You might be a conspiracy theorist if....

you deny a plane crashed into the Pentagon because you've not personally seen pictures of the 223 seats, but claim that WTC 7 was a "controlled demolition" despite any direct evidence of explosives because "there's no other way the building could have come down".

if you believe 19 arabs perpetrated 911 all on their own to the total surprise of the United States' multi-billion dollar intelligence and defense agencies! Just sayin! Next!

that there was a steady stream of data points that *could* have possibly been connected were if not for personal egos, interagency rivalry and non-cooperation.

Bill, I really would be impressed if you would read 'The Looming Tower' by Lawrence Wright. This book shows exactly how al Qaeda and the 9/11 plots came to be, and how the US missed the opportunity to intersect the plan on many levels.

...talk about tying up bandwidth -- the ignorance of OCTers is just stunning. Try looking up the definition of conspiracy, Sparky:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/conspiracy

Unless you're now a proponent of the "lone Arab with a box cutter" theory, you're a conspiracy theorist.

If you don't like the word conspiracy being connected with the official fairytale, feel free to substitute the word coincidence, as you must embrace/accept a myriad of them ranging from the unlikely to the absolutely ridiculous, if you believe the OCT.

And speaking of these coincidences, you've yet to satisfactorily address them:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=163495&mesg_id=163495

like, say the "OCT", whether it be detailed engineering calculations published in peer-reviewed journals, countless eyewitnesses that can be confirmed, or unassailable scientific methods that establish conclusions beyond a shadow of a doubt (for example, the positive DNA identification of all but one of the passengers of AA 77).

The "truth movement" has, well, countless YouTube videos peddling absurd theories and dubious technical explanations, the absolute inability to fashion any coherent, cohesive and consistent alternative hypothesis of what happened on 9/11, and labeling people "shills" and "trolls". Your 1st clue that you're not taken seriously is being relegated here. "Truth movement" indeed.

What is that supposed to mean? The OCT is provable? WOW. Even the Co-chairs of the 9-11 Commission don't sound like they believe that anymore.

Your numbers are dwindling -- and the more they do, the more desperate you become.

What's the poster child for crimestop gonna do?

Challenge you to put forth some sort of coherent, cohesive and consistent alternative hypothesis for 9/11 and chuckle as you flounder. Maybe you could ask some of that huge number of CT's to help since our "numbers" are supposedly dwindling. Oh, yeah, I forgot. DU still has you relegated to the dungeon and for good reason.

:rofl:

Yea like 40 years later

That means you have nearly 34 more years to come up with yours. We'll be waiting breathlessly.

pick any of these


The gagging of Sibel Edmonds
The outing of Valerie Plame
The war in Iraq
COLLUSION: INTERNATIONAL ESPIONAGE AND THE WAR ON TERROR.
Iran/Contra - George Bush Sr.
BCCI
Tuskegee Syphilis Study
IBM and the Holocaust
Operation Mockingbird
The Manhattan Project
The Catholic Church covering up the pedophila by priests
Enron
Watergate
The Gulf of Tonkin Incident
Vietnam and Other American Fantasies (Culture, Politics, and the Cold War)
Live American POWs in Vietnam
Internal Combustion
philanthropies launched a national campaign of ethnic cleansing in the United States
"Fixing" of intelligence around the desire to invade Iraq --- October Surprise
"Black Box Voting" and computer hacking of elections -- See: VOTESCAM
Operation Gladio
MK-ultra.
COINTELPRO: The FBI's War on Black America
Watergate -- including "black bag jobs" and "The Huston Plan"
Operation Paperclip
CIA coups on democratically elected leaders all around the world ---
CIA-backed death squads in El Salvado
Operation Northwoods
Savings & Loan Theft and Embezzlements
The Drug War is also an obvious conspiracy
CIA-Contra-Crack Cocaine connection
Operation Phoenix, torture program in Vietnam
GULF WAR ILLNESS
Control Room -- Propaganda of the Iraq War
Watergate
The Other Side: An Interview with William Blum
1990 Testimony of Nayirah:
The Mafia
The Dreyfus Affair
Echelon
Ashcroft stopped flying on commercial aircraft before 9/11
Corporatocracy
Hitler really was out to exterminate Jews.
Bernard Ebbers convicted of fraud and conspiracy 180 billion dollar loss to investors.
Secret CIA Prisons
Secret Bombing of Cambodia
Operation Midnight Climax
Operation PBSUCCESS
Operation Ajax
General Motors streetcar conspiracy
De Beers was charged by the United States Justice Department with Sherman Antitrust Act
Indonesian occupation of East Timor
USS LIBERTY
Suppressing Sarkhan
London Police Found Guilty of Health and Safety Failures in Brazilian's Shooting Death
Brzezinski What's most important to the history of the world the Taliban or collapse of SovietEmpire
Curveball REVEALED!!
Subpoenaed: Rice, Hadley et al. in espionage case



and when do you think we will learn the truth about dick cheney?







IMPEACH CHENEY




They Thought They Were Free - Read by Dave Emory

The Germans, 1933-45

Excerpt from pages 166-73 of "They Thought They Were Free" First published in 1955

By Milton Mayer

But Then It Was Too Late

"What no one seemed to notice," said a colleague of mine, a philologist, "was the ever widening gap, after 1933, between the government and the people. Just think how very wide this gap was to begin with, here in Germany. And it became always wider. You know, it doesn’t make people close to their government to be told that this is a people’s government, a true democracy, or to be enrolled in civilian defense, or even to vote. All this has little, really nothing, to do with knowing one is governing.

"What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.

....

"Yes," I said.

"You see," my colleague went on, "one doesn’t see exactly where or how to move. Believe me, this is true. Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, THE SHOCK DOCTRINE will join with you in resisting somehow. You don’t want to act, or even talk, alone; you don’t want to ‘go out of your way to make trouble.’ Why not?—Well, you are not in the habit of doing it. And it is not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty.

"Uncertainty is a very important factor, and, instead of decreasing as time goes on, it grows. Outside, in the streets, in the general community, ‘everyone’ is happy. One hears no protest, and certainly sees none. You know, in France or Italy there would be slogans against the government painted on walls and fences; in Germany, outside the great cities, perhaps, there is not even this. In the university community, in your own community, you speak privately to your colleagues, some of whom certainly feel as you do; but what do they say? They say, ‘It’s not so bad’ or ‘You’re seeing things’ or ‘You’re an alarmist.’



Michael Parenti - Terrorism, Globalism & Conspiracy

"Coincidence Theory: By shear chance things just happen repeatedly and coincidentally to benefit their interests without any conscious connivance by them, which is most uncanny. There is also: Stupidity Theory, Innocence Theory, Momentary Aberration Theory, Incompetence Theory, Unintended Consequences Theory and Innocent Cultural Proclivities Theory."

- Michael Parenti

"Internal Combustion". Maybe I'm being dense, but how is this a conspiracy?

Author Edwin Black Launches Internal Combustion At Nova Southeastern University

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2785279554152249422&q=Edwin+Black+-&total=1949&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0




http://www.internalcombustionbook.com/




Explosive. Edwin Black has produced an explosive, eye-opening exposé of the corporate forces that have for more than a century sabotaged the creation of alternative energies and vehicles in order to keep us dependent on oil. There is enough truth in this book to revolutionize our way of life.
Max Wallace, author
American Axis: Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, and the Rise of the Third Reich


Revolutionary! Edwin Black takes off the gloves and reveals the people whose invisible hands have been shaping and controlling energy markets. Internal Combustion describes forces that have brought us to the brink of disaster, and raises a call for a green revolution to restore sanity and regain control over our destiny.
Karl Gawell, executive director
Geothermal Energy Association


Dogged Journalism. Internal Combustion is proof that investigative works can be both illuminating and entertaining; comprehensive and thought-provoking. Through extensive research and dogged journalism, Black has given his readers a portrait of the world's modern energy crisis. From the corporate conspiracies to the political intricacies, Black connects the dots, outlines the history, and underlines the combustive relationship between civilizations and the energy sources they so dearly rely on.
Wendell Rawls, director
Center for Public Integrity


A Page Turner. As usual, Edwin Black puts all his readers in his debt by his lucid, dramatic and thought-provoking discoveries. Internal Combustion is a story that should be read by everyone concerned about the strange realities of our modern world. An indispensable contribution to the story of oil and travel: the twin pillars of our modern dilemma. A true page turner.
Martin Gilbert, author
A History of the Twentieth Century, Churchill: A Life and First World War Riveting. Edwin Black's Internal Combustion provides a riveting, well researched, technically on-target, no-holds barred revelation of the factors that have brought us to today's crisis point--the world's reliance on oil. His compelling narrative detailing the evolution of what has become today's global dilemma is a must-read for the technically savvy as well as for the layman.
Melvin I. Olken, Editor-in-Chief
IEEE Power & Energy Magazine


Vivid & Fascinating. With over 95 percent of our transportation energy being based on petroleum, oil underlies every aspect of our lives and our growing dependence on it is a clear and present danger to our national security. Edwin Black's Internal Combustion presents a vivid and fascinating narrative on how we got to where we are today. It is a must read for anyone who wants to delve into the roots of our national addiction.
Gal Luft, executive director,
Institute for the Analysis of Global Security &
co-chair, Set America Free Coalition


Prodigious Research, Ugly Truth. Conventional wisdom says that Americans addicted themselves to oil and that the free market gives people the energy sources and technologies they most desire. Edwin Black proves that the truth is uglier. Based on prodigious research deep into the historical record, Black demonstrates that power-hungry despots, avaricious monopolists, and bottom-line obsessed corporate oligarchs have long done their best to control where we get our energy and how we use it. To better understand how we got where we are today and how we can make better energy choices in the future, read this page-turner.
David Farber, author
Sloan Rules: Alfred P. Sloan and the Triumph of General

Thank you, slad. I think my brother has this book. Maybe I'll see if I can borrow it.

slad, what does the author recommend replacing oil with? I'm not trying to be contentious here, I'm just curious.

And yes, if the author is arguing what I think he's arguing then I agree. Oil was cheap to produce (at one time) and made billions (maybe trillions) for the oil companies. There were concerted efforts, for instance, to get large cities to give up their electric trolley lines for gas powered buses. Although I wouldn't frame it as a conspiracy theory but that's where our world-views differ.

Too bad, look up some of his other books

But my question had to do with what the author recommended replacing oil with.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=191665&mesg_id=191665

This one is practically worthy of a front page article in the NYTs

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

can't do that,take my word for that I'm pretty sure of the rules these days :rofl: and welcome to DU :hi:

Things you shouldnt say 4 posts in:

"You know you're an idiot troll if you post incoherent, illogical OP's that do nothing but show you're an ignorant troll who thinks he's actually provoking people."

Welcome to DU, however brief.

Something about having cake and eating it, too, comes to mind with the Troofers.

We refuse to let our knowlege, however limited, be informed by your ignorance, however vast.
-- David Ray Griffin

the laughingstock of engineering experts? THAT David Ray Griffin? Is your post intended to be ironic?

Cuz this is lame, even for you.

the "truth" movement.

Sorry, but many of your facts, and most of your conclusions, are in dispute. Try as you might to claim only nutters don't buy the official story, more people of all walks of life are waking up everyday.


edited for shit grammar

Please don't forget that while we might disagree about the events of September 11th everyone here (with an occasional exception) is not a Bush supporter.

Hard to pass up when it's 'set at the net'

unless you're doing what I think you're doing, which is just launching a broadside, blanket charge because you have zero idea what my facts are. I'm assuming your comment about disinformation is unintended irony.

Just because someone disputes something doesn't mean that particular fact is questionable. There are plenty of nuts in the world who question things that have been proven over and over again.

:hi:

With a world population in the billions you get all types.

Hey, how can I argue with you guys when you're being so reasonable?!?

She recounted her journey to agnosticism and suggested that by OCT doctrine this made her a conspiracy theorist, ie she did not believe the 'official' accounts of existence that were taught to her by religious authorites.

I was going to reply to her that, in my opinion, (and with apologies to people of faith), absolute belief in the religious texts was in itself irrational, and her journey was one of a rational mind. Skepticism is a good and natural thing. Without skepticism, we would still believe in a flat earth and that the sun rotates about us.

that it's skepticism which leads us away from their claims that "controlled demolition brought down the WTC" or "no plane hit the Pentagon" or "no plane crashed in Shanksville".

unskeptical of what is being presented to them. Acceptance and faith because... ?
Even the greatest theories have to eventually secede their ideas to more fitting ones over time.

both ways in the 9/11 debate. CTers accuse the OCTers of 'blind faith' in the official account, and vice versa.

But as far as I can tell, the preponderance of observations and mathematical modeling supports the official story vis a vis CD or nukes or death rays.

I would note that one of the more prominent leaders of the Truth movement, Dr. Griffin, is a man of faith.

Just kidding. :)

SDude - Flatulo is referring to a post of mine, in response to your deleted thread of today ("Conspiracy theorists are devoid of critical thinking skills and incapable of deductive reasoning"). And thank you, Flatulo, for summing up the point I was trying to make before my post went *poof*.

I suffered DECADES of anguish, torment, admonishment, punishment, and the eventual "divorce" between me and my parents because I didn't believe that The Holy Bible is the word of God. Most of my education was in the Christian school system, so I spent quite a few hours in the principal's office, and in detention - because I asked too many questions. I asked them things that they couldn't answer. So I would be sent to the principal - and depending on how that would go, I would either serve a detention, or he would call my parents in for a conference. After that, I would go home with them and they would devise a new punishment plan for me.

I didn't believe in Adam and Eve; or Noah and the Ark; or water turning to wine; people turning into pillars of salt; a virgin mother; on and on it goes. Stupid me for using my common sense!

As a result of my CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS AND DEDUCTIVE REASONING, my parents consider me to be fucked up, misled, and headed for the fiery pit of hell in the event of my death.

Don't tell me what I'm incapable of, SDude - you don't have a fucking clue.

BushCo has lied INCESSANTLY throughout their entire reign - don't expect me to accept their 9/11 fable to be any different.

Look at the statements made by the Truth movement and evaluate them and the rebuttals on their own merits. I did, and I came to the conclusion that the official story of the 9/11 attacks is the most plausible.

The official story may be flawed, and we may never know who knew exactly what, but it is pretty clear to me that the WTC towers were toppled by airplane strikes followed by fire.

I wish it worked for me - I'd sleep alot better.

This isn't something I jumped on board with when the Loose Change dudes showed up; or when David Ray Griffin made his appearance. This has bothered me, literally, from Day One. More specifically, WTC 7 and the Pentagon - and the repeated defamation of our military's response.

The following statemement probably belongs in another thread, but I'll say it anyway: I've been to the Pentagon several times, both before and after 9/11. The airspace has always had a military presence - to be honest, I was always in awe of the whole experience, every time I went. I never saw so much security in one place in my life - parking lot light posts had cameras; cameras around the entire building, pointing everywhere. Military personnel every which way I looked. The Pentagon has been called "the epicenter of security" for a reason - and believe me, I've never doubted it. Because I saw it with my own two eyes.

I've also gotten to walk across the tarmac to a 757 in my time. Huge beasts, they are.

Having said that - I don't believe the official story, at least regarding the Pentagon and Flight 77. Not one ounce of it.

***Btw, when I mentioned "BushCo", I'm not referring to him specifically, but instead, his presidential "corporation". Every figure head of every government dept, as well as his cabinet, I place under "BushCo".***

I can't imagine that the Pentagon would be targeting missiles on commercial airplanes when the airport is < 1 mile away, and the approach and departure paths go right over it.

either the "truth" movement or the "official story" (or "9/11 fable")....in Logic, this is known as a false dilemma or either-or thinking. There are, in reality, multiple sources of information and to label anything other than the "truth movement" as the "official story" is, in reality, an attempt at a technique called psychic foreclosure. Psychic foreclosure seeks to end an argument by making it appear that there really can't be a debate because the issue is cut and dry.

I have pointed out over and over that those of us skeptics who find the "truth movement" claims not worthy of support do so primarily because the arguments advanced therein are utterly without proof and sound reasoning. For example, we are currently being challenged to prove where whatever number of seats that were on AA77 went. This is a pointless question for several reasons and exemplifies how the thinking process of the "truth movement" is sorely lacking. The primary problem here is that conspiracy theorists self-define their own ludicrous standards of demands for proof outside of normal parameters for the "official story" (also called "raising the goalposts") but refuse to apply equally rigid standards of proof to their own claims, essentially creating a double standard.

The "debate" typically goes like this:

"Truther": "No plane hit the Pentagon."
Me: "Actually, there are numerous eyewitnesses who consistently testify they saw the plane approach the Pentagon and hit it."
"Truther": "They're all government shills".
Me: "Actually, if you look at the witness list, you'll note that many of them have no connection to the government." (if you think about it, given the area where this took place, why would it be unusual that a number of witnesses WOULD be government workers and, more importantly, are we discounting their testimony and assuming they aren't honest simply because they DO work for the government? Do we honestly assume that if they saw the evidence presented as conclusive proof of an "inside job" that they would not turn on their employer?)
"Truther": "How do you account for the fact there was no plane wreckage?"
Me: "There WAS plane wreckage. We know that because witnesses testified about it, we have pictures of it and investigators have the actual wrckage".
"Truther": "The hole in the Pentagon was not wide enough for a 757".
Me: "That's because you're looking at a photo in which smoke and fire is obscuring the size of the hole. The damage path matches up with a 757".
"Truther": "Where did all the bodies go?".
Me: "All the AA77 passengers were positively identified by DNA, dental records, etc., except for one".
"Truther": "Okay, then where are the 223 (or whatever number) of seats from the plane?".
Me: "How the fuck should I know and what difference does it make? Actually, eyewitnesses testified they saw the charred remains of AA77 passengers still strapped into the seats."

And so on. See what I mean? Critical thinking requires taking ALL the evidence into account and drawing conclusions, not grasping some of the puzzle pieces and racing to an unwarranted conclusion. For whatever it's worth, I am more than willing to entertain the notion of LIHOP, MIHOP or whatever HOP someone is pushing, I just want to see some REAL evidence and not speculation, conjecture or supposition. I'd also like the CT community to start applying the same exacting standards they demand of the "official story" to their own claims and, if they did, I believe most of this nonsense would go away. I would also like to point out, once again, that I despise the Bush administration. But the "truth movement" needs to actually prove LIHOP or MIHOP before I'll add that to the (vast) list of impeachable and/or indictable offenses.

so because I am not buying into the 9/11 Commission Report as the source for all things 9/11, I am a truther. It's either one way or the other, eh? How very nice and tidy, SD.

I hate to break it to you, but most people I know have one question or another about a particular segment of the events surrounding 9/11. Whether it be the freefall of the buildings, or the crash in Shanksville, or the lack of competence in our military response, or the Pentagon hit, or Bush continuing to read "Pet Goat".....any one of those things doesn't ring right with them; but because they do not have the resources, or tangible documentation, or access to evidence, or time to do the research, they basically just forget about it and move on.

I am not one of those people. I want answers based on evidence that hasn't been, in one way or the other, tampered with or compromised by a govt official.

1. Do I believe that planes hit the WTC 1 and WTC 2 buildings? Yes. Do I believe that it was solely those planes that brought those buildings down? I highly doubt it.
2. Do I believe that the plane crash in Shanksville was simply just that? I still don't know where I stand on that.
3. Do I believe that Flight 77 was driven into the Pentagon? Not on your life. Do I believe that some sort of aircraft hit the Pentagon? Yes.
4. Do I believe that a couple of amateur pilots performed these maneuvers? Hell no! Many a pilot have already said that in all their years of flying, they could never have pulled off a feat such as Flight 77. Are you aware of the incredible expertise that would require? It didn't even scuff the lawn. Huh.
5. Should I ignore Rolls Royce's statement that the rotor found at the Pentagon was not a rotor from a 757 engine? Being that they are the manufacturer for Boeing's engines, I thought they were a "safe" source. Or are they CT truthers too?

If that makes me a "truther", then fine; but I prefer to look at myself as someone who doesn't accept everything she hears as being law.

go back to your sources, whatever they are, for your 5 points. Did you look at any debunking of those claims? Let's just take claim #3. If AA 77 did not hit the Pentagon, what do you make of all the physical evidence that it did, including the flight data recorder, physical wreckage identified as coming specifically from the plane and the fact that all of the passengers except one were positively ID'ed through either DNA or dental records, etc. If that's not them, where are they? Are the families just going along with it? You can believe whatever the hell you want to personally. But if you expect anyone else to believe what you believe, why are you upset because we ask for hard evidence?

Each one of the claims has been thoroughly debunked. Where did you get them from? In the case of Rolls Royce, did you independently confirm it or did you just accept the word of whomever made the claim? Here's the problem with the claim. Loose Change, in trying to prove a 757 did not hit the Pentagon quoted a spokesman for Rolls Royce who said that he could not identify a part found at the Pentagon as being part of one of their engines.

John W. Brown, spokesman for Rolls Royce (Indianapolis), had previously told AFP: “It is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I’m familiar with, and certainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy.”

The AE 3007 engines are used in small commuter jets such as the Cessna Citation; the AE 3007H is also used in the military’s unmanned aircraft, the Global Hawk. The Global Hawk is manufactured by Northrop Grumman’s subsidiary Ryan Aeronautical, which it acquired from Teledyne, Inc. in July 1999.

If the government version that an American Airlines 757-200 hit the Pentagon is accurate, then the object in the photo would have to be from a Rolls Royce RB211-535 turbofan engine. When AFP told Brown that it must be a piece of a Rolls Royce engine, Brown balked and asked who at Pratt & Whitney had provided the information.

Asked again if the disc in the photo is a piece of a Rolls Royce RB211-535, or from the AE 3007 series, Brown said he could not answer.

AFP then asked Brown if he was actually familiar with the parts of an AE 3007H, which is made at the Indiana plant: “No,” Brown said. “I don’t build the engines. I am a spokesman for the company. I speak for the company.”

In reality all he was saying was that he was not an engineer and had no idea one way or another, but he was presented as in fact stating that it was not their engine. Another case of quote mining from the "truth movement". For a detailed discussion of the identification of the engine, go here:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

That's what I'm talking about. I am not calling you a "truther". But, I do think you need to do more due diligence before you draw conclusions. I can point you to several excellent resources should you like. However, if you're going to just dismiss them out of hand, I think I'll save both you and me the trouble.

Videos are evidence.

There is much more here:
http://www.911podcasts.com/files/feeds/PiecesOfThePuzzleBox1.html

BBC Reported Building 7 Collapse 20 Minutes Before It Fell
Danny Jowenko on WTC 7 controlled demolition
NIST Chief Engineer Lies About Molten Metal
What did Rudy Giuliani say about the collapse of WTC
Did WTC building 7 commit suicide? (satire)

Peace.

I see that you are the author of the video that you posted a link to.

I watched it and it does not show what you saw that it does. Nice try though.

WTC was brought down as a controlled demolition and here is more proof:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2073592843640256739&q=WTC7%3A+The+Smoking+Gun+of+9%2F11

Peace.

obscured by other buildings in the video. The "collapsed in 6.6 seconds" claims starts by dishonestly starting the clock well after the penthouses have already collapsed and stopping the clock when WTC 7 disappeared from view behind the buildings in the way, when WTC 7 and debris were still falling.

you believe the 9/11 Commission Report is the absolute and conclusive truth, even though the chairmen of the Commission no longer stand by their report and have written an op-ed for the NY Times stating that the Bush administration obstructed their investigation.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I mean, I often wonder, what kind of mind does it take to believe THAT shit???

you believe that belief that the 9/11 Commission Report is the absolute and conclusive truth is a absolute prerequisite to be able to determine, on the basis of eyewitness testimony, photographic evidence and physical evidence, that AA 77 struck the Pentagon.

Another ludicrous false dilemma (either-or) argument from the truth movement. One has to believe no such thing to reasonably conclude a plane hit the Pentagon.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

so you ACCEPT that part of the "official story"? Is that what you're saying? You seem confused.

but I haven't seen anyone here emphatically denying the possibility that a plane hit the Pentagon.

Lots of different planes besides 757's out there, SD.

The same kind of mind that believes that the Warren Commission Report is an accurate account of the assassination of President JFK.

Penn (or was it Teller?) was able to cock that rifle three times in X seconds, and that means that the House Select Committee on Assassinations has to be wrong, right?

:sarcasm:

:rofl:

several different individuals during recreations in investigations. Nice try.

by Vincent Bugliosi and tell me which parts he gets wrong.

Since you're so big on witnessess, SD....

My boss's father was a Secret Service Agent (he passed away 3 1/2 years ago). He worked detail for President Kennedy, all the way through to the end of Clinton's first term.

On November 22, 1963, he was in charge of what he called "kiddie detail"; in other words, he was back in DC with the Kennedy kids and their nanny.

I was obviously in no position to ask my boss's dad how he felt about "the final verdict", ie. Warren Commission Report; but I did ask my boss if his father ever spoke of it. All he told me was that his dad saw alot more pictures and footage than any of us will ever see, and that he couldn't understand AT ALL why so many windows were open. He said that open windows during any type of presidential appearance are strictly prohibited - and that all buildings are checked and "secured" before any such appearance takes place.

So whether people want to listen to Bugliosi, or Oliver Stone, or Jim Garrison....that's their choice. I'll take it from the horse's mouth, thank you very much.

Let me guess....you think the reason that Jack Ruby barreled in there to shoot Oswald, was simply vigilante justice run amok? Okay.

Your "source":

1. Was nowhere near Dallas
2. Did not witness anything directly.
3. Was critical of security that day (is that a surprise?)
4. You didn't ask your boss's dad what he thought about the "final verdict". In fact it's not even clear whether you ever spoke to him directly at all or only got it second-hand from your boss.
5. He's dead, so there's no way to confirm anything or ask follow-up questions (although you've admitted he had no direct knowledge of the assassination anyhow)
6. You claim he saw "a lot more pictures and footage than any of us will ever see". Apparently you've never heard of the ARRB.
7. Nothing he said in any way shows that someone other than Oswald did it and, in fact, his comments make it even more likely that it could have easily been Oswald.

To sum up, your idea of "the horse's mouth" is someone you may or may not have spoken directly to, who wasn't even there and, thus, has no direct knowledge of the day's events, who's dead. He apparently didn't even offer any alternative hypothesis, but confirms security was lax and you think he is (was) more reliable than Bugliosi, Stone or Garrison (actually, in the case of the last two, it's advisable not to rely on them). You haven't read Bugliosi's book (it's over 1600 pages - that's not even including the endnotes which are on a separate CD), it took him 20 years to write it and he builds the case against Oswald by showing the mountain of indisputable evidence against him. Help me here: How is your boss's deceased father the "horse's mouth"?

If you would bother to read Bugliosi's book, you'd learn that Ruby repeatedly stated killing Oswald was spur of the moment (he was wiring money to one of his entertainers from Western Union adjacent to the DPD and he left his dog in the car, indicating he planned to return). If you think Stone in any way gave you the truth about the assassination, think about the scene where Ruby is speaking in his cell with Chief Justice Warren (cameo by Garrison) and tells Warren he can not speak freely there, begging Warren to bring him to DC. Of course, Garrison clipped the scene, as Warren recounted that Ruby next told him "there was no conspiracy". You could learn all of this by opening up your mind ond doing further research. Here's an easier way to look at it. Don't you think after 44 years, someone would have cracked the case? Unless, of course, the reason they can't crack it is because the assassin is already dead.

The fact that you would regard this source in any way as a "witness", makes me begin to have even further doubt about your critical thinking skills.

trust George W Bush

believe the Military/MSM story of Pat Tillman

believe the Military/MSM story of Jessica Lynch

and believe 19 Magic flying cave arabs could defeat U.S. oF A's multi billion $ defenses ...

you can't even properly define the word conspiracy.

in which no definition is offered. Duh.