The real Arlen Specter . . .

[defendandprotect]

Jean Hill was a persistent JFK witness who also suffered one or more attempts on her
life. In 1986, she came forward to confirm what she had witnessed to assassination
researchers at the University of Texas/Arlington.

I’m sure that many know that many witnesses have stated that their testimony as it
appeared in the Warren Commission Report was altered – not what they had testified to
Additionally, many witnesses claim that there were attempts to intimidate them to change
their testimony - Sen. Yarborough, for one. Many witnesses were dead before they could
testify.

Jean Hill had witnessed a rifleman firing from the Grassy Knoll.
Two men who claimed to be Secret Service agents immediately grabbed her.
Jean Hill had friends in the Dallas Police Department who told her to keep
quiet about what she knew. Those friends continued to urge her not to go
to Washington after she received a subpoena to appear before the Warren
Commission. She recalled: “They seemed to feel that there might be some danger if I was
to leave Dallas. They told me I wouldn’t come back.”

She did refuse to go to Washington and Arlen Specter, Warren Commission attorney, sent
FBI agents to take her to make a deposition.

Jean Hill related her experience ---

The FBI took me to Parkland Hospital, I had no idea what I was doing there.
They escorted me through a labyrinth of corridors and up to one of the top floors of
Parkland. I didn’t know where we were. They took me into this little room where
I met Arlen Spectrer. He talked to me for a few minutes, trying to act real friendly,
then this woman, a stenographer, came in and sat behind me. He had told me that this
interview would be confidential, then I looked around and this woman was taking notes.
I reminded him that the discussion was to be private and he told the woman to put down
her notebook, which she did. But when I looked around again she was writing.
I got mad and told Specter, “You lied to me. I want this over.”
He asked me why I wouldn’t come to Washington, and I said, “Because I want to stay alive.”
He asked why I would think that I was in danger and I replied, “Well, if they can kill the President,
they can certainly get me!” He replied that they already had the man that did it and I told him,
“No, you don’t!” He kept trying to get me to change my story, particularly regarding
the number of shots. He said I had been told how many shots there were and I figured he
was talking about what the Secret Service told me right after the assassination. His inflection
and attitude was that I knew what I was supposed to be saying, why wouldn’t I just say it.
I asked him, “Look, do you want the truth or just what you want me to say?” He said he wanted
the truth, so I said, “The truth is that I heard between four and six shots.”
I told him, “I’m not going to lie for you.”
So he starts talking off the record. He told me about my life, my family, and even mentioned
that my marriage was in trouble. I said, “What’s the point of interviewing me if you already
know everything about me?” He got angrier and angrier and finally told me,
“Look, we can make you look as crazy as Marguerite Oswald and everybody knows how crazy she is.
We could have you put in a mental institution if you don’t cooperate with us.”
I knew he was trying to intimidate me. I kept asking to see that woman’s notes,
to see what she was putting down. I knew something was not right about this, because
no one who is just taking a deposition gets that involved and angry, they just take
your answers. He finally gave me his word that the interview would not be published
unless I approved what was written. But they never gave me the chance to read it or approve it.
When I finally read my testimony as published by the Warren Commission, I knew it was a
fabrication from the first line. After that ordeal at Parkland Hospital, they wrote that
my deposition was taken at the U. S. attorney’s office in the Post Office Building.

From “Crossfire” by Jim Marrs, page 483/484 --

Just some background on the “Magic Bullet” – Specter didn’t invent that cover-up, but he
delivered it –

The neck wound had NO EXIT – which was made clear at the autopsy - and doctors at
Parkland describe it as an entrance wound.

The wound in President Kennedy’s back was actually in his right shoulder which was
way below the neck wound. AND IT WAS AT A 45 DEGREE DOWNWARD ANGLE.

The shoulder wound had NO EXIT -- also made clear at military autopsy.

Doctors at Parkland, nurses at Parkland – all personnel who had a view of the president’s
body describe a large EXIT wound in the right rear of his head – roughly the size of a fist.

Those who have changed America thru political violence over the past decades delivered
fascism and clearly intend to deliver a third world America as they harvest slave labor
all over the world.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seemslikeadream]

2. "The Men Who Killed Kennedy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4QkKkXYtr4

[SDuderstadt]

3. Ooh...it MUST be true...

because there is a YouTube video.

[Grateful for Hope]

8. Kind of surprised you posted this

considering this thread (main feature being a YouTube video):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x242944

I am not interested in a back-and-forth here. I am simply pointing out some hypocrisy.

[SDuderstadt]

9. Unlike SLAD, I am not making an extraordinary claim here....

extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. My point is the YouTube video of a CT doesn't prove anything, especially when it conflicts with the known facts. Don't want to learn about critical thinking or probability? Don't watch the videos, although I don't know how else you'd expect online learning to take place. Unlike "The Men Whi Killed Kennedy", the lessons I presented are easily verifiable. Do you disagree?

[Grateful for Hope]

10. OK now

First, please provide us with a list of the "known facts" that pertain to 9/11.

Second, since when is a comparison of the people who are questioning the OCT to those who believe in the supernatural an example of a "known fact"? Yeah, right.

I will not respond to replies of your's to this post unless you first provide us with a list of "known facts" that pertain to 9/11.

Thanks.

Edited to add "Thanks" because that "known facts" list you will undoubtedly compile for us is going to require a lot of energy, to say the least.

[SDuderstadt]

11. Jesus...

Are you really claomimg that critical thinking should only be used with respect to belief in the supernatural? The author of the videos is talking about critical thinking and probability and directing it towards rebutting belief in the supernatural. Are you really claiming that critical thinking and probability are not valid with respect to a whole range of subjects? I should have known this would lose you.

"I will not respond to replies of your's to this post unless you first provide us with a list of "known facts" that pertain to 9/11".

Nice rhetorical trick. You're setting up an impossible standard of evidentiary proof and, at the same time, you're retreating to the favorite refuge of a conspiracy theorist. You might have noticed
that the debate here proceeds along cerain lines. One side makes an assertion. The other side asks for proof of said assertion. Debate ensues over the validity of the proof provided. Now, you're setting the bar much higher in an attempt to excuse your inability to debate. Do you really deny that many (not all) conspiracy theorists advance claims that are contrary to known facts? For example, there are a number of people here who claim that no planes were actually involved in the attacks of 9/11. But they don't say, "I SUSPECT no planes were involved in the attacks of 9/11" and then attempt to buttress that claim. Instead they make a flat assertion of "fact" by selectively quoting witnesses (quote mining) or citing an anomaly of the day, then drawing unwarranted conclusions from it. Of course, these silly claims are easily refuted by citing the totality of the witness testimony (for example, in excess of 100 witnesses saw the jetliner hit the Pentagon. The DNA of all (or almost all)the passngers was identified from the scense anf there is ample evidence of the remains of the aircraft, most of which ended up on the inside of the Pentagon).

So. essentially, it comes to this. Some believers in the supernatural say, "I canot explain this, so God must have done it", which is contradictory on its face because first they claim they cannot explain it, then contradict that by saying they can explain it. Do you see the logical problem there?

Similarly, many (not all) "truthers" do the same thing, except it sounds like this, "I cannot explain this, so the government must have done it". Do you see how that flies in the face of critical thinking? In contrast to the claims of many (again not all) "truthers", no one here is trying to "suppress the truth" nor is anyone insisting that topics not be discussed. "Truthers" have the right to advance any argument thay want and to believe anything they want. But, when they are asking others to accept and embrace those beliefs, they shouldn't be surprosed whern they are asked for evidence and, in the absence of proof, when those beliefs are and claims are rejected. Similarly, "truthers" have a right to ask all the questions they want. However, when those questions have been asked and answered multiple times or the questions betray their own lack of knowledge and research (for example, "I have not seen that NIST did this so, therefore, they did not do it"), they should expect to be called on their ugnorance.

[Grateful for Hope]

13. Stop generalizing

You do not know me, and, you therefore can't make generalizations about how I think.

You made a statement about "known facts", and, I simply asked you to provide some of those "known facts".

Obviously you can't.

The same standards that are applied to those who question the official conspiracy should also be applied to those who accept the official conspiracy as the most likely truth about what really happened on 9/11. It is very simple.

Fact is, none of us has enough information to be able to accept without question what we are told is true. Hence, the need for a new, thorough, independent (and, hopefully international) investigation.

Any theory can be debated, but, the results of any debate can not be substituted for fact unless there is documented evidence to back up what is presented as fact. Unfortunately, most of the facts about 9/11 have been hidden from the general public.

Personally, I don't see the use of debate here in this forum. As Lithos indicated a long time ago, neither side of the debate is likely to come away with a change in belief. So, to me, it is just an exercise in futility.

However, posting articles of interest can be useful (again, IMO). There may be some information in the article that is "food for thought" regardless of whether it bolsters one's personal beliefs. And, one can perhaps learn something.

What is not useful is attacking an entire group of people because they don't think the same way as you do, meanwhile holding yourself up as the example of critical thinking. Fact is, no one here has all the answers. No one.

Skinner has recently posted a thread in GD that outlines what he considers appropriate behavior for DU -- the thread is a must read. Demeaning an entire group of people is not considered appropriate.

And, before you come back with your typical "provide me with a link where I demean an entire group of people" question, your use of "truther" and "lack of critical thinking" application to said "truther" is a constant theme in your posts. This is demeaning. And, like many generalizations, it is not based on fact, but is instead, based on opinion.

I know I am not likely to change your behavior here, and, so, this is the last post from me in this sub-discussion. And, actually, it really is not that important to me. What is important to me is finding the truth -- and, unfortunately, it is not going to be found here in this forum.

[seemslikeadream]

4. The Men Who Killed Kennedy is a British documentary film directed by Nigel Turner Sept 1991

http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BNzczODkzMjIxM15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNDU0NDYxMQ@@._V1._SX276_SY400_.jpg



http://shop.history.com/detail.php?p=66695

Director Nigel Turner's acclaimed investigation of the Kennedy Assassination comes to DVD.

DVD Features: Kennedy Timeline; Scene Selection; Interactive Menus.
Includes the original five-part series and a bonus program filmed in 1995.
An extraordinary, kaleidoscopic exposé of one of the greatest cover-ups in modern history.



A medical technician who was at the autopsy states categorically that the body he saw was not the one shown in the official photographs. The mortician who buried Lee Harvey Oswald reveals the startling discovery made when the "assassin's" body was exhumed 18 years later. A highly decorated Army officer says he was trained to eliminate key witnesses...

40 years after JFK was shot in Dallas, controversy rages around his assassination. THE MEN WHO KILLED KENNEDY is the most comprehensive examination of the case ever filmed, drawing on exclusive interviews with highly placed government sources and independent investigators. The six episodes in this DVD set--available together for the first time--investigate everything from the "Miami Connection" to the possibility that Bobby Kennedy's plan to murder Castro was co-opted and used on his brother!

This 2 volume DVD set includes the following episodes of The Men Who Killed Kennedy:


The Coup D'Etat
The Forces of Darkness
The Cover-Up
The Patsy
The Witnesses
Bonus Episode: The Truth Shall Set You Free

[BeFree]

5. Thanks

I had never heard this lady's story. Very important. Thanks DU and DUers for the great education.

[SDuderstadt]

6. And you know that Marrs and Hill are credible how, exactly?

When you are presented with "new information", do you examine it critically?

[BeFree]

19. Sure I do

I don't think you do. At the very least, you've shown no evidence of doing so.

I have followed the JFK assassination all my life and what I do know is to NOT trust the official story. You must, otherwise you wouldn't be mouthing off as you do.

I gave thanks for this new information. That's what a critical thinker does, unlike you who just attacks any and every item that is new to you. The difference between us as true critical thinkers is profound, but not nearly as profound as the apparent hypocrisy you scribble here. Meaning you are consistently incredible.

[SDuderstadt]

21. You haven't given one single reason why either Marrs or Hill are...

credible. Do you think you're the only one that has follwed the JFK assassination?

FYI, I have several books by Marrs, including "Crossfire" and read it when it came out. Like many who loved JFK, I was shocked by some of the things that I read in the book. But you're incorrect about the impact of critical thinking. Critical thinking does, in fact, promote openness to new or different ideas, however, it also promotes embracing things on the basis of evidence, not whether it reinforces your pre-existing beliefs. For example, in JFK "X" ( a thinly disguised Fletcher Prouty) leads people to believe there was some sort of "stand-down" in JFK's security by claiming that people along the parade route would never have been allowed access to windows above the parade route. However, this is easily dispelled by photos taken during JFK's visit to Ireland in which people are clearly seen hanging from windows right above JFK's limo.

When I first read Marrs' book, I thought, "Now, I know what really happened!". I had the exact same reaction when I read books by other conspiracy theory authors. I also began to notice the lack of consistency among the authors on even basic matters of fact. I'll go a step further and say that movies like Stone's JFK have done a great disservice (other than helping to lead to the establishment of the ARRB, which is psrt of how we know that much of the things written before the release of many previously withheld documents is simplu untrue.

The problem with your position is that you seemingly cannot bring yourself to believe there is a principled other side. Instead, you castigate those who have done considerable research and come to the conclusion that the Warren Commission basically got it right. What conspiracy theorists like to do is take disparate facts and try to weave them into a cohesive narrative in order to prove their claims. In order to do thatm, they routinely omit evidence which contradicts their claim, quote witnesses out of context (for example, in the movie, Ruby pleads with Chief Justice Wartren tobring him to D.C. so he can tell him what he really knows. Sounds sinister, right? Of course, what Stone omits is that Ruby's next words were that there was no conspiracy.

What I'm really getting tired of BeFree is you constantly questioning my motivation. If you can't confine your arguments wo the actual facts, go have this debate by yourself. Your silly guilt-by-association tactic isn't working.

[BeFree]

23. Sure it works

You make it work with your words, attitude and stances. It's too easy, really.

If you are tired of it that's your problem, not mine.

[MrMickeysMom]

7. If you want to know more about Jean Hill, an interview can be found here:

http://www.blackopradio.com/

Just peruse the archives... Good stuff.

[spooked911]

12. Thanks-- and here is the "ultimate truth" of the JFK ass'n:

http://anonymous-physicist.blogspot.com/2007/08/ultimate-truth-of-kennedy-assassination.html

President Kennedy fought to rein in the warmongers, the covert-operators, the elite enslavers and so much more. He had taken steps to smash the Federal Reserve Bank, and created “U.S. Notes.” He had refused to go to war in Laos, and Vietnam (See “JFK and Vietnam” by John Newman or see the “Stars and Stripes” Newspaper for October, 1963 on bringing all the “advisors” home beginning in late 1963.) He had refused to invade Cuba during the Missile Crisis or to start the Big One. He refused to allow the Pentagon to do their Project Northwoods. He promised “Peace not just in our time, but for all time.” Listen to this. He promised Senator Mansfield that “after I am re-elected I will smash the CIA into a thousand pieces, and scatter them to the wind.” Noel Twyman’s book, “Bloody Treason”, even describes how— far beyond Northwood, and not reported— the Joint Chiefs pressured him to launch a “pre-emptive, full nuclear strike against the Soviet Union and China.” Because “with approaching nuclear parity we won’t be able to get away with it soon.” He even wanted to release information on who might be here and in charge of everything. The regime’s disinfo agents continue to lie with ubiquity about all these things. The dead man, and his brother Robert, can’t defend themselves. The so-called Warren Commission (WC) was composed primarily of his murderers or those beholden to them. The fatal “head shot from behind” has already been detailed here as both physically impossible, and contraindicated by all the treating physicians and the asst press secretary. Likewise the “magic bullet” theory from WC attorney and now-Senator, Arlen Spector, hitting five bones in two people and hanging out in midair for a second and a half and making turns without forces acting on it, and of course not being deformed, is laughably, physically impossible. This is equivalent to 911 with the 911 OC’s theory of gravity, in this instance “magically” exploding outward as well as downward, at that time.

On the internet’s many alleged truth sites, one can see some proclaim that “Kennedy’s assassination has nothing to do with today’s world” or that they flat out don’t care, or they believe the Warren Commission (while trying to proclaim that they don’t believe the 911 Commission). Of course, the simple truth is he was killed precisely so we would end up with this country in its present state of blatent fascism, world domination, world mass-murder, and perennial war. Some of the disinfo agents in the 911 field are the same disinfo people from the JFK ass’n field. From the very moment of the assassination to the present time, a whole industry of bogus investigations, books, authors, articles, museums, conferences, websites, etc, was created. The analogies with 911 are clear. Regarding Kennedy, for people that could see and think and rejected the impossible Oswald patsy story— Oswald himself being a CIA/ONI agent framed/murdered by his govt— there would be the unfolding Babel that it was done by the Mafia, Cuba/Castro, Johnson, Grassy Knoll, Israelis, etc. . Jackie and everyone there saw and/or heard who fired the head shot, as this article and never-published book demonstrate. Even SS (Secret Service) agent Clint Hill, one of only a few SS agents not in on the plot, said to the WC that the fatal head shot did not come from a rifle. He said it was: “like the sound of shooting a revolver into something hard.”

In the Parkland Hospital O.R., only Agent Hill had his own revolver out and cocked the whole time! He knew Kennedy’s murderers were right there. See the books by Dr. Charles Crenshaw. There are some eye-openers therein. It has come out, elsewhere, that initially the FBI interrogated SS agents William Greer (driver) and Roy Kellerman (passenger side) for Kennedy’s murder. Perhaps the FBI attempted an arrest then (before Hoover called them off), because Crenshaw’s books detail how a SS agent knocked out an FBI agent with the butt of his machine gun— not used, of course, during the assassination.

Now I have seen over 20 different versions of the Zapruder film. I have already detailed how initially the regime forbade release of it, and printed reversed frames in Life Magazine; and likewise got cub reporter Dan Rather to proclaim Kennedy went forward in the limo from the fatal head shot. While the Zapruder film is heavily (and primitively) doctored, when released, it clearly shows Kennedy being slammed back in the limo, and then limply bouncing off the back seat and over to the left—after the slam backwards. If Kennedy had been hit from the right, he would have slammed into Jackie whose head was just to the left of his head. Also numerous witnesses detailed how Greer brought the limo to a complete halt, despite the film showing a steady speed of 10 mph or so. The film was duped onto the moving background of a version of itself. (No CGI then.) Twyman’s book (and many others) detail how there are numerous missing frames which accounts for his proof that Greer turns back to the front 2-3x faster than any other human could. Zapruder (Z) frames printed in the “Globe” showed smoke/exhaust from Greer’s gun.

But let us see what the Zapruder film shows and implies. After the first shot that hits Kennedy, he turns to Jackie for help and his arms reflexively start to come up towards his throat that now has been penetrated. He never moves after this. He also apparently tried to cough up the throat bullet as shown here.

It is clear he was paralyzed for the last 4-6 seconds of his life, but would have been conscious and knew what was happening to him. In all likelihood, a rifle with a special bullet (ice bullet containing shellfish poison was used by the CIA for these purposes) was fired from the Grassy Knoll (or elsewhere) at that time. Jackie first looked to Gov. Connally for help. Then she did as instructed by the S.S. in such an eventuality; she tried to force his elbows and him down, but he was rigid. Gov Connally had turned around to stare at who he knew was the sole target. He was known as LBJ (Little Boy Johnson, as he was Johnson’s puppet. Johnson threw a fit at JFK the night before to try to change the “seating” arrangements.) Connally is hit and yells out “My God they’re trying to kill us all.” After the fatal head shot, both Connallys can be briefly seen looking to the driver as they duck down to give him room. They had not ducked down earlier. On arrival at Parkland, the SS agents help Connally out, but leave Kennedy in the limo. The limo is soon washed down by the S.S. It is eventually destroyed. This too has numerous variations. One article had the air force admit it was later dropped from a C5A, from high altitude into the ocean. Elsewhere it is described as destroyed in more mundane fashion. (I guess they couldn’t ship it to China in those days.)

Who fired the fatal head shot? With a magnifying glass you can see a piece of the gun for yourself. No this will not come out and hit you on the head with clarity. The regime is not that stupid. Some whistleblower may have paid with his/her life for leaving this in; or the PTB often seem to want the intelligentsia to know who did it. Remember this is (primitively) doctored. Frame 313 is known to be the fatal head shot frame by all, and you can see this for yourself. If anyone says a different frame is the fatal head shot frame, you know what that means.

You can actually see that Greer's gun (lower right corner of frame-- usually cropped out of most versions of the film for obvious reasons) was not completely erased. Use a magnifying lens; much better still, get a printed version such as is in Twyman’s (or other) book-- it is clearer than on a monitor. Do this if you really care about truth and justice. The top piece of the gun (i.e., the Sun’s reflection off of it) is visible over the head of Kellerman, and sticking out slightly also to the left of his head. See the curvature of Kellerman's black-haired head. Then see that the bright object above it, and a little piece of it to the left of said curvature-- when there shouldn't be anything there. This is the left most part of the gun. They tried to make it look as if Kellerman’s black hair turns white on top, but the white piece to the left of the curvature is the giveaway. Indeed you can also see Greer's hunched up left shoulder and forearm leading up to the gun (in his left hand). Again they tried to make Greer’s upper arm and forearm blend in with background objects (gutter and limo edge), so (when viewing frame 313) block all this out with your hand to the left of Greer and Kellerman while viewing with a magnifying glass, and you should realize that you are seeing Greer’s upper arm and forearm leading up to the gun by his right ear. You can even see the motion of the gun coming up, here.


As with 9/11, only a small number of people came out with the ultimate truth, while the bogus industry of fake JFK “research” came into being and remains big. (Heavily funded still by you know who.) But former Navy officer, William (Bill) Cooper and his book, “Behold a Pale Horse” were the mainstays of revealing this ultimate truth. Cooper spoke around the country for 15 years or so, and on shortwave radio, before being assassinated just two months after 9/11, by “local” police in an obvious entrapment masterminded by the feds. In the late 70’s, the House Committee on Assassinations first had its Chairman and Chief Counsel forced off the Committee. The controlled replacements did their best to hide the truth. But they got hold of the tape of a Dallas motorcade cop’s microphone, which was on the whole time during the assassination. The House Committee got audio scientists to add this audio to the Zapruder film. They then were forced to admit there was more than one shooter, but blamed “the Mafia.” And let it end at that. However the people who were in charge that day, still are. E.g., see GHW Bush at the book Depository, and his role in the affair here.

In 1992, this now audio/video version of the Zapruder film was shown by the lying counsel for that Committee, on a national television magazine show. I taped this and analyzed it, and it clearly showed (audio and video) that not only did Greer kill Kennedy, but he had turned first and accidentally shot Connally. You can hear, as well as see, that at the apex of his two turns, first Connally, then Kennedy is shot. After his first erroneous hit, Greer brought the limo to a standstill, as he obviously found his aim was not too good, while moving. This was not planned, but the last minute substitute, agent Clint Hill, disobeyed the order to remain in the follow-up car, and was running up to try to save Kennedy, and Kellerman can be seen talking to Greer, likely giving him the order to kill Kennedy.

When I presented this audio/video Z film publicly but once, I paid for it with the loss of my health and nearly my life. Among the many horrors I have suffered was that they broke into my home and placed a mercury compound all over my house. I was poisoned via inhalation of a mercury compound for nearly two years. Only with the greatest of luck did I find this out before dying. So I know all too well how easy it is for them to kill any of us individually, and get away with it. While an individual can only lose, and lose everything, it is clear how they fear the masses rising up against them. This is why they did what they did. This is why people must not know that the govt’s own driver killed President Kennedy. This is why the people must not know that 3000 people were nuked by their own regime on 9/11; and the people must not know that thousands of responders may get cancer from the nuclear radiation (China Syndrome) they were exposed to in the aftermath of 9/11. The regime fears that the people will awaken and realize that they are all going to be the victims of these monsters, as was President Kennedy, and the thousands of WTC workers, and the millions around the world, and myself.

For my part, I gave out many copies of this audio/video Zapruder film, in case… But I accept, and expect, my fate, but I have obtained my freedom, in part, by releasing herein the ultimate truths of the WTC mass murder, the Kennedy assassination, and the who and why of it all. Each of you should realize that the reason they did what they did to JFK, to me, and to all the others, is because they know they will lose if the people find out these things and act. They rightly fear the people realizing that they have nothing to lose, and everything to gain. If we all accepted the New Hampshire state motto, Live Free or Die, we would all likely Live Free. Then this world would be the kind of place that the best and the brightest of us, like John Fitzgerald Kennedy, the last President of the United States, had to knowingly die striving to create.

[SDuderstadt]

14. Again I ask...

is there any conspiracy theory so goofy that even YOU won't embrace it?

[spooked911]

15. yes-- I don't embrace the official 9/11 conspiracy theory, for example

too bad you're so gullible in believing what the CIA feeds you

[SDuderstadt]

16. it's rather stupid to contend the only source...

of info about 9/11 is the cia...there are thousands of witnesses, thousands of pieces of evidence and thousands of photos.

[NowHearThis]

17. It's rather foolish to level charges that you know aren't true.

Is there no limit to the foolishness of Untruthers?

[SDuderstadt]

18. Name one...

Can you?

[NowHearThis]

20. More than 1,000 according to DU records.

But I don't know what the record is.

[SDuderstadt]

22. Good, then it shouldn't be hard to name one and point

to an example of what you claim. BTW, wtf are you babbling about here? 1000 what? Or, is this just more of your bullshit?