JFK, 9-11, and the Real America: Tying it All Together

What I was alluding to, ShadowXIX, in that quote you took out of context, was the disputed 'fact' you supported that OBL was the mastermind and Atta the henchman of 9/11. The Anthrax attacks in conjunction with the WTC/Pentagon attacks point to a much more complicated and sinister scenario. The proximity of the attacks make coincidence unlikely. The fact that it was Tom Daschle and Tom Brokaw that were targeted (liberal politician and liberal media figure) points to a domestic radical-right agenda behind the Anthrax attacks, and cooperation at the very least on timing and probably on logistics with the WTC/Pentagon attackers, and certainly tacit approval of their objective to take out the towers and the Pentagon.

You don't really think OBL sent the Anthrax letters, do you? You don't really think the Anthrax attacks and the WTC/Pentagon attacks are isolated, exclusive incidents, do you?

Like I said, Right-wing Facists and Arab Extremists have walked hand-in-hand for a long time now. They have the same totalitarian goal, just a different agenda and methods.

But your debate style doesn't extend to rational discussion of real topics, now, does it? Creating a smokescreen out of misquoted side-issues and technicalities suits you better. But it doesn't fool me.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Even underground the expolsives required to bring down a building that size would have been heard by everyone there. Besides I have never heard of any demolition done like that. People that know what they are doing basically strip the buildings insides cutting load bearing beams stuff like that. There is so much work to bring a building down it can take weeks.

It would take an extremely large amount of explosives to bring down a large structure like the WTC if it were of normal construction. That building was more of a pole construction with a tough outer skin. You breach the skin and take the poles out at the bottom, the whole thing becomes extremely unstable. I think this is what they were going for in 93 and possibly succeeded at in 01. You would really only need explosives in one tower because once the first tower went down it wouldn't take much to bring the other down. In fact, you could almost see the remaining tower leaning before it fell. Awful stuff.

Originally posted by Icarus Rising

You don't really think OBL sent the Anthrax letters, do you? You don't really think the Anthrax attacks and the WTC/Pentagon attacks are isolated, exclusive incidents, do you?

Hey you were the one that mentions Arabs and the Anthrax attacks. I never mentioned any such thing.

Perhaps you could produce some evidence that the The Anthrax attacks and 9-11 were related in anyway. Do you want to tie in the Oklahoma city bombing while your at it Because I guess we cant have unrelated terrorist attacks in the US.

But really you are not offering anything in the forms of evidence or facts just your opinions or Theories.

[edit on 21-2-2005 by ShadowXIX]

Originally posted by skychief


It would take an extremely large amount of explosives to bring down a large structure like the WTC if it were of normal construction. That building was more of a pole construction with a tough outer skin. You breach the skin and take the poles out at the bottom, the whole thing becomes extremely unstable.

If it was so easy then why did they fail in 93 with extremely large amount of explosives . I cant think you really expect it to require less explosives then building a tenth their size that have been gutted and stripped and weakened for weeks in adavance.

And even if a 10 story building was brought down with demo charges every single person would have heard it. I dont know if you have ever seen a building get taken down in real life, but your not going to confuse that for anything less even a good distance away.

If the explosives would have been placed better in 93 then they would have succeded. Hell, the cracks in some of the supports and, I believe the slurry wall, were almost devistating in 93. They were able to patch it up rather quickly, but could you magine if these explosives were evenly distributed. I'm not saying that this is probably what happened, I'm just stating that it is entirely possible. Regardless of the reason, we are damn lucky that those buildings came straight down as any other direction would have been much more devistating.

Well in 93 the bombing plan was to topple one Tower into the other correct? The fact is the building were designed from their creation to fall straight down if they ever collapased and not fall on buildings around it.

Back to something you said earlier As you mentioned about the Skin of the WTC would have to be taken out. That would have to make any such explosions even louder then a normal demolition. Since with normal buildings the dont blow they skin up just the internal supports.

Explosives closer to the people would have to mean even louder explosions then if it was in the center which would still have been heard by everyone.

[edit on 21-2-2005 by ShadowXIX]

[edit on 21-2-2005 by ShadowXIX]

As I said earlier, if the explosions were underground then they would not be heard by the people. I don't think the possibility has been ruled out.

Barely worth responding to, ShadowXIX. The Anthrax attacks happened on 9/11! What more of a connection do you need? Of course the Arab Terrorists didn't send the letters, their radical-right Fascist American partners did. You keep asking for proof, but that's just your favorite obfuscation technique. Try using your common sense, if you have any.

The only connection to Oklahoma City is the same Fascist American infrastructure was probably used to facilitate the Anthrax attacks. But I don't have any proof.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Oh so now you are saying the 1993 bombing of the Towers was a coverup?

Done under Clinton.LOL sure thats got to be a first is that a new conspiracy you started all by yourself?

I beg you to open your mind and try and look at things critically. Look at who has benefitted from 9/11 and everything that's happened since. I can assure its not us, the hard working, tax paying stiffs.

Politician, bankers.....they're all the same, no matter the the party affiliation. They're all elite rich, and they all go way back in history. And they all help each other at the end of the day. And they're all power and money hungry. Its never enough, and it doesn't matter who dies or suffers.

Everything you read or hear in the mainstream media is controlled. You will only know what the powers that be want you to know because they're all in bed together.

Look beyond...read between the lines and never just believe what you are told or what seems obvious.

Nothing is obvious.

Consider this: the sinking of the Lusitania brought the U.S. into a war that America did not want to be in: 9/11 #1

RooseveltCo knew that Pearl Harbor was planned and coming: 9/11 #2

9/11/01 another early Christmas gift to the administration.

I used to be dumbed down like you, but no more. I question everything and the first question is always....who stands to gain from this or that.





[edit on 22/2/05 by AlwaysLearning]

The anthrax attacks didnt happen on 9/11. It was after. Get your facts right, then youll see no consipicy...

The anthrax attacks didnt happen on 9/11. It was after. Get your facts right, then youll see no conspiracy...

[edit on 22-2-2005 by spliff4020]

The Anthrax letters, if not received on 9/11, were certainly mailed within a week of the WTC/Pentagon attacks. Again, shear proximity strongly indicates a connection, if no more than a 'kick 'em while they're down' mentality. Like I said, weaponized Anthrax doesn't just fall out of the sky like hijacked airliners, it has to be meticulously prepared under strictly controlled conditions, and once achieved must be handled with extreme delicacy, and, I would expect, disposed of quickly.

Both operations, the WTC/Pentagon attacks and the Anthrax letters, took considerable planning and preparation and coordination and discretion to be as effective as they were. I'm just saying I think the odds are against there being no connection between the two attacks. But I have no proof.



[edit on 22-2-2005 by Icarus Rising]

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Explosives closer to the people would have to mean even louder explosions then if it was in the center which would still have been heard by everyone.
[edit on 21-2-2005 by ShadowXIX]

[edit on 21-2-2005 by ShadowXIX]

I believe if thier were explosives placed, an it's a big if, then they were placed much higher up in the building. If you watch, right before the first building comes down, it looks as if thier was a large explosion that blew debris outward. Of course, the stress on that area had to be immense for it to go so the pressure could also cause that. Believe me, until concrete evidence is brought forward then I will believe the accepted story but you have to admit there are alot of unanswered questions. The main questions that I have I believe are valid. For one, why did the seismic monitors pick up large disturbances before the buildings fell? Also, if correct, I didn't think that commercial airliners were able to make such manuevers as performed right before impact. The biggest question I have of that day though, is why have we never seen any of the confiscated video of the Pentagon attack. What has been released shows video that has been edited. There were other videos taken but none has been released. With such evidence still being held, is it any wonder why there are so many skeptics.

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
Barely worth responding to, ShadowXIX. The Anthrax attacks happened on 9/11! What more of a connection do you need? Of course the Arab Terrorists didn't send the letters, their radical-right Fascist American partners did. You keep asking for proof, but that's just your favorite obfuscation technique. Try using your common sense, if you have any.

The only connection to Oklahoma City is the same Fascist American infrastructure was probably used to facilitate the Anthrax attacks. But I don't have any proof.

You remarks are infact barely worth responding to. First get your facts straight the Anthrax attacks did not happen on 9-11 they happened after. But I guess such facts are unimportant to your theories so you feel the need to make up that they happened on 9-11.

You also say "asking for proof, but that's just your favorite obfuscation technique"

Oh yeah why would anyone want any proof of such claims wanting proof and evidence is truly a "obfuscation technique" Why wont everyone just take whatever you have to say as god honest proof.

Evidence who needs that LOL when you have Icarus Rising's conjecture

Icarus Rising all your giving us is conjecture and theories and no evidence. If you think what you are talking about is proof or real evidence you are deluding yourself. The one fact you gave us that the anthrax letters happened on 9-11 has wrong But good try though

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
The Anthrax letters, if not received on 9/11, were certainly mailed within a week of the WTC/Pentagon attacks. Again, shear proximity strongly indicates a connection, if no more than a 'kick 'em while they're down' mentality. Like I said, weaponized Anthrax doesn't just fall out of the sky like hijacked airliners, it has to be meticulously prepared under strictly controlled conditions, and once achieved must be handled with extreme delicacy, and, I would expect, disposed of quickly.

Both operations, the WTC/Pentagon attacks and the Anthrax letters, took considerable planning and preparation and coordination and discretion to be as effective as they were. I'm just saying I think the odds are against there being no connection between the two attacks. But I have no proof.

[edit on 22-2-2005 by Icarus Rising]

And what does getting it close, but not right mean? Get your ducks in a row before you start to accuse people of things. Think about this. Maybe, just MAYBE there are alot of people thru out the world that want to see us dead. Also think that there are alot of Americans that want the same.

Besides, if the anthrax was setup as you think 9/11 was, why did it fail so badly? I mean, what? 1 person (from Florida, at that) died...Big Deal..

I thought this thread was about a 200 year old conspiracy for America to dominate the world, but everyone is only focused on 9/11. But thats ok, for those who believe that 9/11 was a plot in order to go to war in the Middle East, here are a few points.

1) If the right wing rich and powereful planned this, they would not have used the WTC as a target. What do you think went on inside that building? It was a major financial institution for the rich and powerful. Do you think they would destroy their own source of income?

2) The same as before, would the military allow the destruction of it's own headquarters and kill their own people?

3) With such an elaborate plan, why did they fail in 1993?

IMO, this was not planned, but was conveinient for the Bush administration. I have no doubt they wanted to go into Iraq before he was even elected. The reasons were:

a. To secure oil for the future, and make alot of money doing it.

b. To get Saddam for the assasination attempt on George Sr., which was a personal vandetta.

But, I don't think there has been any long term conspiracy before WW2, but the industrial military complex has been in control and making foreign policy ever since. When JFK tried to change that, they killed him for it.

Well isn't this, after all, a conspiracy theory site? My theories are just as valid as yours, ShadowSpliff. And I haven't heard any proof or evidence of any substance from you to support your theories. In fact, all I've seen you do is use critcal debate tactics to tear down other people's theories. What are you trying to accomplish if not a smoke screen made up of side-issues and I-told-you-so's?

Rwatkins, I agree with your conclusion, and I'd like to add the Mafia/Heroin distribution system angle to the mix in connection with the assassination of RFK. The Mafia and MIC are connected from the invasion of Sicily during WWII, and could easily have been involved in JFK's death, or at least cleaning up the mess, as well.



[edit on 22-2-2005 by Icarus Rising]

Originally posted by Icarus Rising

Rwatkins, I agree with your conclusion, and I'd like to add the Mafia/Heroin distribution system angle to the mix in connection with the assassination of RFK. The Mafia and MIC are connected from the invasion of Sicily during WWII, and could easily have been involved in JFK's death, or at least cleaning up the mess, as well.

Yes, no doubt the mob was also involved with the JFK assasination, but they were just the gunmen. They wanted the US to invade Cuba in order to get their casinos going again like before Castro took over. So they had it in for JFK for not invading. RFK had put a couple of bosses behind bars during JFK's administration. But I think Sir Han Sir Han was a product of MKULTRA, which was CIA? Correct me if I'm wrong, don't know that much about RFK. I think they also did Martin Luther King Jr.

Regardless, they all take orders from above.

AlwaysLearning: You forgot these great moments in war history:

1962 - CIA Had Plan to Provoke Cuba: Operation Northwoods

1963 - Cuban Missile Crisis [Brinksmanship from the Soviets]

1964 - Tonkin Deception Deepens Vietnam War

People who feel that 9/11 happened by 'accident' or due to awesome arab planning are mistaken. This can clearly be seen by a non-obfuscated look through history. Since the rise of the Internet, the picture comes together much more clearly. Back in the 1960s when this sort of problem-reaction-solution geopolitik was being tested on television (for the first time), there was no Internet and lots of people couldn't read anyway because civil rights was just getting going. Now, even with the Internet and a very literate and video-obsessed population, the people will still swallow the official story, even when their neighbors die in the resulting war.

I'll say this about 9/11: There's no way our national air defense is that poor. If our national air force really is that weak, then those responsible are liable and should be investigated. Wouldn't other nations begin to plot airstrikes if we can't track airliners in our own country? The best plausible explanation is that the multiple drills that happened on or around 9/11 caused too much information overload and and radio chatter regarding 'hijacked jets' was dismissed by our pilots as 'just part of a drill' and so was ignored. This is a stretch, but there is no other way to describe the incompetence of our air command on that day.

Quote: "And yet from that very day we have allowed the (Corporate) Government-Media Complex to focus all attention on one rather thin explanation: *Crazy Arabs did it*! George W. Bush and his cabinet have made it known to us, in the most arrogant terms, that they will brook no discussion of other possibilities... The Bush Administration even withholds its "Proof" of Al Qa'eda's Guilt; clearly, it considers mere citizens too unimportant to require full explanations.

Until the full case against Al Qa'eda is made available for public review, we have absolutely no assurance that this "Proof" isn't exactly like the "Proof" of Iraq's weapons programs -
i.e. a *BIG FAT LIE from Top to Bottom*."

BINGO! Well said - Give the man a Prize! I smelled the Fish a long time ago!

Icarus Rising - I hate to break it to you but the Investigation traced the Source of that Anthrax back to the U.S. Army. The U.S. Army had missing/stolen Anthrax & that was the same Anthrax used in said case of "Domestic Terrorism"! (but they don't really like to Broadcast this - after all the Army is supposed to be Protecting the American Citizenry - Not EXPOSING it)

As for the case that Arab Moslem Terrorists attacked the WTC in 1993 so that it HAD to be them again on 9/11/2001 - please don't make me Laugh! Way too simplistic - conjecture - were you planning on following this up with any evidence or proof - like the mysterious Passports & Korans which survived the Firey Blaze of the Explosions (hint they were PLANTED)?

I mean I know that the Clinton Administration went hard to work on
Dis-mantling our Intelligence Apparatus - but are you telling me we had a Total Black Hole in Intelligence from 1993 - 2001 - 8 years? I do know that the Intelligence that they used to justify the War on Iraq was from 1998 - 4/5 Years Old before Invasion!

[edit on 22-2-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]

[edit on 22-2-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]

[edit on 22-2-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]