Willy knows how naive we are.

AUSTIN — Texas icon Willie Nelson said on a nationally syndicated radio show this week that he questions the official story of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in New York City.

"I certainly do," Nelson said Monday when asked by talk show host Alex Jones if he questions the official story.

"I saw those towers fall and I've seen an implosion in Las Vegas, there's too much similarities between the two. And I saw the building fall that didn't get hit by nothing," the singer-songwriter said. "So, how naive are we, you know, what do they think we'll go for?"

On Sept. 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked planes, crashing them into each of the World Trade Center's twin towers in New York City, the Pentagon and a Pennsylvania field.

Nelson, who turns 75 this year, said if he were president, he would "stop the damn war, it's just that simple."

"The way I heard it, the 15 people from Saudi Arabia hit us in New York and we go jump on Afghanistan," Nelson said. "I never could figure that one out in Iraq."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,328726,00.html

Conspiracy theories from Willie Nelson.

What exactly is in the paper you're smoking Sam???

Aaron wrote:Conspiracy theories from Willie Nelson.

What exactly is in the paper you're smoking Sam???

Why I guess it is the rubble from "that building that fell that didn't get hit by nothing".

And please don't be telling me that it was Joshua blowing his Ram’s horn trumpet that brought the walls tumbling down.



.

Am I to take from your response that you believe, as does Rosie O'Donnell ane appearantly Willie Nelson, the United States Government blew up 3 major buildings killing thousands of Americans?

It shot that 4th plane down in Pennsylvania, ........ right.



.

Who is "it"?

Now, in reply to your question I didn't ask you "who" ...... blew up 3 major buildings, ......... now did I?

I see that you had a "major disconnect" ...... between your "question" and my "answer" to said.

SamCogar wrote:Now, in reply to your question I didn't ask you "who" ...... blew up 3 major buildings, ......... now did I?

I see that you had a "major disconnect" ...... between your "question" and my "answer" to said.

You didn't "ASK" me anything Sam.

The only question ask was by me...

Am I to take from your response that you believe, as does Rosie O'Donnell ane appearantly Willie Nelson, the United States Government blew up 3 major buildings killing thousands of Americans?

You replied...

It shot that 4th plane down in Pennsylvania, ........ right.

That makes no sense whatsoever and it certainly doesn't answer my question so I'll ask again.

Sam,

Do you believe the government was responsible for blowing up the Twin Towers (World Trade Center buildings 1 and 2) plus WTC building 7 as Willie Nelson and Rosie O'Donnel believe?

Aaron wrote:

SamCogar wrote:Now, in reply to your question I didn't ask you "who" ...... blew up 3 major buildings, ......... now did I?

I see that you had a "major disconnect" ...... between your "question" and my "answer" to said.

You didn't "ASK" me anything Sam.

Well "DUH", I told you I didn't.

Aaron wrote:

Aaron wrote:The only question ask was by me...

Am I to take from your response that you believe, as does Rosie O'Donnell ane appearantly Willie Nelson, the United States Government blew up 3 major buildings killing thousands of Americans?

You replied...

It shot that 4th plane down in Pennsylvania, ........ right.

That makes no sense whatsoever and it certainly doesn't answer my question so I'll ask again.

Sam,

Do you believe the government was responsible for blowing up the Twin Towers (World Trade Center buildings 1 and 2) plus WTC building 7 as Willie Nelson and Rosie O'Donnel believe?

Aaron, as to the destruction of the WTC Towers and Building 7, I believe our Government was culpable. What, if any, specific “role” any Agency participated in concerning said, I do not know. But what I do know is, ….. our Government (an Agency or Agencies within) permitted it to happen.

Three (3) buildings with different internal characteristics, ….. with the two tallest ones having the same exo-endo skeleton construction but the contents and partitioning of each being completely different.

Two (2) airplanes impacting the two (2) tallest buildings at different vertical heights, different horizontal points, different speeds and different angels to the sides of the buildings.

All three (3) buildings collapse (implode), with the two (2) tallest buildings imploding in exactly the same fashion.

Aaron, given the above, iffen you want to believe that those two (2) airplanes were the “sole cause” of the demise of those three (3) buildings, …….. then “whatever turns your crank”.

And Aaron, as to the “downing of the 4th airplane in Pennsylvania”, I believe that our Government (an Agency of) was responsible for said via an “order” to one of the sorties to “take it out”. There is no other logical explanation for its “crashing”.

And ps, they could have “taken out” the other three (3) planes …… iffen they had wanted to.

cheers

.

So what other cause was there for those buildings collasping. I've heard Rosie's take. She was pretty clear in what she said. I'm assuming that Will agrees. They both believe detonation charges were used to bring the buildings down, GWB or some neo con contracted it to be done all as a reason to invade Iraq?

Do you agree with their assessment?

Aaron wrote:So what other cause was there for those buildings collasping. I've heard Rosie's take. She was pretty clear in what she said. I'm assuming that Will agrees. They both believe detonation charges were used to bring the buildings down, GWB or some neo con contracted it to be done all as a reason to invade Iraq?

Do you agree with their assessment?

Why no, I don't believe GWB had anything to do with it.

Aaron, remember the ole saying, ....."If at first you fail, ... try,try again."

Here, refresh your memory:

At the end of his speech on that November 1990 night, El Sayyid Nosair, a 36-year-old Egyptian immigrant, walked up to Kahane, pulled out a .357, and fatally shot him in the neck. Nosair was part of a cabal of Muslims filled with intense hatred toward Israel and the Egyptian government of Hosni Mubarak. When police searched his residence, they carried off 47 boxes of documents, paramilitary manuals, maps, and diagrams of buildings (including the World Trade Center). But, as a 2002 congressional report on federal failures before 9/11 noted in September 2002,
------------

The FBI placed an informant named Emad Salem, a 43-year-old former Egyptian military officer, in the midst of the Muslim protesters. Salem insinuated himself and became the bodyguard for Sheik Abdul Rahman, a radical Muslim cleric. The sheik had been heavily subsidized by the U.S. government while in Pakistan in the late 1980s helping to inspire Muslims to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Though the evidence that Nosair killed Kahane was stark, the jury found him not guilty on the murder charge but guilty of a firearms charge — that is, possessing the murder weapon. After the trial, Salem continued his work as an FBI informant, receiving $500 a week, plus expenses.

Shortly after Nosair was convicted, Salem began meeting regularly with other members of the group of hard-line Muslims who coalesced during the Kahane trial. In mid 1992, Salem repeatedly warned the FBI that the Muslim group was planning to carry off a catastrophic bombing in New York City. FBI supervisors were convinced he was concocting tall tales and fired him.

On February 26, 1993, a 1,200-pound bomb in a van exploded in the parking garage beneath the World Trade Center. This was the most destructive terrorist attack carried out on U.S. soil up to that time, killing six people, injuring more than a thousand, and causing half a billion dollars in damage. If the van had been parked a few feet closer to one of the pillars, it could have collapsed an entire tower of the Trade Center, killing tens of thousands.

-------
In a call to an FBI agent shortly after the bombing, Salem complained,

We was start already building the bomb, which is went off in the World Trade Center. It was built, uh, uh, uh, supervising, supervision from the Bureau [FBI] and the DA [district attorney] and we was all informed about it. And we know that the bomb start to be built. By who? By your confidential informant. What a wonderful great case. And then he [the FBI supervisor] put his head in the sand and said, oh no, no, no that’s not true, he is a son of a bitch, okay.

After the bombing, Salem anguished to one FBI agent, “You were informed. Everything is ready. The day and the time. Boom. Lock them up and that’s that. That’s why I feel so bad.” On another tape, Salem asked an FBI agent, “Do you deny your supervisor is the main reason of bombing the World Trade Center?” The agent did not deny Salem’s charge. Shortly after the bombing FBI agent Nancy Floyd confided to Salem that her supervisors had botched the case:

etc. (read it all by clicking below)

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0408c.asp

Aaron, those radical Muslims had the organization, had contacts with foreign groups, had the motives, had the building plans ........ and had almost 10 years (1993 to 2001) ........ to secretly install deteonating "charges" in all three of those buildings via maintainence employees, .... janitors, .... contractors, etc. who could rip n' tear n' fix n' install and no one paying any attention to what they were doing. And the hijacking crews were in training and their job was to burn out some of the office partitioning and/or make damn sure "credit" for the destruction was attributed to al-Qaeda.

If the WTC's were "blown" without an obvious and direct link to al-Qaeda then no one would have known who done it ...... and every one would have been blamed and every "fruitcake" in the world would have claimed they did it.

If ya "send a message", ....... ya got to "sign it", ....... if you want credit for it.

.

I've got to say Sam, that's the first time I've heard that version. I'm not saying it is or isn't true. I'm just saying that's the first time I've heard that version.

That is an interesting theory, Sam. I can see logic and reasoning behind it. I don't know what really happened, I don't think we'll ever really know.

That's what happens when people don't have faith in their government. We are never really sure, are we?

Stephanie wrote:That is an interesting theory, Sam. I can see logic and reasoning behind it. I don't know what really happened, I don't think we'll ever really know.

That's what happens when people don't have faith in their government. We are never really sure, are we?

FDR knew about Pearl, there was a man on a grassy knoll hired by 1) the mafia, 2) the CIA, 3) LBJ 4) Castro, the New World Order, Area 51, the deal between Aliens and the government, World domination by Jews, the moon landing, and last but not least simpley becasue I'm sure you'd like this one, PAUL IS DEAD!!!

Aaron wrote:I've got to say Sam, that's the first time I've heard that version. I'm not saying it is or isn't true. I'm just saying that's the first time I've heard that version.

there was a man on a grassy knoll hired by 1) the mafia, 2) the CIA, 3) LBJ 4) Castro,

Stephanie wrote:That is an interesting theory, Sam. I can see logic and reasoning behind it. I don't know what really happened, I don't think we'll ever really know.

That's what happens when people don't have faith in their government. We are never really sure, are we?

Aaron, Stephanie, “conspiracy theories” are generated by basically three (3) different types of individuals or groups.

1) those who think anything that happens is a “conspiracy” or wants to “create doubt just for the fun of it”.

2) those who have a specific reason: ….. it will benefit themselves or their associates. aka: Hillary’s “vast right wing conspiracy”.

3) those that “look at” all the known data about an “event” and logically study said to see if all the “pieces of the puzzle” fit together. If all said pieces “fit together” then no problem. But if they don’t, ……then it is damn sure “something is amiss” ….. and they start looking for which of those “pieces” are wrong and/or which “pieces” are missing.

And if it is determined, without a doubt, that one (1), ….. just one, of said “pieces” is wrong, …. then that “piece” is automatically labeled a “conspiracy piece” ……. which is discredited and discarded ……. and a search for the “correct piece” is begun.

Now two (2) pieces of the JFK assignation puzzle were: 1) Oswald was shooting from the SDB after JFK’s limo had done passed by, moving away from the SDB. 2) Video of the “killing shot” striking JFK in the head shows “head/brain material” being expelled from the back of JFK’s head in the direction of the SDB where Oswald was supposedly shooting from.

“DUH”, those “two (2) pieces” do not fit together. And thus, the “hunt” was on for the “correct piece” and it had to be “somewhere” in front of JFK’s limo. And as Aaron noted above, a “shooter” on the “grassy knoll” in front of JFK would fit into “the puzzle”.

And it wasn’t until several years later that someone figured out that an even “more better and probable piece” would have been a “shooter” positioned inside and at an “opening” of the storm sewer at the curb of the street there in front of JFK’s limo. But by then, it way too late to check for evidence of said. And ever since that was figured out, all sewer, etc., openings/covers along the route to be traveled by “important people” subject to assignations ….. are either individually guarded or welded closed.

And one (1), just one, ….. of the “pieces” of the “9-11 puzzle” that doesn’t fit …… is the “crashing of the 4th plane in Pa.”

Our Government touted the passengers on said plane as being “heroes” for overpowering those hijacking terrorists and crashing said plane into the ground to prevent it from being flown into “another building” causing thousands of deaths and horrendous destruction.

HORSEPUCKY, those passengers didn’t know about the other 3 planes or what had happened. It is possible that maybe one or two of them heard “something” via a cell phone …… but does anyone really believe they could have convinced the other passengers of that and rallied them to take the “evasive actions” that they were credited with?

GIMMME A BREAK

And ps, why do you think it was such a "rush rush" job to pay the family members of each of the "9-11 victims" a MILLION DOLLAR$ PLUS?

Because President Bush is such a nice guy, maybe?

.

Peter Jennings did a show on JFK in 2003 that actually aired again this weekend on the hisotry channel. My suggestion would be to check that out. It is really educational.

I watched it last night. It was very interesting, and very sad.

So what did you think of the conclusion they reached?

Oh, I think they are correct. I think Oswald was the lone gunman. I doubt he "conspired" with anyone. I also agree it is extremely difficult for people to come to terms with that.

It is difficult to accept that a nobody like Oswald killed Kennedy. That sort of thing is always almost unbelievable. Nobodies sometimes do that, just to be "somebody". I'm sure we can all think of other examples. Beatlemaniac that I am I think of Mark David Chapman's murder of John Lennon.

Stephanie wrote:Oh, I think they are correct. I think Oswald was the lone gunman. I doubt he "conspired" with anyone. I also agree it is extremely difficult for people to come to terms with that.

Stephanie, didn't you say your hubby was a hunter, knows how and has shot a rifle.

Well then, why don't you ask him a couple questions.

1. What are the odds of hitting an object the size of a soccer ball at 100 yards, moving at say 15mph away from you at a 10 to 15 degree angle and you are positioned 100 feet up in a "stand" aiming downward at say a 30 degree angle?

2. What are the odds of hitting an object the size of a soccer ball at 100 yards, moving at say 15mph and directly toward you?

3. If one shoots a deer, a cow or a human in the back of the head with a high powered rifle, ........ in which direction will the bone fragments, brain material and blood be expelled as a result of the impact and passage of the bullet through said head?

Take a moment and read this.

The Kennedy autopsy photographs and radiographs that are in the public domain are of very murky provenance in comparison to the usual post-mortem evidence with which criminalists work. The brain, which would possibly have been the most revealing source of data, has disappeared (assuming that it survived in any form the injuries, the attempts to revive the president, and the autopsy procedures). Certainly only the brain or a set of totally reliable x-rays (or a combination of the two) can settle whether the president was hit once or twice in the brain.

Can the deficit in body evidence be remedied by any indirect means? For instance, interviews with the surgeons who worked on Kennedy's body at Parkland Hospital, or interviews with doctors and technicians who were present at the autopsy? Or, can computer enhancement be used to derive forensic information from the Zapruder or Nix films?

In my opinion, no. Memory is not stable, even when it is related to such a dramatic and unforgettable event. The doctors are not consistent in their descriptions of the president's wounds, though it is true that a critical mass of them emphasize that they had the impression of a large exit wound at the back of the head. All of these doctors have been interviewed extensively and have been influenced by questioners from the Warren Commission forward. They sometimes say that the autopsy drawings are consistent with their impressions, they sometimes say they are not. Ordinarily the photographic, radiographic and documentary evidence from the emergency room and the autopsy would overrule memory evidence. But in this case we have a combination of an unusually consistent and detailed memory testimony from a large number of people who had every reason to have the details of the day imprinted vividly in their memories.

These testimonies are at variance with the documentary evidence surfacing during the Warren and House Committee processes. The most persuasive presentation of these memories testimonies is in the Robert J. Groden Film, "The Case for Conspiracy." The argument of the film is brilliantly presented. Yet, at best, it means that the authority of the documentary evidence is effectively counterweighed by the memory testimony. It cannot prove that the memory testimony is itself entirely reliable.

On the question of the exact placement of the wound, nothing can be resolved until either Kennedy's brain is proved to be found, or a set of x-rays that are universally accepted as authentic and authoritative can be established. The sophisticated work of David Mantik and, most recently, Gary Aguilar might one day provide definitive hope of a convincing reconstruction of the Bethesda autopsy, but to date we have no unambiguous autopsy database. As will be suggested below, the autopsy evidence gains selective credibility in relation to its corrobation by other aspects of the historical narrative.

The question of computer enhancement is raised by, among other writers, the amazing and perplexing work of the late Tom Wilson. I know from my own work that there are things that can be achieved with computer enhancement. I cannot judge, and I think very few people can, whether Wilson exceeded the limits of enhancement in his work. I am thinking particularly of his attempts to do a virtual sectioning of Kennedy's brain from the relevant Zapruder frames. I cannot convince myself that as much information as that could really be derived from an 8-millimeter film. But let's suppose it was. I find Wilson's description of two fragmentary trajectories very convincing, but I still think that the entering path of the bullet is very ambiguous from his model.

That said, I find the Zapruder film suggestive, particularly in the recent enhancement that has been released on DVD by MPI. The detail is sufficient to allow one to see that the entry wound in Kennedy's head opened by the fatal bullet was very large and located directly above his ear, not at the back of his head. This can be seen very clearly (alas). This is consistent with the color drawings of Kennedy's skull included in the Warren Commission report.

While the Zapruder film is sufficient to give an impression, it resolves nothing. The film has been reshot and processed, and while it is close to an original document it is not, strictly speaking, original in the form released on the DVD. However, assuming that the technical enhancements of the film have actually improved its accuracy, the historian is impressed with this fact: The clear revelation that the shot opened a hole on the side of the head, followed instantaneously by displacement of the scalp at the back of the head, all supports a bullet trajectory consistent with the 3-D reconstruction of the wounded head presented in Groden's film, and is also consistent with the impressive stability of the occiptal-parietal exit wound described by many of the physicians and technicians present at Dallas on November 22, 1963. There are a minority of witnesses who do not agree, and virtually all the forensic evidence --including what are claimed to be the x-rays from the autopsy-- contradicts this bullet trajectory theory. At present, the majority eyewitness testimony together with the enhanced Zapruder film form a coherent narrative. This suggests that the material evidence, all of questionable provenance, is purposely or accidentally erroneous.

exerted from: Elementary Theses on the Role of Probabilities in Thinking about the Murder of John Fitzgerald Kennedy - by Pamela Kyle Crossley

http://www.tonsethhouse.net/DB/jfk_theses.shtml#Anchor-How-3800

,

Sam, my suggestion for you would be to find the show by Jennings. Not only do they tell you how it was all possible, the recreate it. It's really pretty hard to argue with.

Hubs is here Sam, so I asked him.

"It's not an easy thing to do, but it's not impossible. If Lee H Oswald knew he was going to take that shot, at that angle, he would have set up for it. If a hunter is in a stand, he knows to make adjustments for that. Moving at 15 miles an hour? I had an uncle that could drop a deer running at full speed 99.9% of the time, without a rest. So I think it's very possible. What I find hard to believe is that he put out the number of shots that he did."

The questions shouldn't be, would another shot be easier, but is what Oswald did possible? Sam, the answer is yes.

I've read books on Oswald, Ruby, and other players that day. I even read a book by a woman claiming to be "the babushka lady." The only reason why I have any doubt that Oswald acted alone when Kennedy was killed and the conclusions of the Warren Commission have to do with the shroud of secrecy WC wrapped themselves and their "work" in, and my general distrust for our government. The shadows of doubt that remain for me have nothing to do with the memories of traumatized witnesses and medical professionals.

I think the US government and various administrations have given citizens just cause to be distrustful. Our government regularly covers up events they don't want the citizens to know about. The USS Liberty, is a terrific example of this.

They spew propaganda with a vigor that would make Hitler proud. They use catch phrases like mantras......"the war on ____" and "radical extremism".

Still, I think Oswald acted alone. I don't think the Cubans, or the mob, or Johnson, or the Soviets, put him up to it. I think he was some kind of crazy.

For someone who was trained by the best shooters in the world and practiced, this is not as difficult as it may seem.

Any avid shooter could easily fire 3 shots in 6 seconds. I've seen that recreated with the same rifle numerous times.

The fastest I recall seeing it recreated was a little over 4 seconds.

Aaron wrote:For someone who was trained by the best shooters in the world and practiced, this is not as difficult as it may seem.

Any avid shooter could easily fire 3 shots in 6 seconds. I've seen that recreated with the same rifle numerous times.

The fastest I recall seeing it recreated was a little over 4 seconds.

It isn't just about firing the weapon, though. It's about aiming at a moving target from that distance at that angle. It isn't something your average hunter could do. Of course Oswald wasn't just your average shooter.

Watch the show Sam. It really is educational and if you know anything about shooting as I suspect you do, it gives you a clear visual of just how average the shots actually were.