(continuedfromabove)

In 1999 a jury in a civil trial of Loyd Jowers, owner of the motel in which King was slain, found:

"On the evening of April 4 1968, Martin Luther King was in Memphis supporting a worker's strike. By the end of the day, top-level army snipers were in position to knock him out if ordered. Two military officers were in place on the roof of a fire station near the Lorraine Motel, to photograph the events. Two black firemen had been ordered not to report to duty that day and a black Memphis Police Department detective on surveillance duty in the fire station was physically removed from his post and taken home. Dr. King's room at the motel was changed from a secluded ground-floor room to number 306 on the balcony. Loyd Jowers, owner of Jim's Grill which backed to the motel from the other side of the street, had already received $100,000 in cash for his agreement to participate in the assassination. He was to go out into the brush area behind the grill with the shooter and take possession of the gun immediately after the fatal shot was fired. When the dust settled, King had been hit, and a clean-up procedure was immediately set in motion. James Earl Ray was effectively framed, the snipers dispersed, any witnesses who could not be controlled were killed, and the crime scene was destroyed." (cited at http://911blogger.com/node/22402#comment-225954)

Why, then if a jury, after considering the evidence and witness testimony over a number of weeks, found that there was a conspiracy involving the US state to murder Martin Luther King, are so many unwilling to even consider the vast volume of evidence that similarly implicates the US state in the murders of President Kennedy, Malcolm X and Robert Kennedy?

I imagined nothing less, daggett.

>>Nothing on the site http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons [1] comes remotely close to addressing the arguments of the 9/11 Truth Movement as far as I can tell.<<

I expect you only looked at the pictures.

At the end of the page there are two more sites for you to have fun with.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

When you've finished with those, do let me know.

>>If Pericles was honest, he would acknowledge that well over half of my posts are my own words and not pasted from elsewhere.<<

I disagree. You'll find that the vast majority of your conspiracy-nuttery was "researched" and written by others. In your blind acceptance that "if it points to the 'military-industrial complex' [c'mon, what does that mean, eh?] it must be true", you provide no confidence at all that you are able to tell fact from fantasy.

The most glaringly obvious problems are the sheer impossibility of the logistics, and the sheer impossibility of keeping all of it under wraps. Once you ignore those, as you do, you consider yourself free to endorse any old story.

Given the blundering incompetence of the US's miltary adventures - remember how we chuckled over Bay of Pigs, giggled at Grenada and cringed at Cambodia - your faith in the "military-industrial complex", whatever you may conceive it to be, is massively misplaced.

>>You just spend hours of each day filling these forums with views, all of which just happen to exactly coincide with the views of the corporate newsmedia<<

While you spend hours of each day filling these forums with views, all of which just happen to exactly coincide with the views of the random conspiracy nuts on the internet.

I know, it's fun thinking of yourself as a rebel, standing up to "the man" by attributing to him all sorts of evils, large and small, then taking blind swats at them like some latter-day Don Quixote.

Yes, it's fun. But it's also ultimately pointless, as you tilt at the windmills of your imagination, armed with a bunch of highly dubious "facts" that you have borrowed from other people.

G'day Daggett, <"Whilst the post at http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons appears to have amused one or two evidently easily amused posters..."

That's me! It is the funniest damned site I've seen in ages and I have had a few good hearty laughs reading it.

You still didn't answer the only question I have about that particular conspiracy, which is, why is the government accused ? If it was a dodgy event (and I just don't believe it was - there is no convincing evidence that even suggests it) there are other more likely candidates such as the owner/s of the buildings. You all seem to have never investigated any alternative possibilities.

Other than that - keep up the good work. I love conspiracy theorists, as I have said. Not only a great laugh, but sometimes raising really important questions. Good oh. So much better than apathy.

I do think it's likely that JFK and others were assassinated. Wouldn't surprise me at all. However, again why the government? How about some overseas interest? Or organized crime, or the KKK. There are so many possibilities it's a pity that you all seem to limit yourselves to accusations against government.

Edit:

Sorry - sleepy.

I meant to say, "I do think it's likely that JFK and others were assassinated by people other than or in addition to the people accused of the crimes."

Why did you presume that I only saw the pictures, Pericles?

In fact all of the Popular Mechanics article has been torn to tiny shreds by David Ray Griffin in "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" (2007) and the whole NIST report has been similarly torn to tiny pieces, again by David Ray Griffin in "From The Mysterious collapse of World Trade Center 7 - Why the final Official Report about 9/11 is unscientific and false" (2009).

If there is anything in those pages you still maintain has not been thoroughly refuted, please let us know and let us know why and we can proceed from there.

Pericles wrote, "You'll find that the vast majority of your conspiracy-nuttery was 'researched' and written by others."

Most of what I have written has been researched by others, but it still took effort on my part to read the research, comprehend it and write about it so others could understand.

If you insist that any of what I have written which I have not attributed to others has, in fact, been written by others, then why not provide examples?

Why are the logistics of planting and wiring explosives impossible, Pericles? As I wrote earlier, 83 employees of the Ace Elevator Company had easy access to much of the the structural columns of the twin towers for nine months prior to 9/11.

Pericles wrote, "Given the blundering incompetence of the US's miltary adventures - remember how we chuckled ..."

Who's 'we' Pericle?

" ... over Bay of Pigs, ..."

How was that "blundering incompetence"?

The planners of the Bay of Pigs invasion knew perfectly well that there would be no popular support for the invasion inside Cuba. The only mistake made was that they assumed wrongly that they could bully the new President Kennedy into authorising US troops to participate in the illegal invasion, but it turns out that they assumed wrongly.

"... giggled at Grenada ..."

Again, how was that "blundering incompetence"? They invaded an island nation and removed a socialist government in an unequal fight at a cost of 19 killed and 119 wounded.

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

"... and cringed at Cambodia "

They carpet bombed the country, killing between 150,00 and 500,000 people (http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/cambodia/tl02.html) and effectively drove Cambodians into the arms of the genocidal Khmer Rouge.

I fail to see how anyone with even a shred of compassion in them human being could "chuckle" or "giggle" at any of this.

The fact remains that the US military, whilst it makes mistakes from time to time is nevertheless remains an efficient killing machine.

As far as I am concerned, claims that this is due to 'incompetence' whether that of George W Bush, the US military or even the Howard Government over the AWB scandal are just dishonest ploys, the purposes of which are to conceal the criminality of their actions as well as, of course, to trick people into not considering the evidence of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

---

PynchMe, if 9/11 had been perpetrated by groups independent of the Bush Administration and against the wishes of the Bush administration, then why did the Bush administration go to such extraordinary lengths to conceal that crime by, for example, shipping off all the evidence from the crime scene to be melted down?

Why weren't Rudi Giuliani and Larry Silverstein questioned by the 9/11 Commission about their clear prior knowledge of the 'collapses'?

Why was so much eyewitness testimony of the use of explosives ignored?