David Von Pein

You CTers are proving, yet again, how very similar your 9/11 beliefs are to some of your JFK beliefs. It's almost spooky. (And, of course, hilarious.)

1 minute ago, Micah Mileto said:

In a later magaziene article, Nigro tried saying that he personally deemed WTC 7 a hazard. Not saying he's a bad guy or anything, but he may have changed his story to spite conspiracy theorists.

Yeah, why would anybody consider a 40-story structure that's engulfed in UNCONTROLLED flames to be a "hazard" at all? The police should have been directing people to GO INTO the building on 9/11, right? (---eyeroll time again---)

22 minutes ago, Andrew Prutsok said:

Yet, amazingly, no other skyscraper in the history of skyscrapers has collapsed from fire.

Total Bull.

1 minute ago, Robert Card said:

In your link, the reporter and the cop are quoting some unnamed person, or persons.  "They"   'They' is not evidence.  The cop knows nothing.

He's an NYPD COP. Not just a guy off the street. And you want to pretend he "knows nothing" about the predicted collapse of WTC 7.

Too funny.

27 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

WTC 7 is a different animal from WTC 1 and 2 because 7 had fully functional fire-protective material on the steel. This is why all analysis arguing structural failure has used low-heat thermal expansion of the steel to explain the beginning of the collapse.

And yet Officer Cruz of the NYPD --- at 2:05:20 here --- expected WTC 7 to collapse at any time. Go figure.

Was Officer Cruz a co-conspirator, Micah?

1 minute ago, Micah Mileto said:

At 11:30 AM 9/11/2001, only one hour after the North Tower collapsed, an unknown male individual identifying himself as an engineer told the FDNY chiefs that WTC 7 was doomed to totally collapse "in about five or six hours". The building would collapse five and a half hours later.

And you think THAT information, which came from (supposedly) an "engineer" somehow PROVES that WTC 7 came down via explosives? The engineer was talking about the massive FIRES that were engulfing the structure as of 11:30 AM.

And he was right.

And YOU'RE right too, Micah. That story you just mentioned IS just like the JFK case---that is, it's just exactly the same kind of unsupported junk coming from CTers re: 9/11 as we see constantly coming from CTers re: the JFK case.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/03/sylvia-odio-part-2.html

24 minutes ago, Robert Card said:

You haven't answered my question on how the paper and furniture burning, melted the steel. 

You should watch the 9/11 TV coverage in real time during the afternoon hours, Robert. Several of the reporters commented on how they anticipated that Building 7 was the "next to go down". And there's interviews with police and fire officials on the street a few hours before Building 7 collapsed, with those officials stating that everyone was being kept AWAY from the area of Building #7 because they feared (and predicted) it would be collapsing soon----which, of course, it did.

Were those police & fire officials "in" on the plot to bring down Building 7 with explosives? Come now, you can't possibly believe such a thing, can you?

But, I guess Robert Card knows more than the New York City police officer who was being interviewed on MSNBC just minutes before Building #7 fell (fast forward to 2:05:20)....

https://drive.google.com / video file / DVP's 9/11 Recordings (Part 3)

Quote

Also why didn't the building fall in Madrid?

I haven't the slightest idea. But at least the fact it didn't fall gives you a reason for believing in stupid stuff regarding the multiple collapses of the WTC buildings.

5 minutes ago, Robert Card said:

No steel-framed building with isolated random internal fires is going to collapse all at once, uniformly, on all sides, completely and into its footprint, due to those random internal fires.

You're quite obviously dead wrong, since at least four tall buildings in Manhattan did just that after being consumed by raging fires on Sept. 11, 2001.

19 minutes ago, Andrew Prutsok said:

No photo of a plane hitting Building 7 either — hell, not even a claim that one did — yet the 44-story skyscraper nonetheless collapsed at free fall speed into its own footprint. 

Only because it had been on fire and burning out of control for 7 straight hours. (Duh!)

But, according to the conspiracy fantasists, a blazing seven-hour inferno wouldn't tend to weaken a structure at all.

https://drive.google.com / video file / DVP's 9/11 Recordings (Part 4)

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

This is supposed to be the [Visa] application that LHO filled out?

Why would someone copy it over in block letters?  Why not just xerox it?

This is getting so bizarre, even for the JFK case. 

That's not Oswald's visa application. It's his work application when he applied for a job at the TSBD on 10/15/63. (Seen in CE496....)

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0118b.htm

BTW....

This topic of the duplicate LHO TSBD application came up four years ago at Jeff Morley's site. I archived much of that discussion here....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-920.html

----------------------

Related Link (re: all the lies Oswald told on his work application):

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/lho-tsbd-work-application.html

1 hour ago, François Carlier said:

Thank you very much, David.
However, I own Vincent Bugliosi's book, so I suppose that what you are saying publicly here is that I should have looked up the information myself...😉

Well, Francois, my #1 Rule of Thumb is to always go to "Reclaiming History" first whenever I want to look up any information relating to the JFK case. And about 95% of the time, I'll find something in that book on the sub-topic I'm searching for.

3 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

[Note --- Proper punctuation, in the form of many needed commas, have been added to this Ron Bulman post by DVP.]

As RFK approached, Sirhan stepped off the tray cart toward the tables on the right and began firing at RFK around another man from 3-6' away (blanks?).  Another man, similary dressed, crouching on the table beside and behind him, began firing to RFK's right, hitting four people.  Upon this signal, Security guard Thane Cesar from Ace Security, leading him by his right hand with his left, shot RFK three times in the chest with [his] right.  At the same time, a man hiding between the ice machine and the wall sticking out behind it behind the kneeling officer in this picture, stepped out and shot RFK behind his right ear. Possibly twice.

 

Oh, brother. What an imagination. Just like with the JFK case, CTers always go "over the top" with their fantastic "multi-gunmen" conspiracy theories in the RFK assassination as well. It never ends. Just incredible.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

13 hours ago, François Carlier said:

When exactly was it filmed? What exact date?
I have read conflicting articles and sources in books or on the Internet. Sometimes researchers just write "August 1963".
[...]
And was it August 21 or August 12? (If I am not mistaken -- I might be -- Posner says it is August 12 and Martin Shackelford says it is August 21.)
Thanks in advance to those who can provide solid and accurate answers.

Lee Harvey Oswald's WDSU-TV interview in New Orleans definitely occurred just after his radio debate with Bringuier and Butler on Wednesday, August 21, 1963. (Confirmed via the documents shown below.)

WC Vol. 11, Page 175....

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh11/html/WC_Vol11_0093a.htm

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-793.html#Vincent-Bugliosi-And-Mexico-City

1 hour ago, Andrej Stancak said:

A very interesting hypothesis popped up recently attempting to explain Lee Oswald's whereabouts during the period he was supposed to be in Mexico City. The new book by Paul Smith: JFK and the Willard Hotel Plot: The Explosive New Theory of Oswald in D.C. , Lee Oswald took a bus for Houston but did not travel to Mexico City, his imposter(s) did. Lee Oswald stopped in Austin and Dallas (Silvia Odio) and reached Washington, D.C. on the 27th of September. According to this hypothesis, Lee stayed at the pricy Willard hotel and was readying for an assassination attempt on October 1. On that day, a motorcade took place with JFK and H. Selasie parading in an open limousine and taking a sharp turn around Willard hotel. There were allegedly two opportunities to shoot at a motorcade, one during the parade on the 14th Street and another on the south lawn of the White House which was visible from Willard hotel back then.  Besides the August letters by Lee Oswald in which he signalled he would be moving to Baltimore/Washington, D.C. for a job in October, there is a Secret Service report (dated December 1963) stating that Lee Oswald was indeed seen by a driver of an official's limousine, by a SS agent (Hicks?) and a local police officers. All three men were convinced that the man they saw coming out from Willard hotel and causing disturbance there was Lee Harvey Oswald.  The evidence is circumstantial, however, the author makes a good job in connecting the dots.                                  

Thanks, Andrej. I don't buy his scenario for a single solitary second (of course), but at least author Paul Smith has put something on the table to try and answer the "Where Was Oswald?" question.

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

And this is the difference.  You cannot answer why there are no photos.  Or why it's the wrong voice.  Or why the calls are not on the CIA monthly summary.  Etc etc.

Whereas I can answer yours very easily.

Sure, it's easy to just pretend all the various documents are fake and phony. And it's easy to label someone a l-i-a-r. But the fact is: No Warren Commission critic has ever come close to actually PROVING that those two important documents (CE15 and CE2564) are fake documents (with Oswald's own signature forged on BOTH of them).

To me, such a notion of wholesale fakery is just not reasonable (or realistic). But I've come to realize that JFK conspiracy theorists possess a unique mindset when it comes to the topic of "evidence". Many CTers seem to have no problem at all believing that dozens and dozens of pieces of physical evidence in this case were fabricated, fraudulent, forged, planted, tainted, etc.---including those two important "Mexico City" documents (CE15 & CE2564).

And if you want to believe that all of this "Mexico City" testimony provided by Marina Oswald on February 3, 1964, is nothing but a big fat lie being told by Marina, well, you go right ahead and believe that. But don't expect me to follow you down that rocky road either (despite the information that appears on page 20 of Harold Weisberg's "Whitewash 2").

Marina interviews, testimony, photos, and discussion....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/marina-oswald.html

4 hours ago, Robert Card said:

How can we tell where LHO was everyday of his life?  Straw man created.

I don't consider it a strawman when the CTers are alleging that LHO was positively NOT in Mexico City, when the hard evidence (i.e., CE2564 and CE15) is indicating just the opposite. I think the "Where Was Oswald If He Wasn't In Mexico?" question is a perfectly valid inquiry in light of the continual "LHO Was Not In MC" refrain we are always getting from the conspiracy theorists, especially since we're talking about an EIGHT- or NINE-day period. It's not just a few hours or just one single day. It's eight or nine days. And nobody sees him (except in Mexico, of course).

39 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

And you are dead flat wrong about Marina.  Which is par for the course for you.

No, I'm not.

You're wrong about Marina.

But that's what makes Jimmy Jimmy. He gets everything wrong.

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Meanwhile can you reply to the other nine points:

Why is there no photo?  At either embassy? Why is there no voice match? Why did both informants say he was not there? Twice. Why was there an alleged call on Saturday?  Why is there no indication of the calls on the newly decalcified CIA summary per month?  Why is it the wrong buses and wrong passport?

I can't answer all those questions, Jim. And neither can you (or any other CTer).

Part of the answer is almost certainly bungling and probably some carelessness (and, no doubt, mistakes) on the part of the people at the embassies who should have been recording and/or photographing Oswald. And part of the answer could be faulty equipment at the time Oswald visited the embassies/consulates. Plus, some incorrect assumptions were also made regarding the topics of the photographs and the tape recordings.

I don't know all the answers to these discrepancies. I don't think anybody knows everything about it.

But, IMO, Commission Exhibit No. 15 (Oswald's 12/9/63 letter that he typed on Ruth Paine's typewriter), which has Lee Oswald's own signature on it (another "fake" signature, Jim?), trumps any and all theories about Oswald not travelling to Mexico City in September '63....

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0029a.htm

And CTers have to claim that Ruth Paine lied about the above CE15 letter of Oswald's too....because Ruth said she read the "draft" of that letter that Oswald (for some reason) left behind on Ruth's desk. So, was Ruth lying about the "draft" of the letter, Jim? (I'm pretty sure you'll have no trouble labelling Ruth a l-i-a-r once again, right?) But don't expect me to follow you down that path of fantasy. Because I won't do it.

Therefore, in addition to all of the other things I've mentioned (and Francois has repeated as well) that prove LHO went to MC in '63, there's also that testimony of Ruth Paine concerning the "draft" of the letter (CE15), in which Ruth said that Lee lied about the FBI "no longer having any interest in me", etc.

How many liars were there in JUST this "Mexico City" area of the case, Jim? Give me a number. I want to know just HOW MANY people I'm expected to call "LIARS" regarding this Mexico topic. Just "for the record". Thanks in advance for providing me with those numbers.

Quote

I will not hold my breath in wait for you to reply to these.  You have an unseemly habit of ignoring real evidence.  (Yawn)

Mr. Pot/Kettle strikes again!

A man who believes in all 22 of these fantasies is preaching to me about "ignoring real evidence".

Ya gotta love the thick irony of it all! (I sure do.)

9 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Second, oh a blond guy.  Like somehow it mattered.  With no photos, and the wrong voice--and the tapes then said to be destroyed, which they were not--why did you need an impersonator?  You did not.  Completely unnecessary.

So why did "they" use some blond guy in the first place?

You, Jim, are just inventing excuses so you can ignore the best evidence --- which is: CE2564, CE15, and Marina's testimony about Lee going to MC.

And I'd still like to see a good answer from a CTer to my prior question....

If Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't in Mexico City from Sept. 25 to Oct. 2 of 1963, then where the heck was he?

4 minutes ago, Robert Card said:

I'm just pointing out discrepancies.  I wasn't there, so I have no idea who she was talking to.

Regardless of any goofy description Silvia Duran came up with after the fact, we know she processed a visa application for the one and only LEE HARVEY OSWALD (see CE2564). That application has Oswald's own signature on it....

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol25_0422b.htm

Let me guess----BOTH the picture and the signature are forgeries on the above document, right?

46 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

She asked Cornwell to stand up.  This got a laugh since Cornwell is quite diminutive.  She said, about that tall.  Maybe 5' 5"

All the more reason to know your make-believe Oswald Patsy Framers must have all been total morons! Because only a complete idiot would want to have a blond guy who was 5-feet-5 try to impersonate a guy who had dark hair and was 5-9.

Just how stupid were your Mexico City plotters in 1963, Jim?

2 minutes ago, Robert Card said:

Why did Duran refer to Oswald in her interrogations as "blonde and short"?....

And yet you CTers think that this "blonde" person was supposedly IMPERSONATING the dark-haired Lee Oswald??

Only three words are needed now....

WTF???