Kennedy stood for equal rights. Many others in American government at the time did not. Hoover has been recorded talking about his own serious issues with Black leaders, and talked explicitly about not allowing them to gain too much power/momentum. So, there was a definite governmental impetus against Blacks... and thus, against the parts of Kennedy's political leanings involving those.

The fetish with 'communism' was real and spilled over into thoughts about American culture by those paranoid fucks that were in power at the time. The evidence for this is overwhelming.

I'm not denying Kennedy's assassination had more to it than Oswald. I'm saying that Oswald worked alone.

Yes, I answered above. That is my understanding, that it was evacuated.

My bad. The building seven issue...

Wasn't it evacuated?

So... what's the short of building seven that opens the door to issues with the official story?

'Short'? It supposedly fell due to fires. This is not considered possible by most engineers, given how it is made. It collapses perfectly at almost free fall speeds which fits with demolition and not destruction by fire. There is a whistelblower in the organization tasked with examining the evidence for the government. The whistleblower says that organization did not carry out its investigation in good faith or with good science. Then there are the scientific and engineering argments against the fire destruction theory and I think it is much better if you read the accounts by the experts who are critical of the government findings.

A recent study by the University Alaska also does not support fire as the cause of the collapse. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/university-study-finds-fire-did-not-cause-3rd-towers-collapse-on-911-300911896.html

It also pretty much just looks obviously like demolition.

and demolition is not easy. To get a building to fall into its footprint takes expertise, tons of preparation, carefully placed and times explosives and still one can find on the internet failed demollitions of buildings by professional teams.

And yet on 9/11 three building received asymetrical damage, one building 7 minimal, and yet all three buildings fell straight down into their footprints.

Demolition companies should just start fired high up in buildings. It'd be cheaper and time saving. There is lot of other evidence, including seismic measurements, witness reports of explosions, scientists who found nano-thermite in the dust after the explosions and a lot more that do not fit with the official story.

I think anyone mulling over, from an engineering viewpoint, how three buildings with asymmetrical damage all fell directly into their footprints at near freefall speed, would be skeptical of the offical report. There is a tremendous amount of evidence relating to many different facets of that day by professional in a variety of fields out there.

Building 7 got me. That's just BS. Look at the films of the fires, then the film of the collapse, then listen to the architects and engineers who are critical explain their criticism, then read the report from the Alaska university and listen to the NIST whistleblower. If that doesn't give you a serious skepticism about the official story and curiosity to research further, then I don't think other angles will, though there are many. But that angle, to me, is just obvious. The official story of building 7 is to me obviously false.

I am not sure what it's having been evacuated means, but if that seems to preclude it having been intentionally taken down, I would need to hear the argument in a fuller form.

Those mortgages were going to be defaulted on, and everyone involved on the lending side knew it...

Here, you call them "irresponsible". I find the exact opposite to be true. — creativesoul

No. What I mean that the behaved irresponsibly, didn't care much about possible credit losses because the loans were packaged together and were thought to be then OK. The financial system had evolved and improved, you know. People genuinely talked about self regulation of the capital markets.

I could go on detail on this subject because it comes close to my Masters thesis. I've personally been in the 90's in the university arguing that 'speculative bubble could happen even today' and been given an answer that your idea is bullshit, that the international financial markets work just fine and such market disasters as speculative bubbles simply cannot happen. Perhaps people were crazy in the 17th Century Netherlands with Tulips, but such manias are of the past. Economists truly believed so.

Simply put it: enough people truly believed in the "New Economy" to make a speculative bubble to appear and you simply do not need behind it a conspiracy. And the conspiracy buffs like Alex Jones were busy talking about the 9/11 conspiracies back then to take ANY note of what was happening in the real estate market. And betting on the bubble to collapse will make you poor if and when the bubble goes longer than you have anticipated.

Among the conspiracy theories that are widely dismissed and ridiculed today, and for which there is in fact ample evidence that they are true, I want to start with one in particular because it is relatively harmless (it doesn’t have to do with our government killing citizens), and because it sounds so “out there”, so ridiculous, so crazy, that if it is true it implies that we have all been fooled on a grand scale for decades, and if we have been fooled for so long about that then we likely have been fooled about other things too, and this can then serve as a good starting point to seriously consider other conspiracy theories that are much bleaker.

This seemingly ridiculous conspiracy theory I refer to is the theory that astronauts never set foot on the moon. That theory is obviously false, right? Until recently that’s how I reacted. And yet when we look at all the evidence in depth, it appears that the rational stance is to consider that this theory is true beyond a reasonable doubt.

I won’t go into all the evidence in this post because there is so much of it, but the first questions that come to mind is why would NASA and the US government fake the moon landings, and how would they fake them? A reasonable motive that can be put forth is that ever since the beginning of the 1960s they had promised the American public that they would set foot on the moon by the end of the decade, and they spent billions of dollars towards achieving that goal, but as the end of that decade got closer they realized that they would never solve all the technical problems by then and so they decided to fake it, which would be much simpler. In fact there is evidence that as the years passed, the prospect of putting astronauts on the moon by the end of the decade grew more and more unlikely.

As to how they faked them, there is plenty of evidence that many photographs and videos were taken in a studio, and that sometimes what they show would defy the laws of physics if they had been really taken on the moon.

There is an exceptional documentary on the subject that I watched recently: American Moon (released in 2017). Unlike most videos about conspiracies it is very well made, very well reasoned, and it progressively asks a series of 42 questions that pinpoint contradictions in the official story. In order for the official story to be true, these 42 questions must be answered in a logically consistent way (the answers to different questions can’t contradict one another), and that seems impossible.

In fact as a general case this is a good methodology to uncover a true conspiracy: finding holes in the official story, inconsistencies, contradictions. If they can’t all be resolved in a consistent way, then the official story is self-contradictory, which implies that it is false.

I leave you with a link to this fascinating documentary, it is quite long but well worth the time, personally once I started watching it I couldn’t stop. I watched it believing I would find a lot of holes in the documentary, but instead the holes are to be found in the official story: https://www.bitchute.com/video/eZramDBFkXRU/

Building 7 supposedly housed millions of classified CIA documents. It has also been reported that the owner of the World Trade Center property took out an $8 billion insurance policy before the attack.

Furthermore, it has been said by many professional pilots that it would be impossible to hit the Pentagon with a jet at that angle, never mind that there is no video evidence of a jet hitting the Pentagon. There is only video of an explosion. Funny that that part of the Pentagon was already evacuated and no one was hurt.

The one issue I have with nearly all explanations of powerful people taking advantage of powerless is talking in terms of "rich" and "poor". Not all rich people are the same. That sort of explanation loses it's bite immediately. — creativesoul

Not at all. A master can be nice but a master or a member of the master class nonetheless. Many slaves like their masters. It's kind of like Stockholm Syndrome. The rich don't exactly share the same interests with the poor (to say the least), and their privilege makes them natural enemies of the poor. The poor populate the prisons. The rich populate the country clubs.

Late to the party, but I have always maintained that what is going on is probably no more (or less) nefarious than a "conspiracy of greed."

what is going on is probably no more (or less) nefarious than a "conspiracy of greed." — Pantagruel

Of course. What else is there but money, power, and politics?

Also, social control is crucial to maintaining the power structure.

The only time the USA was relatively free was during the Vietnam protests and the classic age of rock and roll with drug experimentation and the counter culture... Then the Reagan Revolution happened.

In my very esteemed and informed and educated and righteously angry opinion, 9/11 was all about an excuse to re-establish the USA as the only dominant force in the Middle East, ensuring the continued profitability of ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Halliburton, Boeing, Raytheon, Lockheed-Martin, et. al.; as well as an excuse to institute a mass surveillance system that was condoned by the public itself in the name of finding and fighting "terrorists". We swallowed the story whole-cloth. 9/11 had nothing to do with terrorists trained in Afghanistan. The 9/11 terrorists were largely Saudi Arabian with one Egyptian (as I remember) that were trained in small aircraft (Cesnas?) in the United States. This is public record. How did they fly those jumbo jets so accurately? Iraq was all about getting Haliburton and ExxonMobil in there. War is a racket and big oil runs the country (think of the rebates the oil industry gets from the taxpayer every year).

Social control given with the blessing of the American public and their unquestioning jingoism maintaining the power structure of big oil and the war industry.

9/11 was perpetrated by the Project for a New American Century (PNAC).

And don't be so naive as to think that the CIA doesn't have some trolls or shills on this forum. They are at least monitoring it closely (as is the NSA).

Of course. What else is there but money, power, and politics? — Noah Te Stroete

Oh. I know da answer for that.

Sex, drugs, and Rock'n'Roll!!

Oh. I know da answer for that.

Sex, drugs, and Rock'n'Roll!! — god must be atheist

:up:

and as of yet freedom from propaganda.

And don't be so naive as to think that the CIA doesn't have some trolls or shills on this forum. They are at least monitoring it closely (as is the NSA). — Noah Te Stroete

I caught a flee in my undershirt. It jumped off, but I caught it. I killed it.

Upon closer examination under a microscope it turned out it had a built-in microchip, several of its legs were bionic, and it spoke seven different languages concurrently and fluently. It was of course incomprehensible, what with speaking seven languages simultaneously, but still, even my grade 7 class can't do that.

and as of yet attained freedom from propaganda. — Noah Te Stroete

"Poverty is where it's at. Yeeee-Haw, poverty, don't leave home without it." -- Does not have the same ring to it. They have better writers.

If you're mocking me, then I don't find that interesting or funny. It's vapid and lazy.

Then the Reagan Revolution happened. — Noah Te Stroete

"Just say NO."

It has a ring to it, it has the writers behind it, it is unmistakeably a slogan... yet even this hasn't worked.

"Just say NO."

It has a ring to it, it has the writers behind it, it is unmistakeably a slogan... yet even this hasn't worked. — god must be atheist

Ah, yes. Nancy Reagan. Dumb cunt.

re-establish the USA as the only dominant force in the Middle East, — Noah Te Stroete

It did not work... for long. There is no presence that we know of by the USA in the Middle East wars.

It did not work... for long. There is no presence that we know of by the USA in the Middle East wars. — god must be atheist

We have 40-50,000 troops in the Middle East as well as oil executives and contractors and military bases in the countries surrounding Iran.

Ah, yes. Nancy Reagan. Dumb cunt. — Noah Te Stroete

But she was nice and religious.

She so dumb, she couldn't cunt up to five. She kept missing the number 4.

We have 40-50,000 troops in the Middle East as well as oil executives and contractors and military bases in the countries surrounding Iran. — Noah Te Stroete

Yeah, but half of that number in troops are Americans-turned-Jihadists who were enchanted by the wonderful promise of the Islam. Plus, after joining up, they could kill people without repercussions... big attraction for most young hot-blooded All-American Boys.

Yeah, but half of that number in troops are Americans-turned-Jihadists who were enchanted by the wonderful promise of the Islam. Plus, after joining up, they could kill people without repercussions... big attraction for most young hot-blooded All-American Boys. — god must be atheist

Whatever. You're a fool.

Also, social control is crucial to maintaining the power structure. — Noah Te Stroete

They learned this from Hitler's Nazi movement, and from the Communist terror propagation. Except in America everyone buys the lies. This is because the powers that be suppressed education. The communists' biggest mistake was to teach science and literature and art to their young. Consequently, every citizen saw right through their lies.

I have news for you: the American establishment lies are almost identical to those of the communists. The difference? Amys believe them. Russkies did not.

Whatever. You're a fool. — Noah Te Stroete

NO, no. My conspiracy theory is in the news. Yours is behind the headlines. Mine are in the li(n)es. Yours are in-between.

Which are more likely to be true?

"When two conspiracists lock antlers."