9/11 TV fakery - No planes

[StrayCat]

Oh no, I didn't forget about that.

No one's actually ever known that, nor can prove it.

In fact, that's a CT first, as far as I know.

Well thats just ignorance on your part. HERE is a link to mainstream news covering the fact that some of these so-called hijackers are indeed alive. That alone proves that the official story is a lie.

How about the fact that we don't "defend" against hijacked airplanes? Know anything about this matter?

LOL. Thats news to me. Maybe you should read about Payne Stewart. A well known golfer who's small Learjet lost contact with air traffic controllers and began to steer off course. Within 15 minutes they had fighters flying alongside the plane. Saying we don't "defend" against hijacked airplanes is just ridiculous on so many levels. We defend against any threat in our airspace.

You are either deliberately being ridiculous, or you have a problem.

The longest flight airborne that day stayed in that condition for 1 hour 21 minutes (AA93). Just over an hour for the last one. The rest were airborn for even shorter times.

Hours?

We're you around on that day?

I didn't mean any individual aircraft was hijacked for 2 hours. Collectively, there were hijacked airplanes in our skies for approx. 2 hours without getting intercepted by fighters.

The imagination goes a long way toward creating mythology...

Yeah, a hijacked airplane flying into our nations capital and hitting our military headquarters after 2 hijacked airplanes already hit the WTC was just my imagination. All the NORAD drills that have been admitted and confirmed beyond any doubt are just my imagination. Building 7 collapsing in a controlled demolition was just our imagination. Nobody really saw that. The video doesn't exist. The confirmed insider trading of airline stocks was just our imagination.

Must be nice living in your own little fantasy world, eh?

There is more than enough there to feed a rabid imagination, yes...

Theres more than enough there to disprove the official version of events, and that is not debatable- many of the supposed hijackers are alive. And there is more than enough there to suggest that there was government foreknowledge and involvement.

[frenat]

Well thats just ignorance on your part. HERE is a link to mainstream news covering the fact that some of these so-called hijackers are indeed alive. That alone proves that the official story is a lie.

Look at the date of that story. Can you find ANYTHING after the 27th of September when the FBI released the final list?

http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html

Why would Saudi Arabia admit months later that 15 of the hijackers wer Saudi citizens if there were any truth that they were still alive?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/02/06/saudi.htm

LOL. Thats news to me. Maybe you should read about Payne Stewart. A well known golfer who's small Learjet lost contact with air traffic controllers and began to steer off course. Within 15 minutes they had fighters flying alongside the plane. Saying we don't "defend" against hijacked airplanes is just ridiculous on so many levels. We defend against any threat in our airspace.

Maybe YOU should read about Payne Stewart. His plane was out of contact over an hour and 15 minutes before being intercepted and then with jets that were airborne for training, unarmed, and not dedicated to air defense. The confusion in total time came from the change from EDT (Eastern Daylight Time) to CDT (Central Daylight Time) in the NTSB report when the plane crossed the time zone boundary. Don't believe me? See for yourself straight from the NTSB.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001212X19931&ntsbno=DCA00MA005&akey=1

It if funny that some people are still trying to push the 15 minute intercept time for Payne Stewart after so many years of being proven wrong. Especially considering it took longer than 15 minutes before NORAD was even notified. You'd want us to believe they intercepted the jet before they were even told about it.

More here

http://www.911myths.com/html/payne_stewart.html

At that time, hijackings usually involved requests for money and/or attempts to divert the plane to a location where the hijackers could get away. They did not deliberately try to crash the plane to cause mass casualties. So no, we did NOT defend against hijacked planes. They were not considered a threat. They are now. Before 911, NORAD did not look at the interior of the CONUS (continental US). Their radars looked outward for an incoming threat, ie. Russia.

Edited May 15, 2010 by frenat

[Czero 101]

Well thats just ignorance on your part. HERE is a link to mainstream news covering the fact that some of these so-called hijackers are indeed alive. That alone proves that the official story is a lie.

Perhaps you missed the update to this 9 year old article that the BBC posted in 2006 HERE:

A five-year-old story from our archive has been the subject of some recent editorial discussion here. The story, written in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, was about confusion at the time surrounding the names and identities of some of the hijackers. This confusion was widely reported and was also acknowledged by the FBI.

The story has been cited ever since by some as evidence that the 9/11 attacks were part of a US government conspiracy.

We later reported on the list of hijackers, thereby superseding the earlier report. In the intervening years we have also reported in detail on the investigation into the attacks, the 9/11 commission and its report.

We’ve carried the full report, executive summary and main findings and, as part of the recent fifth anniversary coverage, a detailed guide to what’s known about what happened on the day. But conspiracy theories have persisted. The confusion over names and identities we reported back in 2001 may have arisen because these were common Arabic and Islamic names.

In an effort to make this clearer, we have made one small change to the original story. Under the FBI picture of Waleed al Shehri we have added the words "A man called Waleed Al Shehri..." to make it as clear as possible that there was confusion over the identity. The rest of the story remains as it was in the archive as a record of the situation at the time.

We recently asked the FBI for a statement, and this is, as things stand, the closest thing we have to a definitive view: The FBI is confident that it has positively identified the nineteen hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Also, the 9/11 investigation was thoroughly reviewed by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and the House and Senate Joint Inquiry. Neither of these reviews ever raised the issue of doubt about the identity of the nineteen hijackers.

Bolding mine...

By your logic, based on the fact that the names of the hijackers were common names, this Facebook page proves that the serial killer Ted Bundy is still alive and well... and apparently a rap singer

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Ted-Bundy-Dogo-Gang/55613408357

EDITED to add...

By the way... the link to the 2006 udate is listed at the bottom of your 2001 article. Perhaps in the future you should pay more attention...

Cz

Edited May 15, 2010 by Czero 101

[Obviousman]

Yep. Apparently I am also a basketball star, a Lieutenant Colonel with an impressive record with the US Army, an account manager, a publisher, a teacher and lots more... and none of them is me.

I'm surprised that so many years after so much of 9-11 myths have been put to bed, there are still people who just lap them up without checking the facts.

[Rhomphaia]

Yep. Apparently I am also a basketball star, a Lieutenant Colonel with an impressive record with the US Army, an account manager, a publisher, a teacher and lots more... and none of them is me.

I'm surprised that so many years after so much of 9-11 myths have been put to bed, there are still people who just lap them up without checking the facts.

And I am a renowned pianist/organist/conductor, a PhD and, unfortunately, a porn star. lol

[Obviousman]

A porn star? Wow! What's it like?

[MID]

Well thats just ignorance on your part. HERE is a link to mainstream news covering the fact that some of these so-called hijackers are indeed alive. That alone proves that the official story is a lie.

It's not proof (you have the same problem many CTs have with that word), and it doesn't indicate these people are alive.

Quite the contrary. These confusions have been long-ago resolved.

LOL. Thats news to me. Maybe you should read about Payne Stewart. A well known golfer who's small Learjet lost contact with air traffic controllers and began to steer off course. Within 15 minutes they had fighters flying alongside the plane. Saying we don't "defend" against hijacked airplanes is just ridiculous on so many levels. We defend against any threat in our airspace.

I don't think you understand.

Hijacked airplanes are not a threat...at least they weren't prior to 9-11. They are a concern. There's no attack implied in a hijacking--at least there wasn't prior to 9-11...

Payne Stewart's jet was also not approached as a threat. It was approached as a concern.

It was approached by the people who do such things so as to be investigated, and guided to safety, or pursueded to follow if possible.

In that case, it wasn't possible. In the case of 9-11, jets were scrambled, but there was no "defense" involved.

You speak of defense as if it's a matter of shooting something down.

If you fly into a restricted airspace, you'll find yourself accompanied by an F-18. It's not there to shoot you down. It's there to tell you to follow it...and you will (I guarantee it).

What, did you expect U.S. military defensive attack against hijacked airliners on 9-11?

Further, you expected that within an hour we'd have had fighters dispatched to four aberrant aircraft...when no one knew what was going on?

How naive are you?

I didn't mean any individual aircraft was hijacked for 2 hours. Collectively, there were hijacked airplanes in our skies for approx. 2 hours without getting intercepted by fighters.

There were four jets. None of them were airborne for "hours", as you said. As indicated, all of them went airborne within roughly a half hour/ 45 minutes of each other more or less...

At approximately 08:25 that day, it was thought that AA11 was hijacked.

At 08:55, controllers thought they had two hijacked aircraft, which was an incredulous notion in and of itself. Within minutes, both aircraft impacted the twin towers.

How much response to an heretofore unheard of scenario did you expect???

It was 09:10 or so before AA77 was determined to have been hijacked from other controllers (after other aircraft had already impacted in NYC, which had people's attention ever-so-slightly), and it was roughly 20 minutes later when UA93 was shown to be hijacked.

The only aircraft they really had a chance to dispatch to is UA 93...and that would've been a chore to get out there before they crashed, since it was a known hijacking for about a half hour.

It was an hour and a half between the first hijacking and the final crash. There was virtually no time to even understand what was going on let alone do something about it...and:

What would they have done about it? Fly along side...try to coax the airplane into following them...shoot a passenger aircraft down...maybe 93, if they could've gotten there, and had it approved once they confirmed the situation and the intent of the hijackers???

Shoot down 11, 175, or 77? Where...over populated areas?

As I asked...were you even around for 9-11? Have you thought about the actual situation presented at all?

Must be nice living in your own little fantasy world, eh?

The world of rationality and critical thinking is comfortable, at least sometimes.

I cannot imagine it's too nice to live in your fantasy world.

Theres more than enough there to disprove the official version of events, and that is not debatable

What's not debatable is the fact that you have no idea what constitutes proof...

- many of the supposed hijackers are alive.

No, they are not.

You've made a fool of yourself there.

And there is more than enough there to suggest that there was government foreknowledge and involvement.

As I said, it cannot possibly be comfortable living in your fantasy world.

There is nothing to even suggest government foreknowledge and involvement.

That's the most ludrous idea that's been put forth about the events of 9-11.

Somehow, I suspect you won't be swayed from your illusions about this matter.

You're far too sure of your fantasies to actually learn something...

[rashore]

Don't get me started. How about at least 5 of the supposed hijackers on 9/11 are still alive, living in the middle east? Oh did you forget about that? How about the best air defense in the WORLD completely helpless against some hijacked commercial airplanes? They were in the air for HOURS while it was known they were hijacked, and still managed to fly right into Washington D.C. and hit the Pentagon. THE PENTAGON. Yeah, nothing out of the ordinary there. Oh but wait, the official excuse for that is...NORAD was running drills of hijacked airplanes crashing into the WTC and Pentagon on the morning of 9/11, at the exact same time of the real attacks. Thats why no jets were scrambled, they thought it was a drill! Nothing suspicious about that. Just a mere coincidence. Then we can get into building 7, which collapsed like a perfectly controlled demolition at freefall speed. What another huge coincidence. And then you have one of the biggest pieces of evidence no one ever talks about- leading up to 9/11 there were RECORD amounts of insider trading of stalks of the airline companies involved in the attacks. Hmmmmmm

Like I said, there is more than enough there. Trying to argue that there isn't just makes you look like a sheep.

What is all this talk of hijacked planes you are talking about? Did you miss the OP, no planes were used

[Q24]

There are two extremes going on here: StrayCat, who for the moment appears to have accepted everything from the conspiracy side, and MID, who I know rejects everything that does not sit quite right with the official story.

I would say that the former approach is slightly better as it at least shows an open mind. The latter has put up defences which mean they cannot learn or adapt no matter what information is shown or how many times it is presented.

Example: -

There is nothing to even suggest government foreknowledge and involvement.

That's the most ludrous idea that's been put forth about the events of 9-11.

MID, some of the hijackers who were known Al Qaeda affiliates were being tracked by the CIA and were allowed to enter the United States. Once the hijackers arrived in the United States they had numerous contacts with an active FBI informant. Some of the other hijackers chose to live in a motel right outside the gates of the NSA.

MID, the hijackers were funded by intelligence services (Pakistan’s ISI who the CIA had worked with during Operation Cyclone) and other intellignece agents were arrested on the scene in New York on 9/11 (Israel’s Mossad who have false flag operations on record).

MID, all intelligence warings internal and external to the United States, including those semi-specific threats the President was aware of, were ignored. Related investigations were blocked even though sections of the FBI knew of the danger. The FBI have since admitted they have no evidence to lay the blame on bin Laden that could form a legal case.

Source links for this information are all here… if you are serious about the subject.

I’m sure there can be a number of different interpretations of the above information, but to conclude, “There is nothing to even suggest governement foreknowledge and involvement” really just makes you look foolish at best, ignorant at worst.

Note: before anyone chimes in – I reject all ‘no plane’ nonesense (based on researching the subject with an open mind).

[Sabbath]

So were all the thousands of people who ACTUALLY SAW them planes hitting the towers, actors?

[Torgo]

So were all the thousands of people who ACTUALLY SAW them planes hitting the towers, actors?

No - aliens! Duh

[MID]

MID, some of the hijackers who were known Al Qaeda affiliates were being tracked by the CIA and were allowed to enter the United States. Once the hijackers arrived in the United States they had numerous contacts with an active FBI informant. Some of the other hijackers chose to live in a motel right outside the gates of the NSA.

MID, the hijackers were funded by intelligence services (Pakistan’s ISI who the CIA had worked with during Operation Cyclone) and other intellignece agents were arrested on the scene in New York on 9/11 (Israel’s Mossad who have false flag operations on record).

MID, all intelligence warings internal and external to the United States, including those semi-specific threats the President was aware of, were ignored. Related investigations were blocked even though sections of the FBI knew of the danger. The FBI have since admitted they have no evidence to lay the blame on bin Laden that could form a legal case.

Source links for this information are all here… if you are serious about the subject.

I’m sure there can be a number of different interpretations of the above information, but to conclude, “There is nothing to even suggest governement foreknowledge and involvement” really just makes you look foolish at best, ignorant at worst.

Your passion is noteworthy.

You're mis-interpretation of what I said, and the intent of the comment in the post I addressed is typical.

We are all, or at least should be aware that the terrorist attacks of 11 Spetember 2001 were, in part, the result of excessive compartmentalization in government, which resulted in one hand not knowing what the other was doing; one agency either not having the information another had, for whatever reason, thus resulting in less brain-power on the threat assessment than should've been available; and certainly some inaction, as well as some ineptitude...

In other words, rather unfortunate and woefully typical large government conduct which had been going on for years and years prior to the events.

One could make a case for "government knowledge" of the nature of what was going to happen on 9-11-01, but it would be a weak case at best, since all of applicable government either did not know of it, or only had a partial understandings of the implications of threat assessments.

But there is nothing to indicate "involvement" by the government in anything but ineptitude and malfeasance.

Did they screw up?

Yes.

Should they have prevented it?

Yes.

That's a given anymore.

But...

What's being implied here is involvement, in the typical CT sense that the Government (i.e. Bush and his cronies) intended and planned, or participated in a plan to not only violate their Constitutional duties and commit the executable crime of treason against the United States, but to do so by murdering thousands of defensely Americans...those whom they are sworn to protect!

We're talking criminal intent.

That...is idiocy.

That...is what I'm addressing. If you can't see that, it makes you look foolish at best, and ignorant at worst.

[Emma_Acid]

Well thats just ignorance on your part. HERE is a link to mainstream news covering the fact that some of these so-called hijackers are indeed alive. That alone proves that the official story is a lie.

So you'll believe mainstream news when it tells you the stories you want to hear? What about the countless stories recounting the official version?

Spot the logical fallacy people.

[thefinalfrontier]

So you'll believe mainstream news when it tells you the stories you want to hear? What about the countless stories recounting the official version?

Spot the logical fallacy people.

Emma. MID. and Frenat heres to you all and not to forget Torgo and everyone with asane mind,

I honestly dont have any clue why this threadv has laseted this long, is our world full of CT imbasols?

[Sleestak Lightning!]

It takes *Snip* to claim that 9/11 was faked.

Edited May 20, 2010 by SupeRgirl
inappropriate comment removed

[MID]

Emma. MID. and Frenat heres to you all and not to forget Torgo and everyone with asane mind,

Thanks TFF..

I honestly dont have any clue why this threadv has laseted this long, is our world full of CT imbasols?

Well...

There's some empirical evidence to indicate that at least part of the world is fairly well populated by such minds...

[MID]

It takes a real shithead to claim that 9/11 was faked.

Generally speaking, such strong words aren't conducive to productive discussion...

However,

It's not only about the silly notion of it being faked.

It's about the virtually moronic idea that it was planned and orchestrated in concert with the Federal Government of the United States, with direct knowledge and approval of the President of the United States himself.

It's all over-the-top, of course.

The faking thing? Well, that's a somewhat typical CT modality.

The treason and murder by a President?

That's beyond stupid.

Edited May 20, 2010 by MID

[Q24]

Your passion is noteworthy.

You're mis-interpretation of what I said, and the intent of the comment in the post I addressed is typical.

Thank you, and your response is predictable as ever in putting findings down to “typical large government conduct” even when that cannot come close to explaining all of the circumstances I described. Still, that is your best answer which I accept.

There are a couple of large jumps in logic you made that I would just like to address…

Did they screw up?

Yes.

The question is a good one but it is seen that you give no consideration to the answer.

The CIA agents who allowed known Al Qaeda affiliates to enter the United States…

The FBI informant in contact with the hijackers…

The individual within the Bush admin blocking investigation of bin Laden related cases…

The President himself who ignored warnings in the intelligence brief on his desk…

Did they all really screw up and how can we be certain?

We cannot.

Therefore the answer you give is not based on knowledge but rather a preference.

We're talking criminal intent.

That...is idiocy.

You did well to continue the logic through up to the realisation that “criminal intent” explains each case. Then what happened in the next line?... the psychological barriers shot up and the explanation was written off as “idiocy” with no evident thought or reasoning.

What is “idiocy” MID? That a government could drag a nation into an unjustified war? That a government could commit to killing millions? That government agencies could abduct, torture and assassinate individuals? That government officials could plan attacks on their own citizens? That government workers can carry “criminal intent” in their actions? If you know anything about recent documented history, the only idiocy is to believe that none of this could be true.

Again, the comment you give is based on preference rather than rationale.

MID, I would like to ask you a question. I’ve asked it here before but not a single person has been brave enough to answer. First a short introduction…

Those who came to power in the Bush administration had stated the importance of energy resources (namely Middle Eastern oil) – this is confirmed primarily in Defense Policy Guidance and the Rebuilding America’s Defenses documents. Further, these same individuals believed that the continued grip of the United States as the globe’s pre-eminent power actually relied upon it (not surprising being the world’s number one consumer) and that military intervention was necessary. This, they thought, was not possible without “a new Pearl Harbor” type event. We can see then it is hard to overstate the significance of this energy resource.

So the question: -

Which is worth most, your life or the very pre-eminence of the country?

Really, answer that.

This is the type of hard decision that those driving the United States would have to make, knowing that the exchange of life in “a new Pearl Harbor” would supply the pretext to ensure their country’s continued global pre-eminence. And after all, in the grander scheme of things, it could be seen that the loss of 3,000 lives is less criminal than to sit idly and allow the United States in the foreseeable future to relinquish its position as the world’s leading power.

With the above in mind, suggested complicity of the President in murder is not “stupid” in any way but it is a logical sacrifice.

[MID]

What is idiocy MID? That a government could drag a nation into an unjustified war? That a government could commit to killing millions? That government agencies could abduct, torture and assassinate individuals? That government officials could plan attacks on their own citizens? That government workers can carry criminal intent in their actions? If you know anything about recent documented history, the only idiocy is to believe that none of this could be true.

I addressed the idiocy inherent in the idea of a large conspiracy, which would've had to have involved the entire executive branch of the government as well as select members of Congress and the Senate, and operatives inside other government agencies, as well as international partners, being effective without one officer of government, sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States for the protection of the American people--not blowing the whistle!

The idea is ridiculous. Conspiracy does not work on large scales.

Those who came to power in the Bush administration had stated the importance of energy resources (namely Middle Eastern oil) this is confirmed primarily in Defense Policy Guidance and the Rebuilding Americas Defenses documents.

Duh. It's always been government policy. It still is, despite the rhetoric involving alternative energy.

Further, these same individuals believed that the continued grip of the United States as the globes pre-eminent power actually relied upon it (not surprising being the worlds number one consumer) and that military intervention was necessary. This, they thought, was not possible without a new Pearl Harbor type event. We can see then it is hard to overstate the significance of this energy resource.

Yes, I'm aware of that...despite the fact that you don't state what military intervention is necessary for.

It doesn't imply that such an event was planned internally. That's flawed CT reasoning.

So the question: -

Which is worth most, your life or the very pre-eminence of the country?

Really, answer that.

...how does that follow from the prior statements?

Each persons life is, generally speaking, more important than anything else as far as they're concerned. You might talk to a soldier, who'd place freedom over his or her own life, or the person who, as a matter of course would risk his or her life for that of another. There are certainly exceptions to one's own life being placed in front of something else. But the pre-eminence of the country? No one's life need be placed behind the pre-eminence of the nation.

The pre-eminence of the nation is earned through its accomplishments and acts. American pre-eminence was established through action and accomplishment of its people. The defense of the nation? That's another matter altogether.

It's a rather pointless question, and irrelevant.

This is the type of hard decision that those driving the United States would have to make, knowing that the exchange of life in a new Pearl Harbor would supply the pretext to ensure their countrys continued global pre-eminence. And after all, in the grander scheme of things, it could be seen that the loss of 3,000 lives is less criminal than to sit idly and allow the United States in the foreseeable future to relinquish its position as the worlds leading power.

The level of your extrapolation is astounding.

Somewhat typical, but astouding nonetheless.

You exhibit the typical CT paradigm of stating that because something is possible, it had to have happened. The reasoning is faulty and illogical.

And then there's the matter of proving it...which of course you won't be able to do.

The United States has always protected its resources in the middle east.

The United States also was never in a position to idly sit by and allow anything.

They didn't have to plan the execution of 3000 civilians to protect their interests in the middle east. They didn't in Kuwait.

With the above in mind, suggested complicity of the President in murder is not stupid in any way but it is a logical sacrifice.

In your mind.

The above is your fantasy, an unreasonable extrapolation of possibilities into a reality who's execution is next to impossible.

Of course, knowing you, and the prevalent mindset of the genre you so illustriously represent, I'm sure you'll never believe anything other than an impossible conspiracy to kill americans for oil.

Knock yourself out.

When you prove it, be sure to come back and tell us about it.

Edited May 21, 2010 by MID

[danielost]

You really need to stop being so gullible. It's all well and good saying this and that was recovered, but there only words. Let's see some evidence. And the FBI could simply release the tapes..but they don't. Why not? If what they claim is on them, acutally is, then it would shut people like me up

where as i agree that not much of this plane was found. since that is what the firefighters and police stated when they arrived on site. long before any feds showed up.

The plane crashed into a reclaimed coal strip mine in Stonycreek Township at 10:03:11.[54] The National Transportation Safety Board reported that the flight impacted at 563 miles per hour (906 km/h) at a 40 degree nose-down, inverted attitude.[18] The impact left a crater eight to ten feet deep (c. 3 m), and 30 to 50 feet wide (c. 12 m).[55] All 44 people died instantly on impact.[56] Many media reports and eyewitness accounts cited the time of the crash at 10:06,[57][58] as did an analysis of seismographic data in the area[59] but which the 9/11 Commission report states was not definitive.[60] Other media venues and the 9/11 Commission reported the time of impact as 10:03,[61][62] based on when the flight recorders stopped, analysis of radar data, infrared satellite data, and air traffic control transmissions.[21]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93

moving a jet engine even a wrecked one would require a tracter trailer and people would have seen the engine as it went by them on the way to an impact hole.

i have asked this question before if the government blow up these buildings why???

by the way i speculate that the mine collapse that took place a couple of months later in the same area was due to this crash.

Edited May 21, 2010 by danielost

[Q24]

...how does that follow from the prior statements?

It’s quite simple if you understand these logical steps: -

1. Those who came to power believed “a new Pearl Harbor” was necessary to ensure American global pre-eminence into the new century.
   
2. Obviously, “a new Pearl Harbor” would involve loss of life.
   
3. Therefore, loss of life was necessary to ensure American global pre-eminence.
   

Now keep the above in mind while I clarify the question: -

If the President had the option to exchange

your

life for American global pre-eminence, which do you think he would choose?

If you’re not brave enough to face up to the inevitable answer then just say so.

[turbonium]

I addressed the idiocy inherent in the idea of a large conspiracy, which would've had to have involved the entire executive branch of the government as well as select members of Congress and the Senate, and operatives inside other government agencies, as well as international partners, being effective without one officer of government, sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States for the protection of the American people--not blowing the whistle!

The idea is ridiculous. Conspiracy does not work on large scales.

So a conspiracy to kill JFK and get away with it wouldn't be a large scale?

[flyingswan]

So a conspiracy to kill JFK and get away with it wouldn't be a large scale?

No, it could have involved a very small number of people, and if it only involved one, he didn't get away with it.

[Sleestak Lightning!]

Generally speaking, such strong words aren't conducive to productive discussion...

Might not be conducive, but it's pretty appropriate. I mean to have the gall to claim that all those people who lost loved ones on the flight are essentially full of it is absolutely appalling and you'd have to lack intelligence to honestly believe it.

It's not only about the silly notion of it being faked.

It's about the virtually moronic idea that it was planned and orchestrated in concert with the Federal Government of the United States, with direct knowledge and approval of the President of the United States himself.

Exactly.

It's all over-the-top, of course.

The faking thing? Well, that's a somewhat typical CT modality.

The treason and murder by a President?

That's beyond stupid.

When talking about conspiracy theorists, is there any words to describe them other than "beyond stupid?"

[MID]

So a conspiracy to kill JFK and get away with it wouldn't be a large scale?

Nope. Couldn't have been.

Nixon didn't get away with Watergate...and that wasn't a huge thing.