9/11 Conspiracy Stuff

First topic message reminder :

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You're clearly an imbecile who probably believes 911 was an inside job.

I actually do believe that

He's staying at Heartbreak Hotel.

And can often be found crying in the chapel.

Gwlad wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I was born with a brain thankfully so yes do believe the official version of events, anything is a level of idiocy I will not lower myself. In other news, Elvis is still alive.

So you just believe what you're told and don't make up your own mind by doing research?

Do you believe that false flag operations are not used? Try the German invasion of Poland, USA turning a blind eye to Pearl Harbor knowing that it would be attacked (why the carriers were out at sea) because it needs to be able to justify offensive action. I do believe JFK fired an Air Force General for actually proposing in writing that a US airliner be shot down to make it look as if Cuba had attacked the US.

I was a believer essentially until i researched Building 7. Its at least worth a look.

In history no buildings have collapsed the way the main towers did. And the odds on both collapsing are even greater. We are to believe the fires weakened essential structural beams etc etc.

Building 7 is the outlier, an anomaly to tease even the most accepting sheep…it wasn't hit by anything other than falling masonry and there were internal fires but these buildings don't just collapse like a house of cards from fire. It very cooperatively fell down in its own footprint later that day….why?

I do my own research on things I am qualified to understand, you like me are not qualified to have an opinion on 911, the so called experts who you are basing your simplistic ideas on are nobodies. They might use big words and seem like they know what they're talking about but they really don't.

JuliusHMarx wrote:And can often be found crying in the chapel.

You two have very suspicious minds. I think he's happy to be out and looking forward to the comeback tour.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I was born with a brain thankfully so yes do believe the official version of events, anything is a level of idiocy I will not lower myself. In other news, Elvis is still alive.

So you just believe what you're told and don't make up your own mind by doing research?

Do you believe that false flag operations are not used? Try the German invasion of Poland, USA turning a blind eye to Pearl Harbor knowing that it would be attacked (why the carriers were out at sea) because it needs to be able to justify offensive action. I do believe JFK fired an Air Force General for actually proposing in writing that a US airliner be shot down to make it look as if Cuba had attacked the US.

I was a believer essentially until i researched Building 7. Its at least worth a look.

In history no buildings have collapsed the way the main towers did. And the odds on both collapsing are even greater. We are to believe the fires weakened essential structural beams etc etc.

Building 7 is the outlier, an anomaly to tease even the most accepting sheep…it wasn't hit by anything other than falling masonry and there were internal fires but these buildings don't just collapse like a house of cards from fire. It very cooperatively fell down in its own footprint later that day….why?

I do my own research on things I am qualified to understand, you like me are not qualified to have an opinion on 911, the so called experts who you are basing your simplistic ideas on are nobodies. They might use big words and seem like they know what they're talking about but they really don't.

? Qualified to have an opinion? This world really is in danger of dropping itself into a long, long, long dark age where citizens willingly follow orders, direction and opinions of those 'qualified' people governing them.

Not much point in having trial by jury...If we are going to leave it to the experts..

"I've got no idea what everybody has been talking about but the coin has come down tails so I'm going to say guilty"

Would you let your local butcher carry out a colonoscopy on you?

Truss - complex commercial and technical legal claims don't go to trial by jury. They're usually presided over by judges with years of experience in the relevant field and involve barrel loads of expert testimony.

Your average member of the public wouldn't have a clue what was happening.

Plenty of psychological babble in murder and litigation.

Though I'm sure you are great at your job Super and a trustworthy legal source...Even if your Elvis jokes are somewhat lacking.

superflyweight wrote:Would you let your local butcher carry out a colonoscopy on you?  

Well, we've had docs get rid of the wrong organs and wrong limbs - so maybe they do need some help from very good anatomists in the form of highly qualified butchers.

SecretFly wrote:

?  Qualified to have an opinion?  This world really is in danger of dropping itself into a long, long, long dark age where citizens willingly follow orders, direction and opinions of those 'qualified' people governing them.

The real dark age is where people listen to the ill informed and pass it off as fact, pretty much what you do and end up looking like a prat in the process. Ignorance sometimes is bliss.

superflyweight wrote:Truss - complex commercial and technical legal claims don't go to trial by jury.  They're usually presided over by judges with years of experience in the relevant field and involve barrel loads of expert testimony.

Your average member of the public wouldn't have a clue what was happening.  

But jurors are expected to be able to understand the implications of DNA evidence for example, and don't.

Indeed. If I was charged with a crime and was innocent - I would be praying for a non-jury trial.

superflyweight wrote:Indeed.  If I was charged with a crime and was innocent - I would be praying for a non-jury trial.  

Or hope there was a well known local village idiot...

Where is Onetwo these days ?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

?  Qualified to have an opinion?  This world really is in danger of dropping itself into a long, long, long dark age where citizens willingly follow orders, direction and opinions of those 'qualified' people governing them.

The real dark age is where people listen to the ill informed and pass it off as fact, pretty much what you do and end up looking like a prat in the process. Ignorance sometimes is bliss.

Ignorance certainly is Bliss for people like you, who actively promote it.

superflyweight wrote:Indeed.  If I was charged with a crime and was innocent - I would be praying for a non-jury trial.  

Depends on which country to happen to be innocent in.

SecretFly wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

?  Qualified to have an opinion?  This world really is in danger of dropping itself into a long, long, long dark age where citizens willingly follow orders, direction and opinions of those 'qualified' people governing them.

The real dark age is where people listen to the ill informed and pass it off as fact, pretty much what you do and end up looking like a prat in the process. Ignorance sometimes is bliss.

Ignorance certainly is Bliss for people like you, who actively promote it.  

It's better than having to tolerate idiots such as yourself.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

?  Qualified to have an opinion?  This world really is in danger of dropping itself into a long, long, long dark age where citizens willingly follow orders, direction and opinions of those 'qualified' people governing them.

The real dark age is where people listen to the ill informed and pass it off as fact, pretty much what you do and end up looking like a prat in the process. Ignorance sometimes is bliss.

Ignorance certainly is Bliss for people like you, who actively promote it.  

It's better than having to tolerate idiots such as yourself.

Well relax then. In your world people like me won't exist. It's the execution wall for people like me.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Plenty of psychological babble in murder and litigation.

Though I'm sure you are great at your job Super and a trustworthy legal source...Even if your Elvis jokes are somewhat lacking.

Don't be cruel.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

?  Qualified to have an opinion?  This world really is in danger of dropping itself into a long, long, long dark age where citizens willingly follow orders, direction and opinions of those 'qualified' people governing them.

The real dark age is where people listen to the ill informed and pass it off as fact, pretty much what you do and end up looking like a prat in the process. Ignorance sometimes is bliss.

Ignorance certainly is Bliss for people like you, who actively promote it.  

It's better than having to tolerate idiots such as yourself.

Ignorance is bliss is the answer of a sheep. No further discussion required.

That said, it is exactly what the powers that be rely on. Keeps the middle classes twits, happy with their tvs, consumer drugs, cars and holidays…earning just enough for the utility companies to keep increasing their prices etc etc. Little rats running ton the treadmill.

The state wants those in the 'ignorance is bliss' camp to grow into a movement, starting in Hammersmith, drugged in their self satisfied myopia so that they don't start asking inconvenient questions about what the state does in their name, when in fact Rome is burning in front of all of our eyes.

Stop and take a look at the bigger picture and what you will see is that the information revolution is breaking down systems of government and concepts of the nation state that the rich and powerful have relied on for hundreds of years. We've seen the Arab Spring, Brexit and now Trump the Russian puppet.

Ignorance is never bliss and mark my words we are heading towards a confrontation that we will be unable to reverse….and not in the mIddle East either but in the South China Sea.

So you basically have no basis for your opinion other than the ramblings of Internet nobody's?

Conspiracy theorists rely on the ineptitude of their own cognition to follow blind leaders.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:So you basically have no basis for your opinion other than the ramblings of Internet nobody's?

Conspiracy theorists rely on the ineptitude of their own cognition to follow blind leaders.

Whereas people who actually regard not knowing as the way forward rely on being stupid to feel safe. Ignorance is bliss right, your words.

You're so scared of looking deeper at anything that you just follow the flock like a dutiful sheep. bah. Then you dismiss those who aren't sheep as 'inept' (totally wrong word and i dont have a clue what you're really trying to convey). Who are these blind leaders…i follow my own research, draw my own conclusions.

It is easy to dismiss the concerns of people who ask questions as 'conspiracy' theorists. It suggests an element of , ironically, being sheep who just dont believe what our governments tell us. Take the big one, 911. It was a conspiracy of that there is no doubt, but according to you it was a conspiracy committed by Al Q whereas I believe something/someone else was involved. I don't know what and I don't believe the USA flew 2 planes into the Trade Center, but there are serious issues regarding building 7 that need to be investigated.

I'll start your education. Read Tim Weiner's Legacy of Ashes and then you'll have a clue what really goes on in the world. You might also read a book called Operation Snow which is a superb account of how a highly placed Soviet mole steered US foreign policy toads a war with Japan to deter it from attacking Russia. Then start looking at who really shot JFK and why.

It will open those woolly eyes of yours. Alternatively carry on with your ignorant life and hope we're all batshitcrazy.

Gwlad - you have proof of who really shot JFK? I'm impressed, you should consider making it public. I have no doubt that your concrete evidence will clear things up once and for all, leaving absolutely no room for doubt. Except for those with woolly eyes, of course.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:So you basically have no basis for your opinion other than the ramblings of Internet nobody's?

Conspiracy theorists rely on the ineptitude of their own cognition to follow blind leaders.

Yeah, like the most recent Orson Welles production of: 'The Russians are coming' conspiracy theory:

"Were the Russians involved?"
CIA/FBI/Democratic Party/McCain: "Yes, we believe they were."
"But were they involved?"
CIA/FBI/Democratic Party/McCain: "We're not suggesting they were."
"But you're saying they played a big part?"
CIA/FBI/Democratic Party/McCain: "That is our understanding, yes."
"But were they playing a big part?"
CIA/FBI/Democratic Party/McCain: "That's not what we're saying."
"What are you saying?"
CIA/FBI/Democratic Party/McCain: "The Russians did it."
"What did the Russians do?"
CIA/FBI/Democratic Party/McCain: "All of it."
"All of what?"
CIA/FBI/Democratic Party/McCain: "Everything - Slavery, misogyny, both world wars, Pearl Harbour, Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Kennedy, Breitbart, Lennon, Oscar ceremony mix-up, Brexit, Le Pen, Le Crunch, Clinton's lack of policy, Obama's lack of a birthcert, sexism, populism, nationalism, communism, fascism, fake moon landings, Nessy, Big Foot and poor coffee."
"That's a heck of an incriminating list."
CIA/FBI/Democratic Party/McCain: "What list?  Don't be a fool.  Nobody suggested there was such a list.  This is why people who believe this junk should be censored and removed from the face of the earth in a discreet fashion in a lonely Washington car park - preferably dying from natural causes after being knifed in the back."

JuliusHMarx wrote:Gwlad - you have proof of who really shot JFK? I'm impressed, you should consider making it public. I have no doubt that your concrete evidence will clear things up once and for all, leaving absolutely no room for doubt. Except for those with woolly eyes, of course.

Thanks for making my point.

It would be highly embarrassing for us to believe that we had actually been fooled for all these years, that the Warren Commission was accurate. So you bought Dulles's version then? Dulles, the guy who he fired. Question to ask isn't who shot him but WHY was he shot? Was America pre disposed for war during the 50s and expecting war in the 60s somewhere? What was JFK's agenda and what happened after his death? What enemies did Bobby make? Was JFK in support of an extended Vietnam war? Did Generals like Lemnitzer and Le May want war? Why/What happened at the Bay of Pigs?….what were the consequences for Cuba and JFK? Did JFK betray the Cubans? What role did the Mafia play?

Start here: The organizing principle for any state is for war. And for a military industrial complex a war is needed every 5-10 years to keep the order books ticking over. Its a huge statement but look at the facts, the USA was really built on 2 wars and keeps reminding itself of that. Existentially the Civil War and economically, WW2.

Pre WW2 Usa was isolationist and post the great Depression WW2 made the USA into the world's preeminent industrial giant (ref Yamamoto's remark)  Isolationism was replaced post war with an aggressive policy of regime change and manipulation world wide. By 1950 we had another war in Korea; then the US essentially started a nuclear proliferation based on wholly inaccurate assessments of Soviet capability to fund it's war based economy (just like the pre WW1 naval race) that lead to SAC and the Iron Curtain stand offs….nuclear deterrence worked, no war on the horizon and JFK wasn't looking for one. Now what? Notice how our war on communism never got real i.e. with China and Soviets, but rather vicariously with Korea and Vietnam. The Generals were frustrated at the end of the 50s, ask any professional soldier, war is fun and meets a base need but it also makes men rich - why do you think most solders are young men - and according to Michael Herr war is quite beautiful. But if we wanted the real war, to defeat Communism, we could have had it then. We don't of course. We want to fill the order books.

America, after WW1 was strictly isolationist remember. Post WW2 that policy went 180 because its economy was predisposed to it. The U.S. has since interfered in the governments of numerous countries all over the world in order to guarantee favorable conditions and to fight an 'enemy' (notice how the USA always needs an enemy for its highly militant society) Not exactly peace loving is it? It used justifiable war in WW2 as a building block to justify anti Communist war in Korea and Vietnam and now that those threats were gone it found - needed to find- a new conflict in the Middle East to stick its $$$ into. New states need battle honors. i've seen US militantism….if you want to go to a small Arizona town called Prescott on July 4th. The West is safe, sterile and our first world problems pale into insignificance compared to the real world where food and security aren't givens. Throw oil into that mix and you have a world where chaos is beneficial to states that need conflict to progress. Religion just brings it all to a nice simmer.

Truth is governments the world over are just human beings advancing their own agendas for influence power and wealth. In the West it's now highly codified, corruption isn't easy to achieve so now you do your time and then get 5 jobs on various boards. Its still servicing your need of wealth, power and influence which are huge turn ons for many/most of us. And definitely for women. Yes there are some good men in Government but the establishment always wins out. Bernie is always right up there but he doesn't actually do it for you. Greed wins because money is power. Trumps congregation were all losers before, he promised them a win and delivered. That's sexy stuff.

We like to think it is our conscious brains that determine what our actions are but the truth is it is the unconscious brain that drives us all. And the essential representation of that is greed with a whole lot of sex in the back ground or whatever else turns you on. Our rational, logic thinking brain keeps those unconscious desires in check and loves to characterize what we do as being good, our moral compass if you like. Makes me feel all warm and altruistic inside, service patriotism and all that. Its a construct though that is designed to explain our decisions making, make it sound lofty when really we do what we need and want in our short self serving lives.

But deep down that reptilian part of the triune brain is driving us forward and thats what most of us are blind to, that is the bliss of ignorance….that controlling brain's relationship with the law and societal expectations coupled with our social needs, is what keeps it all ticking along nicely and us being sheep. We call that 'society'….we conform. Its what distinguishes what we call madness from what we think is normality, but look what happens in parts of the world where 'society' is dissolving and then you'll see that we are essentially in a constant struggle with chaos, greed and the creation of an environment where more base human desires can be met. Its anomic. And that translates to war and extremism which is not only sexy and fun but meets human desires on a level that is unique and compelling for those who want to play out their Playstation fantasies. War is beautiful. It used to be between hunters over who shot the deer, then groups of cave dwellers over who had killed the woolly eyed mammoth and who had rights to he berry bushes, then tribes over who had more sheep, now it is nation states over who has more energy resources, more wealth. In failed states Religion serves as a tidy way for us to identify our banner.

In the West we don't especially feel insecure day to day with our easy lives, but it is very much there and war has been a traditional means for states to advance their agendas, exploiting the base needs of men who have to eat (look at US Army demographics) and for some, to kill. We built a huge Empire on it. Why after all do men choose to become soldiers? We are lead to believe it is for reasons of patriotism and service and it may be they believe that, but at the end its a job and a fun one and when the metal meets the meat its actually for the love of their comrades. One altruistic motive i can grasp.

In the West we are secure with food, sex and shelter etc but, occasionally like yesterday in Westminster chaos creeps in and that freaks us out. We throw another conscious-brain construct into the mix in 'religion' and it gives people a reason to identify with particular groups to work out those fantasies and belief systems- we humans just loooove to do that. Religion really is the bane of all of our lives because science has replaced it.

So in that environment it is harder to conceive that governments might manipulate events to advance their agendas.

Dulles was one member of the Warren commission others like Gerald Ford had no beef with Kennedy. By sullying Dulles you are sullying the rest.

The Warren commission never said there wasn't a conspiracy...Just that if there was they couldn't find evidence of it.. .As President Ford got sick of repeating when he had his integrity regularly questioned.

I personally believe Oswald shot Kennedy but had help along the way.. But as no conspiracy has been proven all these years later....

Your post comes across as a little cheap...

JFK the movie was good but the Director was a Kennedy fan boy.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Dulles was one member of the Warren commission others like Gerald Ford had no beef with Kennedy.  By sullying Dulles you are sullying the rest.

The Warren commission never said there wasn't a conspiracy...Just that if there was they couldn't find evidence of it.. .As President Ford  got sick of repeating when he had his integrity regularly questioned.

I personally believe Oswald shot Kennedy but had help along the way.. But as no conspiracy has been proven all these years later....

Your post comes across as a little cheap...

JFK the movie was good but the Director was a Kennedy fan boy.

A little cheap?

The Warren Commission never looked deep enough to find anything that didn't fit their hypothesis and was a farcical exercise in putting down a record that would become 'official' so that the ignorance is bliss brigade could sleep soundly at night….lone wolf maniac acting alone etc etc. Ruby tied it up nicely with a bow for them. Ever wonder why he did that? What possible motivation did he have….protecting the honor of JFK? Somehow i think he probably had another motivation.

And Ford is a disgrace, the guy who was disclosing to the FBI that commission members suspected a second shooter amongst other things.  

Even the US government now believe Oswald didn't act alone on the day, not just that he had 'help along the way' which would indicate a conspiracy - but that there was a 2nd shooter.

There's your conspiracy. But history was written in the Warren Commission right….just like the 9/11 Report. If the official version comes quick enough and fits a logical hypothesis the sheep buy it as they did then, only years later will the truth come out.

A Senate committee isn't the the US Government.

While Ruby's involvement in the aftermath is suspicious...He said he killed Oswald over grief for poor Jackie and Jr.  That was his statement bollox or not.

Oswald may have known Ruby..

Oswald may have been working for the CIA..Leafletting Pro Cuba literature etc..to infiltrate..Who knows ??

However he was in the book depository and left suspiciously ...

The final bullet coming from the hill has been debunked..

No one has found any evidence of a conspiracy however interesting..

Ford's statement that there may have been a conspiracy but we couldn't find one seems fair enough.

Any decent evidence points to Oswald everything else is tenuous.

I'm all for having opinions. However, when it comes to the WTC and the arguments put forwards by both sides, the simple truth is that I'm not qualified enough to understand them sufficiently to form a learned opinion. I am not a structural engineer, and I have no training in that field (beyond some basic Uni first year level stuff). As such, I am incapable of judging the value of any argument put forward to back either side.

Admitting this is not weakness, it's just that no one can know everything.

There are several fields in which I could listen to experts and genuinely understand their arguments (most areas of Maths and Theoretical Computer Science, and a few in Theoretical Physics), a few more where my working knowledge would allow me to just about follow (some more applied CS, most areas of Physics, all Maths), and a very small field in which I would consider myself an expert (Combinatorics and Probability Theory, though probably only sub-branchers of those).

In those areas I'm more than happy to have a debate with simiarly qualified people. I'll happily argue all day that String Theory while initially promising is IMO a waste of time, that P=NP is almost certainly false, and that really walks in the quarter plane should be viewed from a probabilistic viewpoint rather than a purely combinatorial one (it's richer), but it's unlikely that anyone on here would be able to debate this with me. Similarly I wouldn't be able to debate your fields of expertise to your satisfaction.

Well it's the same with engineering. I am not qualified to make a judgement on why the WTC towers fell.

However, the problem with a conspiracy theory as I've pointed out is that it doesn't apply nearly the same standard of "proof" to itself as it does to the official version. Let's take a few assertions in this thread:

- no tower has ever fallen in the manner the main WTC towers did. True, but none has been hit by a plane at even roughly the same height and speed as those which hit the WTC. Pointless argument.

- what about WTC7? This is the point I make above. If the whole thing is a government cover-up for the destruction of WTC7, it makes no sense. Why go through the whole thing with the planes (and the other sites)? Why not just plant a bomb in WTC7 and blame terrorists for that? Such a complicated scheme had so many places where it could have gone wrong, so many people who'd need to be in on the secret, etc. that it all seems completely unrealistic.

As I said, I'm not qualified to comment on whether the towers could actually have fallen like that. It doesn't mean I can't read up on it, but to reach a level of knowledge where I'd be satisfied that I could comment, I'd have to quit my current position which I quite enjoy, and go and study for 3-5 years to become a structural engineer. I'm unwilling to do that, so won't. I will note that there isn't a global consensus in the Engineering community to say that the official version is bunkum.

As such, what can I comment on? What is known. Planes crashed into the WTC buildings, which then collapsed. WTC7 collapsed a bit later. What is the most likely explanation? Over some nefarious plot to bring down WTC7/Saddam Hussein, I would go with the fact that terrorists highjacked planes and flew them into the buildings (and others). We know the buildings were hit by something (that looked like a plane), that terrorrists do like to go for spectacular attacks which are symbolic, we have the messages from people on the planes to their loved ones (or at least claimed by said loved ones), etc.

Gwlad wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Gwlad - you have proof of who really shot JFK? I'm impressed, you should consider making it public. I have no doubt that your concrete evidence will clear things up once and for all, leaving absolutely no room for doubt. Except for those with woolly eyes, of course.

Thanks for making my point.

It would be highly embarrassing for us to believe that we had actually been fooled for all these years, that the Warren Commission was accurate....etc

And highly self-congratulatory to believe that we know better than others, who we can then dismiss as sheep, reinforcing our own sense of superiority. Certainly the id and ego can be powerful forces.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Lots of good stuff

What is a senate committee then? Its not a coffee morning or a Tupperware party is it? Its a House Committee QED its part of the Government.

Ford says we couldn't find a conspiracy because Ford et al wanted the lone gunman theory to fly because that is what was already in the nations mind; a conspiracy would go to the heart of somewhere that would end up in either the Pentagon or more likely the CIA, or both. With a little help from Cuba and perhaps the Mob. JFK and Bobby had made enemies of them all. Its the same as happened in 1941; the USA knew full well they'd be attacked in Pearl Harbor. If they didn't it should have brought down a government but it didn't, it gave a pretext for war.

And if you talk about circumstantial evidence and decent evidence in the same context regards JFK you demonstrate you fail to understand evidential rules whatsoever. All the circumstantial evidence points to Oswald- as it was designed to do. Ruby ensured Oswald's account would never be heard. Nice and tidy. So an entire murder investigation was settled on circumstantial evidence; by todays standards it wouldn't be acceptable.

There isn't a jot of forensic evidence to put the 'bullet' in the rifle or even out the bullets in the corpse. Numerous eyewitnesses describe a head injury to Kennedy that any ballistics expert will tell you came from an exit in the back of the skull.

I do find it extraordinary that anyone believes LHO took it upon himself to kill JFK, planned and executed the perfect assassination and nearly got away with it were it not for the fact that he left under suspicious circumstances.

I'm prepared to believe he was involved because i believe he was the perfect fall guy, but  I do not believe, nor do most people now, that he was alone either in planning it or carrying it out.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Gwlad - you have proof of who really shot JFK? I'm impressed, you should consider making it public. I have no doubt that your concrete evidence will clear things up once and for all, leaving absolutely no room for doubt. Except for those with woolly eyes, of course.

Thanks for making my point.

It would be highly embarrassing for us to believe that we had actually been fooled for all these years, that the Warren Commission was accurate....etc

And highly self-congratulatory to believe that we know better than others, who we can then dismiss as sheep, reinforcing our own sense of superiority. Certainly the id and ego can be powerful forces.

I'd say your inferiority is driving that post; my position has nothing to do with superiority just an understanding that we should sometimes question our political masters. We were duped then, that was acknowledged by the house Senate committee later; governments spend billions on making us believe stuff while they have highly secretive organizations working in the background apparently in our name to ensure we do. The Warren Commission is an example. Watergate nearly became an example…will 9/11?

And I dismiss the sheep for exactly the same reason that anyone who doesn't toe the party lien gets dismissed as a conspiracy theorist.

Gwlad wrote:What is a senate committee then? Its not a coffee morning or a Tupperware party is it? Its a House Committee QED its part of the Government.

Ford says we couldn't find a conspiracy because Ford et al wanted the lone gunman theory to fly because that is what was already in the nations mind; a conspiracy would go to the heart of somewhere that would end up in either the Pentagon or more likely the CIA, or both. With a little help from Cuba and perhaps the Mob. JFK and Bobby had made enemies of them all. Its the same as happened in 1941; the USA knew full well they'd be attacked in Pearl Harbor. If they didn't it should have brought down a government but it didn't, it gave a pretext for war.

And if you talk about circumstantial evidence and decent evidence in the same context regards JFK you demonstrate you fail to understand evidential rules whatsoever. All the circumstantial evidence points to Oswald- as it was designed to do. Ruby ensured Oswald's account would never be heard. Nice and tidy. So an entire murder investigation was settled on circumstantial evidence; by todays standards it wouldn't be acceptable.

There isn't a jot of forensic evidence to put the 'bullet' in the rifle or even out the bullets in the corpse. Numerous eyewitnesses describe a head injury to Kennedy that any ballistics expert will tell you came from an exit in the back of the skull.

I do find it extraordinary that anyone believes LHO took it upon himself to kill JFK, planned and executed the perfect assassination and nearly got away with it were it not for the fact that he left under suspicious circumstances.

I'm prepared to believe he was involved because i believe he was the perfect fall guy, but  I do not believe, nor do most people now, that he was alone either in planning it or carrying it out.

They also had a picture of Oswald with the gun......Wasn't all circumstantial.  (Whether you believe the picture to be genuine is another matter)

You made the statement that the US Government believed.......I pointed out it was the senate assassinations committee........A minor fraction.

The kill shot was proven to have come from the depository............A documentary proved it.......They also proved there was no magic bullet..

As for the rest it is all assumptions......"Ruby killed Oswald to stop him talking".......You don't know that !!!

JFK provided a reason for the CIA to be upset with him.......So what ???..Doesn't mean they killed him...

You can't blame the Warren commission for finding no conspiracy on assumptions........You don't know if Dulles and Ford deliberately screwed up....If they did at all..........It is another assumption !!....

Ford : "We never said there wasn't a conspiracy we just couldn't find any evidence of one..."..Nothing wrong with that statement.

Why do you find it extraordinary Oswald took it upon himself to kill JFK on his own ??..and It wasn't the perfect assassination anyway because he had to kill Tippit an hour or so later..

President Garfield was killed by Guiteau.....
President McKinley was killed by Czolgolz
Lincoln was killed by Wilkes Booth............and Jackson, Truman, Ford and Reagan survived attempts on their lives !!...none of those were perfect either..

Assumptions don't count as evidence.........

You don't know whether Dulles or Ford had agendas even if they had cause for them......More importantly of all you don't know what was going on in Oswald and Ruby's heads....and neither did the Warren Commission.

Gwlad wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

?  Qualified to have an opinion?  This world really is in danger of dropping itself into a long, long, long dark age where citizens willingly follow orders, direction and opinions of those 'qualified' people governing them.

The real dark age is where people listen to the ill informed and pass it off as fact, pretty much what you do and end up looking like a prat in the process. Ignorance sometimes is bliss.

Ignorance certainly is Bliss for people like you, who actively promote it.  

It's better than having to tolerate idiots such as yourself.

Ignorance is bliss is the answer of a sheep. No further discussion required.

That said, it is exactly what the powers that be rely on. Keeps the middle classes twits, happy with their tvs, consumer drugs, cars and holidays…earning just enough for the utility companies to keep increasing their prices etc etc. Little rats running ton the treadmill.

The state wants those in the 'ignorance is bliss' camp to grow into a movement, starting in Hammersmith, drugged in their self satisfied myopia so that they don't start asking inconvenient questions about what the state does in their name, when in fact Rome is burning in front of all of our eyes.

Stop and take a look at the bigger picture and what you will see is that the information revolution is breaking down systems of government and concepts of the nation state that the rich and powerful have relied on for hundreds of years. We've seen the Arab Spring, Brexit and now Trump the Russian puppet.

Ignorance is never bliss and mark my words we are heading towards a confrontation that we will be unable to reverse….and not in the mIddle East either but in the South China Sea.

Parklife!

Gwlad wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:So you basically have no basis for your opinion other than the ramblings of Internet nobody's?

Conspiracy theorists rely on the ineptitude of their own cognition to follow blind leaders.

Whereas people who actually regard not knowing as the way forward rely on being stupid to feel safe. Ignorance is bliss right, your words.

You're so scared of looking deeper at anything that you just follow the flock like a dutiful sheep. bah. Then you dismiss those who aren't sheep as 'inept' (totally wrong word and i dont have a clue what you're really trying to convey). Who are these blind leaders…i follow my own research, draw my own conclusions.

It is easy to dismiss the concerns of people who ask questions as 'conspiracy' theorists. It suggests an element of , ironically, being sheep who just dont believe what our governments tell us. Take the big one, 911. It was a conspiracy of that there is no doubt, but according to you it was a conspiracy committed by Al Q whereas I believe something/someone else was involved. I don't know what and I don't believe the USA flew 2 planes into the Trade Center, but there are serious issues regarding building 7 that need to be investigated.

I'll start your education. Read Tim Weiner's Legacy of Ashes and then you'll have a clue what really goes on in the world. You might also read a book called Operation Snow which is a superb account of how a highly placed Soviet mole steered US foreign policy toads a war with Japan to deter it from attacking Russia. Then start looking at who really shot JFK and why.

It will open those woolly eyes of yours. Alternatively carry on with your ignorant life and hope we're all batshitcrazy.

Parklife!

Gwlad wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Gwlad - you have proof of who really shot JFK? I'm impressed, you should consider making it public. I have no doubt that your concrete evidence will clear things up once and for all, leaving absolutely no room for doubt. Except for those with woolly eyes, of course.

Thanks for making my point.

It would be highly embarrassing for us to believe that we had actually been fooled for all these years, that the Warren Commission was accurate. So you bought Dulles's version then? Dulles, the guy who he fired. Question to ask isn't who shot him but WHY was he shot? Was America pre disposed for war during the 50s and expecting war in the 60s somewhere? What was JFK's agenda and what happened after his death? What enemies did Bobby make? Was JFK in support of an extended Vietnam war? Did Generals like Lemnitzer and Le May want war? Why/What happened at the Bay of Pigs?….what were the consequences for Cuba and JFK? Did JFK betray the Cubans? What role did the Mafia play?

Start here: The organizing principle for any state is for war. And for a military industrial complex a war is needed every 5-10 years to keep the order books ticking over. Its a huge statement but look at the facts, the USA was really built on 2 wars and keeps reminding itself of that. Existentially the Civil War and economically, WW2.

Pre WW2 Usa was isolationist and post the great Depression WW2 made the USA into the world's preeminent industrial giant (ref Yamamoto's remark)  Isolationism was replaced post war with an aggressive policy of regime change and manipulation world wide. By 1950 we had another war in Korea; then the US essentially started a nuclear proliferation based on wholly inaccurate assessments of Soviet capability to fund it's war based economy (just like the pre WW1 naval race) that lead to SAC and the Iron Curtain stand offs….nuclear deterrence worked, no war on the horizon and JFK wasn't looking for one. Now what? Notice how our war on communism never got real i.e. with China and Soviets, but rather vicariously with Korea and Vietnam. The Generals were frustrated at the end of the 50s, ask any professional soldier, war is fun and meets a base need but it also makes men rich - why do you think most solders are young men - and according to Michael Herr war is quite beautiful. But if we wanted the real war, to defeat Communism, we could have had it then. We don't of course. We want to fill the order books.

America, after WW1 was strictly isolationist remember. Post WW2 that policy went 180 because its economy was predisposed to it. The U.S. has since interfered in the governments of numerous countries all over the world in order to guarantee favorable conditions and to fight an 'enemy' (notice how the USA always needs an enemy for its highly militant society) Not exactly peace loving is it? It used justifiable war in WW2 as a building block to justify anti Communist war in Korea and Vietnam and now that those threats were gone it found - needed to find- a new conflict in the Middle East to stick its $$$ into. New states need battle honors. i've seen US militantism….if you want to go to a small Arizona town called Prescott on July 4th. The West is safe, sterile and our first world problems pale into insignificance compared to the real world where food and security aren't givens. Throw oil into that mix and you have a world where chaos is beneficial to states that need conflict to progress. Religion just brings it all to a nice simmer.

Truth is governments the world over are just human beings advancing their own agendas for influence power and wealth. In the West it's now highly codified, corruption isn't easy to achieve so now you do your time and then get 5 jobs on various boards. Its still servicing your need of wealth, power and influence which are huge turn ons for many/most of us. And definitely for women. Yes there are some good men in Government but the establishment always wins out. Bernie is always right up there but he doesn't actually do it for you. Greed wins because money is power. Trumps congregation were all losers before, he promised them a win and delivered. That's sexy stuff.

We like to think it is our conscious brains that determine what our actions are but the truth is it is the unconscious brain that drives us all. And the essential representation of that is greed with a whole lot of sex in the back ground or whatever else turns you on. Our rational, logic thinking brain keeps those unconscious desires in check and loves to characterize what we do as being good, our moral compass if you like. Makes me feel all warm and altruistic inside, service patriotism and all that. Its a construct though that is designed to explain our decisions making, make it sound lofty when really we do what we need and want in our short self serving lives.

But deep down that reptilian part of the triune brain is driving us forward and thats what most of us are blind to, that is the bliss of ignorance….that controlling brain's relationship with the law and societal expectations coupled with our social needs, is what keeps it all ticking along nicely and us being sheep. We call that 'society'….we conform. Its what distinguishes what we call madness from what we think is normality, but look what happens in parts of the world where 'society' is dissolving and then you'll see that we are essentially in a constant struggle with chaos, greed and the creation of an environment where more base human desires can be met. Its anomic. And that translates to war and extremism which is not only sexy and fun but meets human desires on a level that is unique and compelling for those who want to play out their Playstation fantasies. War is beautiful. It used to be between hunters over who shot the deer, then groups of cave dwellers over who had killed the woolly eyed mammoth and who had rights to he berry bushes, then tribes over who had more sheep, now it is nation states over who has more energy resources, more wealth. In failed states Religion serves as a tidy way for us to identify our banner.

In the West we don't especially feel insecure day to day with our easy lives, but it is very much there and war has been a traditional means for states to advance their agendas, exploiting the base needs of men who have to eat (look at US Army demographics) and for some, to kill. We built a huge Empire on it. Why after all do men choose to become soldiers? We are lead to believe it is for reasons of patriotism and service and it may be they believe that, but at the end its a job and a fun one and when the metal meets the meat its actually for the love of their comrades. One altruistic motive i can grasp.

In the West we are secure with food, sex and shelter etc but, occasionally like yesterday in Westminster chaos creeps in and that freaks us out. We throw another conscious-brain construct into the mix in 'religion' and it gives people a reason to identify with particular groups to work out those fantasies and belief systems- we humans just loooove to do that. Religion really is the bane of all of our lives because science has replaced it.

So in that environment it is harder to conceive that governments might manipulate events to advance their agendas.

Parklife!

Gwlad wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Dulles was one member of the Warren commission others like Gerald Ford had no beef with Kennedy.  By sullying Dulles you are sullying the rest.

The Warren commission never said there wasn't a conspiracy...Just that if there was they couldn't find evidence of it.. .As President Ford  got sick of repeating when he had his integrity regularly questioned.

I personally believe Oswald shot Kennedy but had help along the way.. But as no conspiracy has been proven all these years later....

Your post comes across as a little cheap...

JFK the movie was good but the Director was a Kennedy fan boy.

A little cheap?

The Warren Commission never looked deep enough to find anything that didn't fit their hypothesis and was a farcical exercise in putting down a record that would become 'official' so that the ignorance is bliss brigade could sleep soundly at night….lone wolf maniac acting alone etc etc. Ruby tied it up nicely with a bow for them. Ever wonder why he did that? What possible motivation did he have….protecting the honor of JFK? Somehow i think he probably had another motivation.

And Ford is a disgrace, the guy who was disclosing to the FBI that commission members suspected a second shooter amongst other things.  

Even the US government now believe Oswald didn't act alone on the day, not just that he had 'help along the way' which would indicate a conspiracy - but that there was a 2nd shooter.

There's your conspiracy. But history was written in the Warren Commission right….just like the 9/11 Report. If the official version comes quick enough and fits a logical hypothesis the sheep buy it as they did then, only years later will the truth come out.

Parklife!

Gwlad wrote:What is a senate committee then? Its not a coffee morning or a Tupperware party is it? Its a House Committee QED its part of the Government.

Ford says we couldn't find a conspiracy because Ford et al wanted the lone gunman theory to fly because that is what was already in the nations mind; a conspiracy would go to the heart of somewhere that would end up in either the Pentagon or more likely the CIA, or both. With a little help from Cuba and perhaps the Mob. JFK and Bobby had made enemies of them all. Its the same as happened in 1941; the USA knew full well they'd be attacked in Pearl Harbor. If they didn't it should have brought down a government but it didn't, it gave a pretext for war.

And if you talk about circumstantial evidence and decent evidence in the same context regards JFK you demonstrate you fail to understand evidential rules whatsoever. All the circumstantial evidence points to Oswald- as it was designed to do. Ruby ensured Oswald's account would never be heard. Nice and tidy. So an entire murder investigation was settled on circumstantial evidence; by todays standards it wouldn't be acceptable.

There isn't a jot of forensic evidence to put the 'bullet' in the rifle or even out the bullets in the corpse. Numerous eyewitnesses describe a head injury to Kennedy that any ballistics expert will tell you came from an exit in the back of the skull.

I do find it extraordinary that anyone believes LHO took it upon himself to kill JFK, planned and executed the perfect assassination and nearly got away with it were it not for the fact that he left under suspicious circumstances.

I'm prepared to believe he was involved because i believe he was the perfect fall guy, but  I do not believe, nor do most people now, that he was alone either in planning it or carrying it out.

Parklife!

Gwlad wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Gwlad - you have proof of who really shot JFK? I'm impressed, you should consider making it public. I have no doubt that your concrete evidence will clear things up once and for all, leaving absolutely no room for doubt. Except for those with woolly eyes, of course.

Thanks for making my point.

It would be highly embarrassing for us to believe that we had actually been fooled for all these years, that the Warren Commission was accurate....etc

And highly self-congratulatory to believe that we know better than others, who we can then dismiss as sheep, reinforcing our own sense of superiority. Certainly the id and ego can be powerful forces.

I'd say your inferiority is driving that post; my position has nothing to do with superiority just an understanding that we should sometimes question our political masters. We were duped then, that was acknowledged by the house Senate committee later; governments spend billions on making us believe stuff while they have highly secretive organizations working in the background apparently in our name to ensure we do. The Warren Commission is an example. Watergate nearly became an example…will 9/11?

And I dismiss the sheep for exactly the same reason that anyone who doesn't toe the party lien gets dismissed as a conspiracy theorist.

Parklife!

Gwlad wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Gwlad - you have proof of who really shot JFK? I'm impressed, you should consider making it public. I have no doubt that your concrete evidence will clear things up once and for all, leaving absolutely no room for doubt. Except for those with woolly eyes, of course.

Thanks for making my point.

It would be highly embarrassing for us to believe that we had actually been fooled for all these years, that the Warren Commission was accurate....etc

And highly self-congratulatory to believe that we know better than others, who we can then dismiss as sheep, reinforcing our own sense of superiority. Certainly the id and ego can be powerful forces.

I'd say your inferiority is driving that post; my position has nothing to do with superiority just an understanding that we should sometimes question our political masters. We were duped then, that was acknowledged by the house Senate committee later; governments spend billions on making us believe stuff while they have highly secretive organizations working in the background apparently in our name to ensure we do. The Warren Commission is an example. Watergate nearly became an example…will 9/11?

And I dismiss the sheep for exactly the same reason that anyone who doesn't toe the party lien gets dismissed as a conspiracy theorist.

Haha - that's funny. "I'm not superior, it's you who's inferior." The smug self-satisfaction of the conspiracy theorist who dismisses people as sheep unless they follow his own line of thinking like,,,er...sheep.

I saw that documentary on the JFK killing, was brilliant on how they reenacted the whole thing and shown it was only possible for the one shooter.

There'll always always be conspiracy theories around everything though (some people still think the world is flat), for one it makes those that believe think they're above others as only they (and the other nutters) know the truth.

On the other hand, every once in a while a conspiracy theory is shown to have some truth to it which in turn leads them to say I told you so, that means that every wacky theory they have must be true.

And for most (not SF cause he's pretty cool when it comes to this stuff) they fly off the handle if you dare to question them (there was a documentary on Ch4 about 9/11 ages ago that tore apart some of the accusation of some blogger and he went ballistic when provided with the evidence). Think it all comes back to that desire/need to be seen as unique/smarter etc (despite following a number of people)

For the record 9/11 imo was far too big to be anything other than what it was, there was a number of different ways they could have gone about it which would have been easier and had to involve less people.

Take MfC's point about none of us being experts in structural engineering. This means we can only rely on other reports. We can reject e.g. the NIST findings as part of a cover-up and find alternative views on the internet. Or we can reject the alternative views on the internet and accept the NIST findings. It rather depends on our prevailing mind-set - some people will automatically reject the 'official' reports on anything, preferring to smell cover-up/conspiracy. Some people will recognise that there are a lot of nutters out there on the internet.

That's not to say there are never any cover-ups/conspiracies, but that's no excuse for believing lots of people talking bollox, mainly for personal reasons.

In my experience the majority of conspiracy theorists are loners working menial jobs having achieved nothing in life and the only purpose they can find in life is this nonsense.

Gwlad wrote:What is a senate committee then? Its not a coffee morning or a Tupperware party is it? Its a House Committee QED its part of the Government.

Ford says we couldn't find a conspiracy because Ford et al wanted the lone gunman theory to fly because that is what was already in the nations mind; a conspiracy would go to the heart of somewhere that would end up in either the Pentagon or more likely the CIA, or both. With a little help from Cuba and perhaps the Mob. JFK and Bobby had made enemies of them all. Its the same as happened in 1941; the USA knew full well they'd be attacked in Pearl Harbor. If they didn't it should have brought down a government but it didn't, it gave a pretext for war.

And if you talk about circumstantial evidence and decent evidence in the same context regards JFK you demonstrate you fail to understand evidential rules whatsoever. All the circumstantial evidence points to Oswald- as it was designed to do. Ruby ensured Oswald's account would never be heard. Nice and tidy. So an entire murder investigation was settled on circumstantial evidence; by todays standards it wouldn't be acceptable.

There isn't a jot of forensic evidence to put the 'bullet' in the rifle or even out the bullets in the corpse. Numerous eyewitnesses describe a head injury to Kennedy that any ballistics expert will tell you came from an exit in the back of the skull.

I do find it extraordinary that anyone believes LHO took it upon himself to kill JFK, planned and executed the perfect assassination and nearly got away with it were it not for the fact that he left under suspicious circumstances.

I'm prepared to believe he was involved because i believe he was the perfect fall guy, but  I do not believe, nor do most people now, that he was alone either in planning it or carrying it out.

The problem with conspiracies is that you have to trust people..

It's folly to view all those men and women from covert agencies as cold and ruthless and living to serve.

Like in the movies.

I'd love there to be conspiracies...I'd love there to be a man in the moon but you need evidence.

Conspiracy theorists are like defence lawyers with a guilty client.

Jello at the wall and hope it sticks.

Two journalists brought Nixon down.....and Nixon was a very smart and cunning man...He even knew there was more than one type of Muslim unlike W

Hammersmith harrier wrote:In my experience the majority of conspiracy theorists are loners working menial jobs having achieved nothing in life and the only purpose they can find in life is this nonsense.

And living in Hammersmith.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The problem with conspiracies is that you have to trust people..

It's folly to view all those men and women from covert agencies as cold and ruthless and living to serve.

Like in the movies.

I'd love there to be conspiracies...I'd love there to be a man in the moon but you need evidence.

Conspiracy theorists are like defence lawyers with a guilty client.

Jello at the wall and hope it sticks.

Two journalists brought Nixon down.....and Nixon was a very smart and cunning man...He even knew there was more than one type of Muslim unlike W

You obviously know very little about court rooms!!

Look the problem with people who are accepting of the official version like you guys is exactly that, you tend to be very trusting and conformist types would prefer to remain ignorant than even question what is going on around them, its just easier that way right. Go along to get along.

Its how Trump got elected; that element in society of ignorant people who would bend over backwards because they want to believe what they're being told and don't really understand the issues. Bet you think Trump got elected without the help of Putin don't you. OPEN YOUR EYES!!!! Is Snowdon a conspiracy theorist? Manning?

There is tonnes of evidence regarding various key events including Pearl Harbor, JFK, Watergate, 9/11 to name but a few to indicate that what we all are told to believe is not quite what it seems. What do you think the Bay of pigs was if not a conspiracy?!!! Most of you are ignorant of it because you buy the official line because you are trusting and dont look deeper.

Nixon wasn't smart or cunning, Nixon was a deeply paranoid crook who caused the death of untold soldiers and Vietnamese by manipulating the outcome of the Paris peace conference. Nixon was brought down by 2 journalists who discovered his CONSPIRACY, and anyone who thinks it is 'smart' to record your crooked doings is just a fool who needs their head checked, Trussman

Had Watergate not been discovered at the time, as it happened and then, years later been revealed we'd all be decrying those that revealed it as conspiracy theorists. There is your evidence of a conspiracy proven fact but even faced with that you dont see it do you?

A conspiracy theory is an explanation of events that conflicts with the official record. In other words we don't necessarily accept what we're being told. And all those people who trip over themselves to believe what they're being told have to do is shout conspiracy theory and they think that will undermine an argument. Jello at the wall and hope it sticks.

TRUSSMAN66 - 1, Gwlad - 0

navyblueshorts wrote:TRUSSMAN66 - 1, Gwlad - 0

No one likes a referee but then i guess you have always been either a ref or spectator in life right