Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by mainframetechPost by bigdogPost by clavigerdyingwords.net
JFK Assassination | Dying Words
Apr 23, 2016 - United States President John F. Kennedy suffered two
gunshot wounds during ... It had to be planted, conspiracy theorists tell
you—set up to frame Lee ... He was laid on a different stretcher,
taken to another part of the ER where, ..... Here are links to credible
sites with information on the Single Bullet Theory:.
http://dyingwords.net/category/jfk-assassination/#sthash.o6f0nOPK.dpbs
I wasn't aware that as many as 42% of the American people believe the 9/11
attacks were orchestrated by the US Government. With that many stupid
people in this country, is there little wonder why so many have bought
into the various JFK assassination conspiracies. It even helps explain why
we could come up with no better viable candidates for President than
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.
As H.L. Mencken once observed, "No one ever went broke underestimating the
intelligence of the American people in culture. People can easily be
persuaded to accept the most inferior ideas or useless products.". It's
kind of a corollary to a statement wrongly attribute to Lincoln that says
"You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people
all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.".
The third part of that is the reason we have LNs.
Oh? Are the LNs there to try and uphold the government view of things?
9/11 was certainly a plot, based on the evidence. But I believe in the
Moon landing.
Of course the 9/11 attacks were a plot. 19 Islamic terrorists didn't
spontaneously decide to crash four airplanes on the spur of the moment.
There is no evidence anyone in the government took part in the plot or had
prior knowledge of it. But as it is with the JFK assassination, evidence
isn't required to dream up convoluted tales of massive conspiracies.
That's nice you believe we really did land on the moon. Are we supposed to
be impressed by that?
WRONG! Don't be ridiculous! I wasn't part of the team that did it.
There is no doubt that there was planning for the 9/11 catastrophe.
However, it wasn't a government project. They may have helped because
they got some benefit out of it, but one of the main characters was Larry
Silverstein.
If the government helped out the terrorists than it would have been a
government project. Do you think the terrorists planned the attack and
then went to people in our government and asked them if they would go
along with it. Since you seem to think the same thing happened with the
JFK assassination, you probably would believe that.
WRONG! You're getting off the reservation again. Get a grip.
However, there would be individuals in the government that would benefit
greatly if the 3 towers collapsed and it was blamed on terrorists. So we
might consider that some government people independently helped to set it
up, or helped to cover it up later.
First, there was the cover up of the 2.3 TRILLION dollars that the
dept. of Defense lost which Rumsfeld announced on 9/10. There was no time
spent on it, after 9/11.
Second, there were a number of government offices in the WTC towers
that held important documents that it would be better if they didn't
exist. They were destroyed, and no one thought about the fact of backup
systems and data.
Third, the same thing happened at the Pentagon, where there were
important documents that would implicate a number of people in various
scams, and the exactly correct part of the Pentagon building that housed
those records was hit. As well, the CIA and Secret Service had offices
there and lost some documents.
Fourth, after the event, the government was able to easily pass the
PATRIOT Act allowing many breaks of the constitution in certain cases.
Just by saying a person looked like terrorist, they could be detained,
searched, have their house searched and be held incommunicado forever.
Much latitude was given to police and intelligence services to intrude on
citizens.
Fifth, the bills and other interests of the administration were golden
and they could do no wrong just by mentioning 9/11 in whatever they wanted
to do,.
Post by bigdogPost by mainframetechSilverstein bought the WTC property 6 months before the
collapse of the 3 towers. It was considered odd that he bought it, since
it was in deep trouble for remediation of asbestos which was all
throughout all the buildings. NYC had been after them and was getting fed
up with the delays in fixing the problem. The trouble with that was that
the removal of asbestos would cost more than the buildings had originally
cost to build! In the billions. When the 3 towers collapsed after what
seemed to be terrorist activity, Silverstein was paid DOUBLE for the
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/silverstein.html
The collapse of the 3 towers got rid of the asbestos...all over NYC
which gave many people lung problems, first responders were the worst.
The demolition was taken care of, and Silverstein had a nice NYC property
to build the new WTC on. It worked out wonderfully for him. There were
many clues that pointed to the collapse being intentional, which I won't
bore you with at this point. The government were able to destroy many
documents that were an embarrassment, and they also covered up an
extremely important Defense dept. loss ($2.3 Trillion announced on 9/10)
which got lost in the 9/11 events.
That's nice. Now where is your evidence that Silverstein took part in the destruction of the Twin Towers?
Here's a video of Silverstein making a mistake speaking about the
collapse of WTC 7, the third tower to collapse without a plane hitting it:
The terms "pull" and "pull it" are used in demolition when bringing
down a building. It started long ago when they actually used cables to
tie to the upper stories of tenements (5-6 stories) and bad bulldozers
pull the building down. Silverstein said that he talked to a "fire
commander" about 'pulling' the building, but there were 2 fire commanders
there that day, and neither of them spoke with Silverstein, so he lied.
They did NOT need to approval of the building owner to bring a building
down if they thought it would save lives or help the situation.
As well, all personnel in the building left it by 11:00am, yet
Silverstein talked about saving lives of personnel who were in the
building. He also made it clear that his talk with the 'fire commander'
proved that he or the 'fire commander' caused the order to be given to
'pull' the building, so it was NOT any debris or other reason that the
building came down. At many later times, activists tried to ask
Silverstein questions when he was going somewhere to speak, and he wither
ignored them or had them thrown out of whatever place he was at.
Silverstein made a fortune because he had the insurance policy 6 months
before the collapse include a special clause that it would pay double if
the building was harmed by terrorists, because of the bombing that had
occurred in 1993. It was a giant coup. He was paid double for the event,
and he got rid of the asbestos free of charge, and he didn't care that the
asbestos was spread all over NYC, and injured many first responders.
Post by bigdogBob Harris just posted a YouTube video in which the HSCA pointed out the
Carlos Marcello had motive, means, and opportunity to kill JFK to which
Vincent Bugliosi correctly responded that lots of people had motive,
means, and opportunity. What you need is evidence that they actually
acted. Just because Silverstein ended up benefitting financially from the
destruction of the towers isn't evidence he had a hand in destroying them.
That is just one more of the assumptions you choose to make in lieu of
real evidence.
WRONG! You should wait for the answers when you have a comment or
question. I've given some of the answers above. Silverstein implicated
himself from his own statements.
Chris