doubts. I sure as heck can't confirm nor trust the conclusions of the big conspiracy theorists out there.

But when I look at footage of it coming down:
building7nc7.gif


I know they are lying about it not being Demo'ed. So I wonder why and what else they are lying about.

That's about the extent of what I can conclude. Since I am not an investigator, did not have access to the site, and do not have access to files and information to make a more in depth conclusion.... I have to stop at what my eyes see. That building did not come down all at once from fire.
 
Well you MUST share it. It's pretty obvious this thread was created to draw people out to talk about this stuff and get made fun of, because we know of course that officials have never, ever, lied throughout history.


Ever see Independence day?
:roflmao:
 
Yeah, basically building 7 has caused ALL my own doubts. I sure as heck can't confirm nor trust the conclusions of the big conspiracy theorists out there.

But when I look at footage of it coming down:
building7nc7.gif


I know they are lying about it not being Demo'ed. So I wonder why and what else they are lying about.

That's about the extent of what I can conclude. Since I am not an investigator, did not have access to the site, and do not have access to files and information to make a more in depth conclusion.... I have to stop at what my eyes see. That building did not come down all at once from fire.

:bravo:
 
don't forget that 7 had a basement full of gravel backfill.
if the center of 7 was built on this then it isn't too hard to conclude that 7 could indeed fall like it did.
tony submitted video with an investigator stating "it wouldn't take much removal of the insulation for the steel to fail".

i'm not a structural engineer but i do know soil can liquefy, i assume gravel would be more prone to do so.

tony?
 
That's about the extent of what I can conclude. Since I am not an investigator, did not have access to the site, and do not have access to files and information to make a more in depth conclusion.... I have to stop at what my eyes see. That building did not come down all at once from fire.

Hey genius, were are the booms. Demolitions have big booms.

Maybe instead of using your eyes, you should also use your ears.
 
Hey genius, were are the booms. Demolitions have big booms.

Maybe instead of using your eyes, you should also use your ears.

My hearing is pretty good (my army medical said "Excellent"), but I still can't hear what's going on in NYC in Edmonton Alberta. Now or Sept 11, 2001.
 
My hearing is pretty good (my army medical said "Excellent"), but I still can't hear what's going on in NYC in Edmonton Alberta. Now or Sept 11, 2001.

Demolitions create booms easily heard a mile away. My wife heard the boom from a bridge demolition that was a mile away from her house.
 
Just a way to make the thread a total mess or to double the insults.

Jack Ruby was a member of The Outfit. He was not a "vengeful citizen". Lie. What else is a lie, we just won't know.

People get away with shit all the time, at all levels of society. Naive to think they don't. Often only stupid criminals are the ones that get caught, smart ones, really do often get away with it.
 
Just a way to make the thread a total mess or to double the insults.

Jack Ruby was a member of The Outfit. He was not a "vengeful citizen". Lie. What else is a lie, we just won't know.

People get away with shit all the time, at all levels of society. Naive to think they don't. Often only stupid criminals are the ones that get caught, smart ones, really do often get away with it.

Especially when they control the investigation.
 
This post is in response to leopold99's post 2110 in the 9/11 Poll thread.

Tony Szamboti said:
There had to be people in government involved as that is where the cover-up needed to be done.

the CIA perhaps?
i'm sure a few well placed businessmen in the CIA could've pulled this off.

From what I've read, I have a feeling that Lyndon Johnson was involved in the cover up. However, there were some interesting points brought up in Jim Marrs' crossfire:
A fascinating twist on this latter theory came from researcher Gary Shaw, who said the two men may have been providing Kennedy with a last-second sign of who was responsible for his death. Shaw recalled that throughout the planning of the Bay of Pigs invasion, CIA officers had promised an "umbrella" of air protection of the Cuban invaders. This "umbrella" failed to materialize because Kennedy refused to authorize U.S. military support for the invasion. According to Shaw's theory, the man with the open umbrella symbolized the promise of an air-support "umbrella" while the dark-complected man may have been one of the anti-Castro Cuban leaders known to Kennedy. Thus, in the last seconds of his life, Kennedy may have seen the open umbrella and the face of a Cuban he knew was involved in the Bay of Pigs and realized who was participating in his death.

But this is all speculation. The existence of the "umbrella man" and the dark-complected man is fact. Even their activities after the assassination bear study. While virtually everyone in Dealey Plaza was moved to action by the assassination- either falling to the ground for cover or moving toward the Grassy Knoll- these two men sat down beside each other on the north sidewalk on Elm Street.

Here the dark-complected man appears to put a walkie-talkie to his mouth. In a photograph taken by Jim Towner, what seems to be an antenna can be seen jutting out from behind the man's head while his right hand holds some object to his face.

Several photos taken in the seconds following the assassination show both of these men sitting together on the Elm Street sidewalk. Moments later, the man with the umbrella gets up, takes one last look toward the motorcade still passing under the Triple Underpass, and begins walking east in the direction of the Depository. The dark-complected man saunters toward the Triple Underpass passing people rushing up the Grassy Knoll. He can be seen stuffing some object- the walkie-talkie?- into the back of his pants.

Despite the suspicious actions of these two men, there is no evidence that the FBI or the Warren Commission made any effort to identify or locate them. Officially they did not exist. Yet over the years, this pair became the focal point of criticism by private researchers. Researchers claimed the lack of investigation of these men was indicative of the shallowness of the government's handling of the assassination.

Once the House Select Committee on Assassinations was formed, researchers urged an investigation of both men. The Committee finally released a photograph of the "umbrella man" to the news media and urged anyone with knowledge of the man to come forward.

Coincidentally- if it was a coincidence- the "umbrella man" suddenly was identified in Dallas a few weeks after this national appeal. In August 1978, a telephone caller told researcher Penn Jones, Jr., that the man with the umbrella was a former Dallas insurance car salesman named Louis Steven Witt. Jones contacted some local newsmen and together they confronted Witt, who then was working as a warehouse manager. Witt refused to talk with newsmen but acknowledged that he was in Dealey Plaza on the day Kennedy was killed.

Jonas later wrote: "I felt the man had been coached. He would answer no questions and pointedly invited us to leave. His only positive statement, which seemed to come very quickly, was that he was willing to appear before the House Select Committee on Assassinations in Washington."

Witt indeed appeared before the Committee during its public testimony. His story was comic relief compared to the intense scrutiny of witnesses like Marina Oswald and Warren Commission critics. His story was facile and improbable and when the umbrella that Witt claimed was the same one he had had in Dealey Plaza in 1963 was displayed, it suddenly turned wrong-side out, prompting one Committee member to quip: "I hope that's not a weapon."

Witt told the Committee that on the spur of the moment, he grabbed a large black umbrella and went to Dealey Plaza to heckle Kennedy. He claimed that someone had told him that an open umbrella would rile Kennedy. While Witt offered no further explanation of how his umbrella could heckle the president, Committee members theorized that the umbrella in some way referred to the pro-German sympathies of Kennedy's father while serving as U.S. ambassador to Britain just prior to World War II. They said the umbrella may have symbolized the appeasement policies of Britain's prime minister Neville Chamberlain, who always carried an umbrella.

According to Witt:

I think I went sort of maybe halfway up the grassy area [on the north side of Elm Street], somewhere in that vicinity. I am pretty sure I sat down.... [when the motorcade approached] I think I got up and started fiddling with that umbrella trying to get it open, and at the same time I was walking forward, walking toward the street.... Whereas other people I understand saw the President shot and his movements; I did not see this because of this thing [the umbrella] in front of me.... My view of the car during that length of time was blocked by the umbrella's being open.​

Based on the available photographs made that day, none of Witt's statements were an accurate account of the actions of the "umbrella man" who stood waiting for the motorcade with his umbrella in the normal over-the-head position and then pumped it in the air as Kennedy passed.

Witt's bizarre story- unsubstantiated and totally at variance with the actions of the man in the photographs- resulted in few, if any, researchers accepting Louis Steven Witt as the "umbrella man".

And there continues to be no official accounting for the dark-complected man who appears to have been talking on a radio moments after the assassination. The House Committee failed to identify or locate this man and Witt claimed he had no recollection of such a person, despite photographs that seem to show the "umbrella man" talking with the dark man.

Witt claimed only to recall that a "Negro man" sat down near him and kept repeating: "they done shot them folks."

Interestingly, one of the Committee attorneys asked Witt specifically if he recalled seeing the man with a walkie-talkie, although officially no one has ever admitted the possibility of radios in use in Dealey Plaza.

These two men are still among the mystery people of Dealey Plaza.​
 
Last edited:
Well there are some respectable names in column C, but so far the thread is void of any decent evidence of multiple shooters.
 
Well there are some respectable names in column C, but so far the thread is void of any decent evidence of multiple shooters.

The head movement captured by the Zapruder film and the large avulsed exit wound in the back of the head described by the Parkland hospital doctors, along with the holes in the back of the jacket and shirt, show more than one shooter and that shots were fired from front and back.

The acoustic evidence has shown that more than three shots were fired and that shots were fired from the front and back proving more than one shooter.
 
Even if Oswald wasn't alone, he certainly was the only gunman that mattered, as he was the only one who actually hit his mark. I've seen ballistics tests that demonstrate what JFK's reaction would have been had he been shot from other areas. The most intriguing result was that from the grassy knoll his head would have exploded.

As for 9/11, anyone who isn't a conspiracy nut knows that 9/11 was no inside job. I think the government wasn't too keen on letting us know that the money to fund these activities came from Saudi Arabia, as made evident by the 9/11 commission's initial report that "It doesn't matter where the money came from", but that's the extent of the intentional deception.

Yes, Arab terrorists learned traveled the United States, took flying lessons, and executed a large-scale attack on our soil. No, the United States government had nothing to do with it. At least in the sense of planning the attack, that is. Obviously we have ignored the fact that our presence in the regioin's affairs has put a target on our backs, and have not acted proactively to deter the outrage. And certainly our reaction to 9/11 only made things worse. But we did not blow up the towers to provoke a war.

The important thing--and this is very important to remember about this--is that we wouldn't need a 9/11 to start a war with Iraq or Afghanistan. Wouldn't need it.
 
Even if Oswald wasn't alone, he certainly was the only gunman that mattered, as he was the only one who actually hit his mark. I've seen ballistics tests that demonstrate what JFK's reaction would have been had he been shot from other areas. The most intriguing result was that from the grassy knoll his head would have exploded.

There is not a chance that a shot fired from the right rear could have caused JFK's head movement to the back and the left, and the large right rear of the head avulsed wound as desrcibed by the Parkland doctors.

There was a good reason the Zapruder film was suppressed and it would have never seen the light of day if it wasn't for Jim Garrison and his case against Clay Shaw which allowed for a subpoena to have it shown in court.

The important thing--and this is very important to remember about this--is that we wouldn't need a 9/11 to start a war with Iraq or Afghanistan. Wouldn't need it.

This is nothing but simple unsupported conjecture on your part.
 
Hey Tony, you weren't one of the respected names I was talking about. I was more referring to others whose posts have demonstrated rational thought. I'm intrigued as to why those with a history critical thinking skills believe this.

The head movement captured by the Zapruder film

I've already shown you that bullets themselves do little to nothing to push the victim compared to a "jet effect" of exploding brain matter coming out of the exit. You also can't ignore possible muscle spasms that occur as a result of brain injury.

and the large avulsed exit wound in the back of the head described by the Parkland hospital doctors

Images and X-rays from the autopsy show no exit wound on the back of the head. And these were not faked images since Parkland doctors testified that they were the same injuries that they saw the day he was killed:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/novadocs.htm

The acoustic evidence has shown that more than three shots were fired and that shots were fired from the front and back proving more than one shooter.

Something that was shown to be bogus in many different ways. The officer they claimed the recording came from denies being in the position the acoustic evidence relied upon. Since everybody knows where they where when JFK was shot, you'd have to trust him on this one, right? Especially when his recollections are very vivid.
 
Hey Tony, you weren't one of the respected names I was talking about. I was more referring to others whose posts have demonstrated rational thought. I'm intrigued as to why those with a history critical thinking skills believe this.

We don't even know your name or background so what is the difference on who you respect or what you consider rational thought?

I've already shown you that bullets themselves do little to nothing to push the victim compared to a "jet effect" of exploding brain matter coming out of the exit. You also can't ignore possible muscle spasms that occur as a result of brain injury.

Neuromuscular spasm is what it sounds like you are referring to. LOL The jet effect has no validity in explaining John Kennedy's head movement. I also showed you the forces involved with that bullet and how much energy it would have expended. Your claim about not being able to push the head back is nonsense.

Images and X-rays from the autopsy show no exit wound on the back of the head. And these were not faked images since Parkland doctors testified that they were the same injuries that they saw the day he was killed:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/novadocs.htm

Dr. David Mantik has shown the X-rays to be composites which were intended to hide the large right rear head wound. The photos have also been shown to be touched up. The Parkland doctors never testified that the autopsy photos were what they saw. The TV show Nova used some slight of hand to make it appear they did by showing them one set of pictures with the wound and asking them a question about whether that was what they saw and then implying to the viewer that they were seeing a different set without the wound.

Something that was shown to be bogus in many different ways. The officer they claimed the recording came from denies being in the position the acoustic evidence relied upon. Since everybody knows where they where when JFK was shot, you'd have to trust him on this one, right? Especially when his recollections are very vivid.
D.B. Thomas has shown that it was not bogus at all.
 
Back
Top