| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mistermasan
Joined: 20 Sep 2007
Location: 10+ yrs on Dave's ESL cafe
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 10:41 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
which 9/11 conspiracy theory? the official state sanctioned one or the non-approved ones?
hmm...do ya think maybe maher learned his lesson after his firing and saw what happened to donahue might possibly play into his decision making process?
so, the state sanctioned theory (and that's all it is as there is no evidence for even the boxcutters) is not nuts but every other one is?
these are the same guys who told us the iraq war would be a cakewalk and we'd be welcomed as victors and we'd be out in months and oil revenue would pay for it. none of these materialized.
why would you trust people who have lied before? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Funkdafied
Joined: 04 Nov 2007
Location: In Da House
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 10:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98WkOO4hEtw
Chomky's answer is excellent and sums up my feeling on the issue. It's a simple risk/benefit analysis that says a conspiracy on this is issue is perfectly insane. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 3:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Funkdafied wrote: |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98WkOO4hEtw
Chomky's answer is excellent and sums up my feeling on the issue. It's a simple risk/benefit analysis that says a conspiracy on this is issue is perfectly insane. |
It�s the same old �someone would have talked" explanation in the case of 911 and he is lying about the Kennedy Assassination.
The evidence is overwhelming that the SBT didn't happen; we can see in the Zapruder film Kennedy was shot from the front and we can see the Secret Service Stand down.
He is a government spokesman and has no credibility.
There is no evidence, hard or soft, that supports the single bullet theory (SBT). Its defenders have spent a lot of time proving that it could have happened that way, which is not the same as proving that it did, a distinction they don't make. But they can't even prove it hypothetically because the sniper's nest and the various wounds of Kennedy and Connelly do not line up. In addition, witnesses say the men reacted at two different times to two different bullets, and the Zapruder film seems to prove them right. To solve the problems of geometry and timing, promoters of the SBT have resorted to the use of junk science and chicanery. (See especially the crudely fraudulent computerized animation of the Zapruder film by Dale Myers: www.abclies.com/dale.html) But even these tricks do nothing more than give the appearance of proving the theory as opposed to proving the reality. There is still no evidence whatsoever for the SBT. But since when has that been a problem? Evidence can always be manufactured, especially when it involves the written word.
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/BigLieSmallWound/BigLieSmallWound.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mistermasan
Joined: 20 Sep 2007
Location: 10+ yrs on Dave's ESL cafe
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
in the chomsky clip he didn't use the phrase you have selected (insane) but rather he said more than one "highly unlikely". big difference between "insane" and "unlikely". it would seem your feelings and his thoughts are not the same.
chomsky's thoughts on JFK are scary: "who knows, who cares?"
that there was a coup d'etat and the will of the people subverted, an escalation of war (on illegal grounds) and the whole downward spiral of freedom in the sixties that were progressions after JFK's death isn't worthy of caring sounds like someone "enrolled in the program". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mistermasan wrote: |
in the chomsky clip he didn't use the phrase you have selected (insane) but rather he said more than one "highly unlikely". big difference between "insane" and "unlikely". it would seem your feelings and his thoughts are not the same.
chomsky's thoughts on JFK are scary: "who knows, who cares?"
that there was a coup d'etat and the will of the people subverted, an escalation of war (on illegal grounds) and the whole downward spiral of freedom in the sixties that were progressions after JFK's death isn't worthy of caring sounds like someone "enrolled in the program". |
Good comments. Another scary aspect of this is that these young , impressionable students will buy into what this fossil says.
Um.. sounds like a few people on this board.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
