imortal wrote:
djphetal wrote:
No fucking way LHO could have been the only gunman.
Why? They have proved it was possible for him to get the shots off in the time given. They have proven it was possible for him to have walked to where he was arrested. Or is it just the bullets damage paths that make you think what you do?
No.
There is absolutely no way he could have accurately shot those three shots.
-Why was the Zapruder film edited? (Watch it, slides were obviously cut out)
-Why was all of the evidence locked up until sometime in the next couple decades?
-Why was the presidential limo (a prime piece of evidence) refurbished?
-How did they loose JFK's brain?!
-A teacher I had actually interviewed people who were there they day of the assassination and they claimed to have heard shots coming from behind them (the grassy knoll).
-I would be floored if he pulled it off by himself.
-America entered WWI when the Lusitania was sent into waters known to be infested with German ships, it was a civilian ship carrying civilians and munitions...
-America entered WWII after Pearl Harbor, a "surprise" attack that the Australians warned America about when they picked up a large fleet of -Japanese ships going towards Hawaii. It wouldn't be much of a stretch to say the the president provoked the attack tbh.
-America started the war with Vietnam after the Gulf of Tonkin incident when American ships were sent out of international waters and into Vietnamese water and attacked by "PT boats" (a dingy if anything, I believe that many higher-ups from the time have been interviewed saying that the whole thing was a farce)
-America started the war with Iraq after 9/11, an attace k that several agencies knew was coming, but did nothing about. It didn't help that there was a planned Air Force exercise running at the same time diagramming a similar situation; obvious confusion ensued when jets were scrambled... but they never made it to escort the hijacked air planes.. but then they were only known to be hijacked from 30+ minutes...
Coincidences are so neat... and surprisingly convenient for the military industrial complex.
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." - Dwight D. Eisenhower
DesertFox- wrote:
Sciences of physics and things of that nature disprove parts of the 9/11 Conspiracy (controlled demolition BS), the moon landing conspiracy arguments, and the second shooter JFK conspiracy. For the other ones I will entertain the notion that it is concievable that a conspiracy could happen, but I have little doubt that a conspiracy is not the case of what actually occurred.
You do realize that the towers fell at roughly free-fall speed (9.8 m/s). That would mean there would have had to have been no resistance from the floors below, and that doesn't make sense with the way the building was built. There was an incredibly sturdy core in the middle, and it has been claimed that the fuel from the jets heated the steel beams enough to weaken them (this could potentially happen even though much of the fuel would have burned off in the initial explosion). Even if it had weakened the core, the floor below would have been just as sturdy and given some resistance. It doesn't make too much sense (physics sense) that two of the most well built buildings would fall at free-fall speeds when other sky scrapers have stood through 24 hour fires. Not to mention the fact that there was apparently molten steel running through thbottom of ground zero. (remember the steel was weakened, not melted. Thermite however, could have done that..)
WTC building 7 is an interesting story two, buildings.. well skyscrapers.. generally don't collapse because of fire, these shouldn't have been any different.
And while everything could have simply been a terrible coincidence, it never hurts to question.
Last edited by CommieChipmunk (2007-12-10 18:44:22)
