Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Newser)   RFK Jr.: "The evidence is convincing that it wasn't a lone gunman." Also: "I think I'm done flying in private planes"   (newser.com) divider line 47
    More: Hero, rfk jr., Robert F. Kennedy, guns, Warren Commission, Charlie Rose, Henry David Thoreau, Rory Kennedy, assassinations  
•       •       •

14296 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Jan 2013 at 9:44 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-01-14 09:00:09 AM  
6 votes:
It's always sad when members of the family buy into conspiracy theories.  The forensics of what happened that day do not match up with two gunmen; only one.  If there had been a shooter on the famed "grassy knoll", Jackie would have gotten her head blown off after the 3rd shot.  All you'd need to do is see how closely their heads were touching just one second before that shot was fired, to see she would have been killed herself if it came from the side, rather than behind.

Maybe he wants to make some sense of what a horrible tragedy it, and I can't blame him for that, but fooling yourself isn't going to make whatever pain you might still be feeling, suddenly disappear.
2013-01-14 10:38:28 AM  
3 votes:
I think everyone agrees the Warren Commission report was a big mess of incompetent bullshiat.
2013-01-14 10:02:51 AM  
3 votes:
RFK Jr. is a drugged-up idiot, like the rest of the family. His entire life has been spent embracing various conspiracy theories and pseudoscience of the environmental variety. The entire Kennedy clan needs to sit the fark down and shut the fark up; they've dumbed down and polluted our politics long enough.
2013-01-14 09:55:57 AM  
3 votes:
My question is just this. Let's pretend everything we've been told about Oswald is true. This guy is a trained shooter and decides to take out the President. Obviously not an easy task because there's not going to be many windows of opportunity. How fortunate that JFK will be visiting town. So obviously he'll take his gun to work that day. His work that just happens to be the perfect spot to shoot from but he's had the job for months/years. And no one else was involved at any point to make that cosmic coincidence happen.
2013-01-14 09:54:51 AM  
3 votes:
I think that people buy into conspiracy theories (by the way, I hate the misuse of the word "theory"; they're "hypotheses") because they have a difficult time dealing with the fact that one nobody can change the course of history.
2013-01-14 08:49:49 AM  
3 votes:
Well yeah, after all it was you and me.
2013-01-14 02:57:21 PM  
2 votes:
Those of us who have been properly trained on who and what to believe don't question these kinds of issues.

Those who do question these things are not using their submissive thinking skills, and need to be retrained.
2013-01-14 01:18:56 PM  
2 votes:

Coco LaFemme: It's always sad when members of the family buy into conspiracy theories.  The forensics of what happened that day do not match up with two gunmen; only one.  If there had been a shooter on the famed "grassy knoll", Jackie would have gotten her head blown off after the 3rd shot.  All you'd need to do is see how closely their heads were touching just one second before that shot was fired, to see she would have been killed herself if it came from the side, rather than behind.

Maybe he wants to make some sense of what a horrible tragedy it, and I can't blame him for that, but fooling yourself isn't going to make whatever pain you might still be feeling, suddenly disappear.


Robert Kennedy was the U.S. Attorney General - but f*ck that noise - Imma go with "guy on the internet and the fact that he watched the Zapruder film a couple of times". LOL.
2013-01-14 11:48:48 AM  
2 votes:
Um Ya The Congressional Select Committee on Assassinations concluded it was a conspiracy. I met RFK Jr in college when he came to speak, very nice guy.
2013-01-14 11:40:29 AM  
2 votes:
Not to continue the 9/11 threadjack, but the commission report was largely based on testimony given by Bush and Cheney. Both refused to testify under oath. Both are known for their truthfulness though, so don't worry.
2013-01-14 10:57:55 AM  
2 votes:
1.bp.blogspot.com
2013-01-14 10:17:09 AM  
2 votes:
imageshack.us
2013-01-14 10:06:27 AM  
2 votes:

ExperianScaresCthulhu: Coco LaFemme: It's always sad when members of the family buy into conspiracy theories.  The forensics of what happened that day do not match up with two gunmen; only one.  If there had been a shooter on the famed "grassy knoll", Jackie would have gotten her head blown off after the 3rd shot.  All you'd need to do is see how closely their heads were touching just one second before that shot was fired, to see she would have been killed herself if it came from the side, rather than behind.

Maybe he wants to make some sense of what a horrible tragedy it, and I can't blame him for that, but fooling yourself isn't going to make whatever pain you might still be feeling, suddenly disappear.

RFK jr believes, because his father Bobby believed the Warren Commission was full of shiat. And, of course, there's the added issue of Sirhan Sirhan being the only gunman who assassinated Bobby.... or not. The prestine 'magic bullet' points to shenanigans.


Jacky O and Bobby were well known to believe that the Cubans were involved in the assassination. Which is understandle since Lee Harvey Oswald was well known to associate with procastro Cubans, many of whom were certainly Cuban or soviet intelligence agents. The Warren Report is a cover up by taking somebody who had Soviet and Cuban intelligence all over him and writing it up that he was a lone gun man. For obvious reasons that the truth could have started world war. That's why Bobby and Jacky silently aquicesed.

Saying "Bobby didn't believe in the Warren Report" to imply he was a full on Jim Garrison multiple shooter/government conspiracist is extremely dishonest. The only question if the CIA were in fact involved is if it was through double agents in the Soviet - Cuban intelligence. The Jim garrison theories of hundreds of homosexual government and mafia agencies is completely bunk.

And the magic bullet wasn't magic. John Connaly was just sitting a couple inches to the left of JFK, so their bodies wouldn't match up completely. And the bullet isn't so pristine when you look at it from the other side.

Literally everything supports that Oswald was the shooter. The only question is who were his financial or intelligence ties, if any.
2013-01-14 09:58:37 AM  
2 votes:

KiwDaWabbit: I think that people buy into conspiracy theories (by the way, I hate the misuse of the word "theory"; they're "hypotheses") because they have a difficult time dealing with the fact that one nobody can change the course of history.


Seeing as how you can't falsify the conspiracy it cannot be a hypothesis.
2013-01-14 09:51:25 AM  
2 votes:

Coco LaFemme: It's always sad when members of the family buy into conspiracy theories.  The forensics of what happened that day do not match up with two gunmen; only one.  If there had been a shooter on the famed "grassy knoll", Jackie would have gotten her head blown off after the 3rd shot.  All you'd need to do is see how closely their heads were touching just one second before that shot was fired, to see she would have been killed herself if it came from the side, rather than behind.

Maybe he wants to make some sense of what a horrible tragedy it, and I can't blame him for that, but fooling yourself isn't going to make whatever pain you might still be feeling, suddenly disappear.


RFK jr believes, because his father Bobby believed the Warren Commission was full of shiat. And, of course, there's the added issue of Sirhan Sirhan being the only gunman who assassinated Bobby.... or not. The prestine 'magic bullet' points to shenanigans.
2013-01-15 12:43:43 AM  
1 votes:
t3.gstatic.com
2013-01-14 11:26:47 PM  
1 votes:
I never understood:
1. How they quickly identified and found Oswald, would even put CSI to shame.
2. Why you would shoot the President and then go watch a movie.
3. No one gave a crap to investigate how and why Oswald got assassinated by someone that had absolutely nothing to gain nor do with him in any way.
2013-01-14 05:57:30 PM  
1 votes:

Xcott: inner ted: isn't it amazing then that there was only one.....1....uno....singular camera that caught the "plane" that struck the pentagon that day ?

the pentagon

1 camera

yep

There seem to be a lot of myths about the Pentagon, like it's some kind of Fort Knox of nuclear launch codes.

The Pentagon is an office building next to the highway. There's no particular reason why you'd expect it to be surrounded by surveillance cameras or razor wire.


Not matter which story you believe, this is an absurd statement.
2013-01-14 02:34:05 PM  
1 votes:

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: ExperianScaresCthulhu: Coco LaFemme: It's always sad when members of the family buy into conspiracy theories.  The forensics of what happened that day do not match up with two gunmen; only one.  If there had been a shooter on the famed "grassy knoll", Jackie would have gotten her head blown off after the 3rd shot.  All you'd need to do is see how closely their heads were touching just one second before that shot was fired, to see she would have been killed herself if it came from the side, rather than behind.

Maybe he wants to make some sense of what a horrible tragedy it, and I can't blame him for that, but fooling yourself isn't going to make whatever pain you might still be feeling, suddenly disappear.

RFK jr believes, because his father Bobby believed the Warren Commission was full of shiat. And, of course, there's the added issue of Sirhan Sirhan being the only gunman who assassinated Bobby.... or not. The prestine 'magic bullet' points to shenanigans.

People in higher positions of political (and economic) power in various nations actually have more in common with each other than they do with the Unwashed Masses. The documented politically-incestuous history of the various monarchies/regimes in Europe, Asia and the Middle East and (currently) the annual Bilderberg meetings should tell you that.

When viewed from the perspective of 40-50 years later, and compared to other decades before and after, the entire decade of the 60s reeks of hidden competing agendas and secret power struggles amongst the "ruling class" and (particularly in the US) "tidying up all the loose ends." Something came to a head in that decade - and was resolved.

Seriously, anyone (on either Left or Right, Conservative or Progressive, Socialist of Libertarian) who doesn't/can't see that is naive and living in a bubble.

- January 17, 1961 - Patrice Lumumba, the Prime Minister of the Republic of the Congo. Assassinated by a Belgian and Congolese firing squad outside Lubumbashi, Democratic Republic of the Congo.

- May 27, 1963 - Grigoris Lambrakis, Greek left-wing MP by far-right extremists with connections to the police and the army in Thessaloniki.

- June 12, 1963 - Medgar Evers, an NAACP field secretary. Assassinated by a member of the Ku Klux Klan in Jackson, Mississippi.

- November 2, 1963 - Ngo Dinh Diem, President of Vietnam, along with his brother and chief political adviser, Ngo Dinh Nhu. Assassinated by Duong Hieu Nghia and Nguyen Van Nhung in the back of an armoured personnel carrier.

- November 22, 1963 - John F. Kennedy, President of the United States. Kennedy was assassinated on 22 November 1963 while in his open convertible car riding in a motorcade through Dealey Plaza in Dallas, Texas.

- February 21, 1965 - Malcolm X. Assassinated by members of the Nation of Islam in New York City. There is a dispute about which members killed Malcolm X.

- September 6, 1966 - Hendrik Verwoerd, Prime Minister of South Africa and architect of apartheid was stabbed to death by Dimitri Tsafendas, a parliamentary messenger. He survived a previous attempt on his life in 1960.

- August 25, 1967 - George Lincoln Rockwell, leader of the American Nazi Party. Assassinated by John Patler in Arlington, Virginia.

- April 4, 1968 - Martin Luther King, Jr., civil rights leader. Assassinated by James Earl Ray in Memphis, Tennessee.

- June 5, 1968 - Robert F. Kennedy, United States Senator. Assassinated by Sirhan Sirhan in Los Angeles, California, taking California in the presidential national primaries.

FIVE US assassinations of notables (6 if you count Oswald himself by Ruby [how convenient!], 7 if you include Evers). Lists of assassinations, both worldwide and in the US only, when graphed by decade, show statistically "interesting" bumps in the 60s.


ADDENDUM to the above: No, I am NOT talking about ZOMFG!!! CONSPIRACY!!!! in the normal sense that the word is used today: a bunch of people [whether Illuminati, Round Table, CFR, Worldwide Banking Cartel, etc.] sitting around in a smoke-filled room plotting the take-over of the world. I'm referring to the "normal" give and take of high-level politics amongst the aforementioned loosely-allied ruling class. If I own a cattle farm and a meat packing plant, and compete and sometimes cooperate with Joe and Tom and Ed who also own cattle farms and meat packing plants, none of us are particularly interested in discussing our differences, fights and reconciliations with our various herds of cows that we control.

Stop with the knee-jerk reactions, read a little history, and think about it.
2013-01-14 02:12:20 PM  
1 votes:
"No one could have imagined that terrorists would fly planes into buildings" - U.S. National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice, whose job it presumably was to imagine just such events.
2013-01-14 02:09:56 PM  
1 votes:

fredklein: CrazyCracka420: If they needed that much explosives to bring the buildings down, then how the fark did "office fires" (the official cause of the collapses) bring them down?

First, let me say that all these (and more!) have been debunked pretty thoroughly. Results are online, if you care to look.

The "office fires" were complicated by the fact that a plane had crashed into each tower, thus damaging and destroying support beams. Add the burning plane fuel, too. It wasn't just a file cabinet of paperwork burning.

Planes have crashed into buildings before and since 9/11, also have had much worse fires raging through modern high rises and they didn't even come close to collapsing.

The WTC used a rather unique support system. As wiki describes it: The towers were designed as framed tube structures, which provided tenants with open floor plans, uninterrupted by columns or walls. This was accomplished using numerous closely spaced perimeter columns to provide much of the strength to the structure, along with gravity load shared with the core columns.

When the planes hit the towers, many of the "closely spaced perimeter columns" were destroyed, thus weakening the structure. The airplane fuel-fueled fire heated (NOT MELTED) the remaining supports, which weakened them further.

And WTC 7 never had a plane hit it, yet it collapses the same way as 1 and 2?

WTC 7 just had 2 skycrapers fall next door to it. Bits and pieces of WTC 1 and 2 hit WTC 7, gouging a huge chunk out of it.

[www.infowars.com image 520x248]

Just seems like bullshiat when you add it all up.

Not if you look at the actual facts.

That being said, I don't consider an investigation to be complete unless all possibilities are examined. They started out with the theory that planes brought the buildings down, and went about proving that theory.

It didn't need proving. There's video of the planes hitting. There's plenty of video of the damage that was caused, the fires that rages for hours, etc.


Or you could have just watched NOVA:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/world-trade-center-collapse.html

9/11 conspiracy nutbags are in some ways worse than JFK conspiracy nutbags.
2013-01-14 01:41:35 PM  
1 votes:

Champion of the Sun: Wasn't it George H.W. Bush who was in town for no reason that day? Can't remember which crypto-facist was there.


Does your hatred of Republicans know no bounds?

And yet you consider yourself 'tolerant'; how amusing. And sad. And hypocritical.
2013-01-14 01:39:03 PM  
1 votes:
I'm not a conspiracy theory kinda douchebag/hater.

Having written that it needs to pointed out that there are sooooooo many co-incidences regarding this as to boggle the mind starting with the press car - which has ALWAYS been with-in 1-3 cars in back of the President's car- being pushed to very end of the procession at Dallas - to the high number of people - witnesses, etc., -who died unexpectedly or in curious manners as the years went by (Rolling Stone did an article on this 25-30 years back)

The one thing that I've never seen mentioned is Kennedy's head wound.

Bullets don't cause BIG entrance holes and leave the body with small exit wounds as Kennedy's skull shows.

Ammo just don't do that.

The other aspect that bothers me is the fact that Marine sharp shooters were unable to fire as rapidly or as accurately as Oswald did in the short amount of time he had. An Oswald was no marks man.
2013-01-14 01:33:24 PM  
1 votes:

Magorn: Here's the thing about the twin towers.  Conspiracy theorists are right on one point, but not for the reason they think:  The towers DID collapse faster than they should have, but this wasn;t because it was some form of demolition, but because they were put up in the 1970's when the Mob had a near-stranglehold on the NYC construction business, and there was less steel used in the contruction of the building than the plans called for and some of it wasn;t the grade it was supposed to be.   A week after the collapse I spoke to someone whose father had been on the crews that  built the towers, his dad, he said, was terrified as to his legal liabilities because he saw that kind  of short-changing of the building materials with his own eyes, and he was convinced that when the collapse was investigated the graft was going to be discovered.


Aaaand we come full-circle back to my mafia theories. Those scumbags had their mitts in everything back then. I still say they most-likely had something to do with the JFK assassination by hiring Oswald (shooting skill) and Ruby (take out the skilled psycho who might talk), and hearing this about the twin towers makes sense.
2013-01-14 01:24:50 PM  
1 votes:

CrazyCracka420: If they needed that much explosives to bring the buildings down, then how the fark did "office fires" (the official cause of the collapses) bring them down?

Planes have crashed into buildings before and since 9/11, also have had much worse fires raging through modern high rises and they didn't even come close to collapsing.

And WTC 7 never had a plane hit it, yet it collapses the same way as 1 and 2? Just seems like bullshiat when you add it all up. I have no proof, so I just have to say I'm a doubter.

That being said, I don't consider an investigation to be complete unless all possibilities are examined. They started out with the theory that planes brought the buildings down, and went about proving that theory. Same way we got into Iraq.


Here's the thing about the twin towers.  Conspiracy theorists are right on one point, but not for the reason they think:  The towers DID collapse faster than they should have, but this wasn;t because it was some form of demolition, but because they were put up in the 1970's when the Mob had a near-stranglehold on the NYC construction business, and there was less steel used in the contruction of the building than the plans called for and some of it wasn;t the grade it was supposed to be.   A week after the collapse I spoke to someone whose father had been on the crews that  built the towers, his dad, he said, was terrified as to his legal liabilities because he saw that kind  of short-changing of the building materials with his own eyes, and he was convinced that when the collapse was investigated the graft was going to be discovered.
2013-01-14 01:22:50 PM  
1 votes:

DROxINxTHExWIND: jonewer: CrazyCracka420: I'm one who doubts the official theory of 9/11 that it was planes and the subsequent fire that brought down WTC 1, 2 and 7. But I don't have any official theory of my own. Planted explosives would be the most logical that comes to mind.

Have you ever paused to consider how much explosive would be needed and how they managed to get it there and hide it without anyone noticing or spilling the beans?

I like how if you doubt the official version then you have to come up with the exact plan or you're not thinking logically. But, if you believe the official version, all you have to do is rely on the fact that it's the "official version" to validate it as truth.


That's always been my stance. I have no farking clue what actually happened, the official theory could be correct. But when they don't actually use a scientific method for investigating, and they set about trying to prove a certain set of circumstances instead of going in with an open mind, then I will always be a doubter.

To me, the official theory seems incomplete. I don't think it makes me a troofer to expect an actual investigation before saying I'm convinced.

www.dbskeptic.com

The 2nd picture is not scientific, sorry that's not how the scientific method works.
2013-01-14 01:22:42 PM  
1 votes:

Millennium: DROxINxTHExWIND: ...but don't you find it odd that a group of very large office buildings were destroyed and in the midst of tons of exploding and burning papers the invsetigators were able to find one of the passports of the men who died in the fiery plane crash?

Not particularly. It's actually fairly rare for a fire to consume all of the combustible material in its reach; a walk through the ruins of a recently burned-out building will reveal lots of stuff that seems untouched or very nearly so. More than one sacred text has spawned a flurry of chain letters and Internet forwards by happening to survive a blaze. A passport could do the same.


Its also very rare for a fire to make a building collapse. Even more rare that two fires will cause two buildings to collapse in the same event, an hour apart. Even rare-er that the same fire that melted the sttel and caused the buildings to collapse allowed a piece of paper to exit the plane, avoid the fire, float to the ground, and be noticed by someone as a clue when they were there trying to find survivors in two skyscrapers full of rubble.
2013-01-14 01:18:01 PM  
1 votes:

jonewer: CrazyCracka420: I'm one who doubts the official theory of 9/11 that it was planes and the subsequent fire that brought down WTC 1, 2 and 7. But I don't have any official theory of my own. Planted explosives would be the most logical that comes to mind.

Have you ever paused to consider how much explosive would be needed and how they managed to get it there and hide it without anyone noticing or spilling the beans?


I like how if you doubt the official version then you have to come up with the exact plan or you're not thinking logically. But, if you believe the official version, all you have to do is rely on the fact that it's the "official version" to validate it as truth.
2013-01-14 01:14:05 PM  
1 votes:

jst3p: DROxINxTHExWIND: So you choose to believe the parts of the report that says they found a passport that floated out of an airplane and through a fire that was "hot enough to melft steel", but you don't believe the parts of the report that say Bush and Cheney knew nothing. Wait, more puzzling is that you believe that they knew something, you see that over the years they have been the largest beneficiaries of the disaster, but you think that they just had an oopsie?

Just curious, what specifically do you believe in regards to George and Dick's level of knowledge and/or involvement?


First, I believe Bush was a figurehead as a President. He was Bernie from Weekend at Bernie's. He knew nothing***. I believe that Cheney and a select few knew that an attack was imminent and they did what they could to remove the barriers that would have made it more difficult. For example, I do not believe that it was a coincidence that NAFTA just happened to be engaged in a training exercise which mimmicked the real attacks and caused confusion that delayed their possible response. I believe that it is possible that explosives helped to bring down the towers. I do not believe that the 9am attack caused WTC 7 to fall as if it had been hit by a plane at 5pm. I think that Cheney demanded that he be present when Bush testify before the 9/11 Commision because he was afraid that he would say something unintentionally incriminating. (See: Bush lies about seeing first plane hit tower***)


***http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NANtvZHnT8

I believe that the video above is evidence that GWB was being coached on his resonse to the question "what happened on 9/11. I don't believe its evidence of foreknowledge. It's evidence that someone told him what to say, and as he normally does, he farked it up. No one saw the first plane hit the tower live on television because there was no live footage. Unless you believe that somewhere a camera was feeding live footage of the Towers, for no reason at all and it caught the plane hit. They've been lying to us. So, why would I believe anything that they say? Why do you?
2013-01-14 01:11:46 PM  
1 votes:
I read another article on this subject in which Robert Kennedy, Jr., says that there were telephone records showing numerous calls from Jack Ruby (whom we know was well connected in the Mafia) and Oswald to Mafia members. This may not be true, however, as other articles mention only Ruby's phone links to mafia members connected to the CIA as well.

No surprise there about Jack Ruby, but I don't recall any chatter, even among the conspiracists, about Oswald being well-connected to mafia types. The Commies, yes.

If this is true, then it suggests that Oswald may have been encouraged (if not recruited) by the Mafia to kill Kennedy. Among the many groups of people with means and motive, the Mafia remain plausible suspects.

If they did push Oswald to assassinate Kennedy (or even give him a good scare), or if the real target was the Governor and not the President, or in numerous other scenarios, then Oswald WAS NOT ACTING ALONE. There may not have been a second gunman (which is still unproven) but Oswald may have had co-conspirators.

As for Jack Ruby, this scenario increases the likelihood that he killed Oswald to silence him at the instigation of his Mafia chums or with pleasing his mafia chums in the back of his mind behind his desire to be a big man or to avenge Kennedy, whom he liked much better than most mafia dons did.

A plausible scenario is that Kennedy was shot by Oswald, who was shot by Ruby, just as the official version says, but that the mafia slash CIA people interested in Cuba (as both were) and the drug trade (some CIA involvement in the drug trade is as good as proven, with many criminals and CIA operatives probably working as "double agents" even if the CIA remains dedicated to national security and fighting the drug trade overseas) were behind Oswald and Ruby, using them for their own ends.

The Russians, despite Oswald's defection, seem not to have known about the assassination until after the fact, and records show they believed that there was shenanigans but not THEIR shenanigans or Cuban shenanigans. They suspected the CIA, FBI or other American interests.

A number of CIA and mafia people with close connections resented both Kennedy's plans to shut down the Cuban connection in the drug trade but his policies regarding Castro, and the failure of the Bay of Pigs fiasco to restore the American interests (which included notably, the Mafia and the Cuban sugar lords) to power there.

And then you can, with conspiracist glee, connect all of this to Texas, the oil and agriculture lobbies, and even LBJ, who was deep in the politics of agricultural subsidies and oil exploration and Cuba, but also disagreed strongly with JFK's planned to withdraw troops from the incipient Vietnam war and had assured the military that he wouldn't do such a thing if he were President.

Minimalist conspiracy: Oswald and Ruby played the roles assigned to them in the Warren Report but did not act in a vacuum. The Mafia and rogue CIA operatives connected with the Mafia and the drug trade through Cuba took Kennedy down.

Maximalist conspiracy: conservatives connected to the mafia, the CIA, anti-communism, agricultural subsidies, the sugar industry, and reactionary Cubans orchestrated the assassination(s) of JFK, Ruby, Robert Kennedy, etc., to protect their business interests (Cuba, sugar, agriculture) and a perceived liberal commie threat to militaristic policies in Vietnam and Cuba.

My question: can I see those Oswald phone records, please?
2013-01-14 01:10:07 PM  
1 votes:
If they needed that much explosives to bring the buildings down, then how the fark did "office fires" (the official cause of the collapses) bring them down?

Planes have crashed into buildings before and since 9/11, also have had much worse fires raging through modern high rises and they didn't even come close to collapsing.

And WTC 7 never had a plane hit it, yet it collapses the same way as 1 and 2? Just seems like bullshiat when you add it all up. I have no proof, so I just have to say I'm a doubter.

That being said, I don't consider an investigation to be complete unless all possibilities are examined. They started out with the theory that planes brought the buildings down, and went about proving that theory. Same way we got into Iraq.
2013-01-14 01:01:03 PM  
1 votes:
I'm one who doubts the official theory of 9/11 that it was planes and the subsequent fire that brought down WTC 1, 2 and 7. But I don't have any official theory of my own. Planted explosives would be the most logical that comes to mind.
2013-01-14 12:59:59 PM  
1 votes:

inner ted: i think people immediately dismiss a conspiracy hypothesis (by the way, i can't stand the overreaction to the word conspiracy. it's nothing more than two or more people planning on doing something sinister or unlawful) cause it's just too scary to think about the alternative.


Cognitive dissonance.
2013-01-14 12:40:04 PM  
1 votes:

Xcott: DROxINxTHExWIND: ...but don't you find it odd that a group of very large office buildings were destroyed and in the midst of tons of exploding and burning papers the invsetigators were able to find one of the passports of the men who died in the fiery plane crash?

We're supposed to think this is unlikely, but on the other hand we're supposed to believe that "fire can't melt steel," and hence that pretty much anything made out of steel doesn't exist, or was just mined out of the ground in its present shape.

This is, I think, the silliest aspect of the truther movement: to convince themselves that the tower collapses were fake, they twist physics so much that the towers couldn't exist in the first place. Where did all that steel come from in the first place, if it's so impossible to soften it with a fuel fire? How did they get it into the shape of support beams?

And then you have the derp about how it's so impossible or irregular for something to fall "straight down at near free-fall speed." If everything fell in slow-motion, wouldn't we call slow-motion "freefall speed?" If everything fell 5 degrees to the left, wouldn't we call 5 degrees to the left "down"?


This is why these debates never go anywhere. People mash together the zaniest aspects of every argument that has ever been had on this topic and they attribute it to anyone who voices skeptacism of the Commision's report. Try to stick to what I've actually said and not what you think I believe. In this case, you're very wrong. I believe that fuel can compromise steel that's been plowed into by a speeding airplane. Hell, I recall watching it that day and saying to others that those people needed to get the hell out of there. But, logic tells us that it's very unlikely that both all three buildings had the perfect storm of jet fuel and damage to cause them to fall (two of them within an hour of each other).

The thing that really bothers me is how rich and powerful this "coincidentally" made the innocent bystanders, like PNAC and Halliburton. We can thank 9/11 for the war in Iraq, whcih we all know they were planning before the towers got hit. They needed a new Pearl Harbor to move forward with their agenda and I'm supposed to believe that it just happened and no one was aware of it? I don't. It doesn't really concern me whether people think that makes me stupid. However, in my experience the dumber people have been the ones who sat in the back of the class and don't ask questions.
2013-01-14 11:31:54 AM  
1 votes:
Is anyone questioning the number of "gunman" were involved? Or instead, is the question - did that gunman work alone?

I doubt he worked alone considering his brother's later assassination.

JFK went tearing through our government firing as many corrupt politicians as his power would allow. Many of which were very friendly with that ol' Bush family.

To laugh at those who consider conspiracies, is to laugh at anyone who considers a scholarly endeavor.
2013-01-14 11:02:52 AM  
1 votes:
Everyone wants to believe that a man a great as Kennedy was in his time could not possibly believe that he could be gunned down by a single person.

The reality is that Kennedy was lucky even to be alive, and nearly killed during World War II. Oswald had the tools, the talent, and the access to take the shots. I've stood in the School Book Depository in more or less the same spot (plus minus several feet). I could have easily made the fatal shots from the same window...with an iron sight. That he had a scope made the shots so easy a poor marksman could have taken them and Oswald was not a poor marksman.

Kennedy was a bright guy. He was as astute a politician as ever occupied the Oval Office. It's a shame he didn't get to serve out his term and been re-elected. US history would have perhaps been better for it. But he wasn't Superman. All of us are mortal.
2013-01-14 10:43:39 AM  
1 votes:

ringersol: I think everyone agrees the Warren Commission report was a big mess of incompetent bullshiat.


And yet, people still believe that the 9/11 Commision's report was spot on. Smh.
2013-01-14 10:35:55 AM  
1 votes:

ExperianScaresCthulhu: Coco LaFemme: It's always sad when members of the family buy into conspiracy theories.  The forensics of what happened that day do not match up with two gunmen; only one.  If there had been a shooter on the famed "grassy knoll", Jackie would have gotten her head blown off after the 3rd shot.  All you'd need to do is see how closely their heads were touching just one second before that shot was fired, to see she would have been killed herself if it came from the side, rather than behind.

Maybe he wants to make some sense of what a horrible tragedy it, and I can't blame him for that, but fooling yourself isn't going to make whatever pain you might still be feeling, suddenly disappear.

RFK jr believes, because his father Bobby believed the Warren Commission was full of shiat. And, of course, there's the added issue of Sirhan Sirhan being the only gunman who assassinated Bobby.... or not. The prestine 'magic bullet' points to shenanigans.


If the JFK assassination were a game of Clue, every game would end with "Lee Harvey Oswald, in the Book depository, with the Mannlicher rifle".  The evidence is simply overwhelming, forensically and otherwise.

Now the problem is, all the obsessing about HOW  Kennedy was killed makes it impossible to have a serious discussion about WHY he was killed without appearing to be just one more "conspiracy nut"

Oswald certainly COULD have been a deranged loner, his personal history is pretty strong evidence of that.  However, the fact that his uncle was a fairly high-raking organized crime figure, and Oswald's killer also had strong mob ties, and the assassination came shortly after RFK began his anti-mafia crusade (the reported involvement of the mob in securing Cook County for Kennedy, at his father's behest),  at least raises a serious circumstantial argument that Kennedy mght have been killed on orders from the Mafia.  If that wer true, it would write an extraordinary new chapter of our history as we'd be forced to examine just HOW powerful the Mob really was in this country and how it influenced the history we think we know
2013-01-14 10:16:53 AM  
1 votes:
The motorcade passes the Texas School Book Depository and moves slowly toward the Triple
Underpass. At the sixth- floor window, Lee Harvey Oswald sights carefully through the Carcano-Mannlicher: his mouth is dry, desert dry. But his heartbeat is normal; and no sweat stands out on his
forehead. This is the moment, he is thinking, the one moment transcending time and hazard, heredity
and environment, the final test and proof of free will and of my right to call myself a man. In this
moment, now, as I tighten the trigger, the Tyrant dies, and with him all the lies of a cruel,
mendacious epoch. It is a supreme exaltation, this moment and this knowledge: and yet his mouth is
dry, dust -dry, dry as death, as if his salivary glands alone rebelled against the murder which his
intellect pronounced necessary and just. Now: He recalls the military formula BASS: Breathe, Aim,
Slack, Squeeze. He breathes, he aims, he slacks, he starts to squeeze, as a dog barks suddenly -
And his mouth falls open in astonishment as three shots ring out, obviously from the direction of the
Grassy Knoll and Triple Underpass.

"Son- of-a -biatch," he said, softly as a prayer. And he began to grin, a rictus not of omnipotence such
as he had expected but of something different and unexpected and therefore better - omniscience. That
smirk appeared in all the photos during the next day and a half, before his own death, a sneering
smile that said so clearly that none dared to read it: I know something you don't know. That grimace
only faded Sunday morning when Jack Ruby pumped two bullets into Lee's frail fanatic body, and its
secret went with him to the grave.

----

(Harry Coin curls his long body into a knot of tension, resting on his elbows and sighting the
Remington rifle carefully, as the motorcade passes the Book Depository and heads toward his perch
on the triple underpass. He could see Bernard Barker from the CIA down on the grassy knoll. If he
carried this off right, they promised him more jobs; it would be the end of petty crime for him, the
beginning of big -time money. In a way he was sorry: Kennedy seemed like a nice enough young
fellow-Harry would like to make it with both him and that hot-looking wife of his at the same
time - but money talks and sentiment is only for fools. He released the bolt action, ignoring the
sudden barking of a dog, and took aim - just as the three shots resounded from the grassy knoll.
"Jesus Motherfarkin' Christ," he said; and then he caught the glint of the rifle in the Book Depository
window. Great God Almighty, how the fark many of us are there here?" he cried out, scampering to
his feet and starting to run.)

---

"You mean . . . you mean . . . Did Oswald really do it? Did he shoot before you?"
"No, no," Volpe is miserable. "Let me explain it as clearly as I can. I'm there on top of the Dallas
County Records Building like we planned, see? The motorcade turns onto Elm and heads for the
underpass. I use my magnifying sight, swinging the whole gun around to look through it, just to
make one last check that I have all the Feds spotted. When I face the School Book Depository, I
catch this rifle. That was Oswald, I guess. Then I check out the grassy knoll and, goddam, there's
another cat with a rifle. I just went cold. I couldn't figure it out. While I'm in this state, like a zombie,
a dog barks and just then the guy in the grassy knoll calm and cool as if he was at a shooting range
lays three of them right into the car. That's it," Volpe ends miserably. "I can't take the money. The . .
. Brotherhood . . . would have my ass if they ever found out the truth."
Maldonado sat silently, rubbing his famous nose as he did when making a hard decision. "You're a
good boy, Bennie. I give you ten percent of the money, just for being honest. We need more honest
young boys like you in the Brotherhood."
Volpe swallowed again, and said, "There's one more thing I oughta tell you. I went down to the
grassy knoll, after the cops run from there to the School Book Depository. I thought I might find the
guy who did the shooting still hanging around and tell you what he looked like. He was long gone,
though. But here's what so spooky. I ran into another galoot; who was sneaking down from the triple
underpass. Long, skinny guy with buck teeth, kind of reminded me of a python or some kind of
snake. He just looks at me and my umbrella and guesses what's in it
His mouth falls open. 'Jesus Christ and his black bastard brother Harry,' he says, 'how the fark many
people does it take to kill a President these days?'"
2013-01-14 10:11:39 AM  
1 votes:
the real question is not whether it was a lone gunman, but instead whether oswald was just another in the long line of 'insane hitmen' used by the mafia and other bad actors to do their dirty work.

Yeah, online idiots, there is a long tradition of powerful people and organizations using/manipulating crazy/unstable wack jobs to do their dirty work. Oswald may have been such, and Sirhan Sirhan probably was such.

Try reading a book from time to time, online idiots.
2013-01-14 10:11:19 AM  
1 votes:

KiwDaWabbit: ... (by the way, I hate the misuse of the word "theory"; they're "hypotheses") ...


To be fair, how many conspiracy theorists do you know who can spell "Hypothesis," much less pluralise it correctly?

Half of these jackasses can't even spell the subject of their pet conspiracies right.
2013-01-14 10:07:36 AM  
1 votes:

GoodyearPimp: My question is just this. Let's pretend everything we've been told about Oswald is true. This guy is a trained shooter and decides to take out the President. Obviously not an easy task because there's not going to be many windows of opportunity. How fortunate that JFK will be visiting town. So obviously he'll take his gun to work that day. His work that just happens to be the perfect spot to shoot from but he's had the job for months/years. And no one else was involved at any point to make that cosmic coincidence happen.


In some ways, he was too good to be a patsy.
A defector to Communism who came back with a russian bride and took pot luck shots at another guy not too long before? How was he not sent by the red?!

They probably had to make quite a few frantic phone calls to keep a nuclear war from starting.
If this was a setup, it would just be some nameless foreigner from the middle of nowhere who could walk up and shoot Kennedy at point blank. They wouldn't have gone to the trouble of a difficult long range shot at moving targets.
2013-01-14 10:04:59 AM  
1 votes:

Champion of the Sun: Wasn't it George H.W. Bush who was in town for no reason that day? Can't remember which crypto-facist was there.


GW Bush was photographed in front of the book Depository building just a few minutes after the shooting, and he had a grin on his face.
2013-01-14 10:03:26 AM  
1 votes:

GoodyearPimp: My question is just this. Let's pretend everything we've been told about Oswald is true. This guy is a trained shooter and decides to take out the President. Obviously not an easy task because there's not going to be many windows of opportunity. How fortunate that JFK will be visiting town. So obviously he'll take his gun to work that day. His work that just happens to be the perfect spot to shoot from but he's had the job for months/years. And no one else was involved at any point to make that cosmic coincidence happen.


Well, odder things have happened. It was a wrong turn after a first assassination attempt that put Archduke Franz Ferdinand within reach of his assassin setting off WWI.
2013-01-14 10:02:33 AM  
1 votes:
Jake Epping almost saved the day.
2013-01-14 09:57:53 AM  
1 votes:
Wasn't it George H.W. Bush who was in town for no reason that day? Can't remember which crypto-facist was there.
2013-01-14 09:47:58 AM  
1 votes:
upload.wikimedia.org
 
Displayed 47 of 47 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report