9-11

Knowing the truth about the Kennedy Assassination is understanding America today.

Moderators: Bob, Phil Dragoo, Dealey Joe, kenmurray, dankbaar

Re: Response To Cappy Erikksen:

Postby Jorgen Sjolen » Mon Dec 18, 2006 9:36 pm

McGoo wrote:
Bruce Patrick Brychek wrote:Dear Mr. Wim Dankbaar, Cappy Erikksen, Clemens Lowenstein, David Octopus, Bob, Jorgen Sjolen, and Fellow JFK Forum Members,

While we agree, disagree, argue, debate, read, research, and analyze,
we are tackling some of the most intricate issues that government, citizens, and researchers have ever tackled in the history of the United States of America, and probably the world.

I am very proud overall of the JFK Forum, and the contributing members, and am proud to be among them.

Cappy, as Clemens stated, please loose the attitude.

Cappy, as Bob stated, what crackpot conspiracy theories ?

Jorgen Sjolen, you ar
e correct that the funniest part is that the "truth movement" can't even decide what really happened, it goes from bombs to thermite to nuclear bombs. You are partially right, but only because Investigators were not allowed to investigate the steel wreckage of the Twin Towers. President Bush literally ordered all of the structural steel from the aftermath of 09.11.2001 to be loaded on a slow boat to China, to be melted down, so the families of the victims would not be upset.
So it is really funny how obvious the cover-up was, and is, to this very day. But not funny Ha Ha. Funny as in pathetic. Funny as in tragic.

However, thermite, cordite, primer cord, shape charges, and not nuclear bombs were used. Traces of thermite were found on the Twin Tower beams, along with melted beams in the basement. Thermite heats to 3,000 degrees. Jet fuel heats to about 1,200 degrees. Special steel beams as used in the Twin Towers need 3,000 degrees to melt.

Let's back up just a little to when Stalin and Churchill told Roosevelt that the Japanese were going to bomb Pearl Harbor. Churchill and Roosevelt knew to the day that Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked. But Roosevelt did not want another Depression. So oops, 3,000 + dead at Pearl Harbor, not including injured. But what the hell, that got us into WW II, the really big, big war.

Viet Nam, still not a war. Still not sure why we went there. Oops, 59,000 + dead, and over 500,000 physically or mentally injured permanently. But what the hell, we got us a really big war for a while, and we gave the dead guys medals. Sorry to the 93,000 homeless Viet Nam Veterans alive today, we can't give you benefits because we need money for another war.
And forgive us you 250,000 Homeless American Veterans of today, what more do you want. You got out alive. You get to live in cardboard boxes in a Free America. Hell, we now call you heroes. What more do you want. We need more money to increase this really good war that we got going.

Bay of Pigs, yes we'll help. No, we change our minds. Oops 3,000 + killed, tortured, or missing over a 1 -2 year period.

Operation Northwoods where the CIA and DIA agree to bomb America and Cuba and blame it on the Communists so we could really invade Cuba, and possible get people really behind Viet Nam. Wow, there's a fine plan.

09.11.2001 Oops, 3,000 + dead or poisoned. No big deal, we got a war in Iraq. Wow, what a deal. So sorry about the 10,000 already killed, and only God knows how many injured. But what the hell, we got us another war for the war profiteers. Such a deal.

Two theories:

1. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

2. If we forget the lessons of history, we are all bound to repeat them,
(or be victims of them.)

Cappy, you are new, and the above referenced people who have responded to you are all regular JFK Forum Contributors. Please study the things that they, and the JFK Forum discusses, then let us know your thoughts after real research, and analysis.

Cappy, anyway, welcome aboard. Just keep an open mind.

Respectfully,
Bruce Patrick Brychek.


An excellent post!


For anyone who believes the official story of 911 please tell me what caused the 'collapse' of WTC 7. It wasn't hit by any plane and it had only slight damage from the debris from the twin towers and fire.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OdjPIZIDy4


This is the most wieved angel of them all , why does people always refere to this wiev?
Well , perhaps since this is the wiev where you can´t see anything about WTC 7

Please look at pictures from other angels before you decied what happend.

I am trying to find a picture i have seen before , but haven´t found it yet.

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm
Jorgen Sjolen
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 11:03 am
Location: Sollefteå | Sweden

Postby Cappy Erikksen » Wed Dec 20, 2006 1:41 am

Sorry, I haven't had the time to view the 9-11 conspiracy videos yet. I'm out of town for the holidays. That's my excuse right now, but I'll have to admit I'm not really inclined to look at them. I just can't imagine myself seriously considering that this dirty deed was engineered and precipitated by Americans, whether employed by the government or not.

After reading the ad-homonym replies to my original post, I was wondering how I deserved such insults. Then I went back and re-read the post, and saw that I did indeed deserve them. I must have been in an unusually derisive and smart-alecky mood that day, so I apologize. Not for what I said but for the manner in which I said it.

I, however, cannot agree with the responses I read concerning the "facts" of the WTC disaster. It has been implied that I'm guilty of blindly accepting the government's conclusions about the WTC destruction. That is not the case, considering I don't even remember hearing what the government's conclusions were. I based my own conclusions on what I saw on the news reports and videos.

I firmly believe that a person can find whatever he's looking for if he tries hard enough. If you're looking for a conspiracy, with the firm mindset that you will find one and, in the process, ignore the facts that do not point towards a conspiracy, you will conclude that there was one, whether it's there or not. And you'll argue vehemently with anyone who disagrees, totally ignoring whatever facts they submit, simply because you refuse to be wrong. That's the way I see it with this 9-11 stuff.

The twin towers were destroyed by psychotic, suicidal muslim terrorists. That's it. It was the latest in a long string of terrorist attacks against the United States, in retaliation for our foolish policy of providing unlimited and unconditional military and financial support to the Zionist Jews who have been grabbing Palestinian land for decades. I wish they would all leave this country, move to the Middle East and continue their self-serving Holy War all by themselves; however, I know it'll never happen as long as they can keep conning Americans out of billions and billions of dollars to fund their never-ending quest for world domination. Jews are for the Jews. They care about nobody else and will blissfully surf on Goyem blood to attain their selfish goals.

So, the Islamic Jihadists aren't completely stupid. They know the Jews are nothing without American money and support, so they lash out at us and attack us mercilessly. Our government and media tell us it's because they're evil people. The majority of Americans don't want to violate the current U.S. laws of political correctness by uttering the word "Jew" in a derogatory fashion, so you have the impossible quagmire we're stuck in now. Ever since WWII, the Jews have enjoyed the luxury of being viewed as innocent victims. It's an aspect they created themselves and, according to them, they have an unparalleled monopoly on human suffering that we, the privileged majority, will never be able to understand.

The amazing thing is that people actually believe that nonsense!

You say that towers can't collapse straight down and that plane fuel can't melt steel. How do you know that? How many times in history have airliners been crashed into the world's tallest superstructures? If you don't know, I'll tell you...NEVER! Prior to 9-11, there wasn't a human being alive who knew for a fact what would happen under those circumstances. The world's greatest demolition experts, metallurgists, architects, construction engineers, etc. could theorize for days on end and not be able to come to a solid factual conclusion. Now it's happened, so now we know.

And just because you can't see the plane in the Pentagon video, does that mean there was no plane? Well, I didn't see a missile, so it must mean there was no missile either. I've never seen the Red Sea either, so should I reckon it doesn't exist? I sure haven't heard anything about eye-witnesses in the area at the time swearing that the Pentagon was actually hit by a guided missile. It's all just speculation and, in my opinion, pretty ridiculous speculation.

The Jihadists blew up the Twin Towers, just like they've been blowing up everything else for decades now. They admitted it, they're proud of it, and they unabashedly proclaim their burning desire to do it over and over again. That's good enough for me.

As for George Bush, I realize he isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but neither do I think he's the great deceiver which the liberal Marxist media likes to portray him as. Actually I think he's a sincere but misguided man who mistakenly thinks he's doing the right things. I really can't understand all this unbelievable hatred that's being directed at him daily. I constantly have to hear people comparing everything stupid to George Bush and, to be honest, it's getting REALLY OLD. People love to call him a liar simply because they don't like him. These are the same people who supported Bill & Hillary Clinton all the way down the line, and still do, notwithstanding all the REAL lies, thievery and fraudulent behavior those two have been engaged in for as far back as anyone can remember.

Finally, if and when I post here again it will be concerning a conspiracy theory that I DO believe in. It's a conspiracy that is supported by piles of evidence, scores of valid witnesses and undisputable video footage. I mean, of course, the J.F.K. assassination, which happens to be the subject to which this site is supposedly dedicated. I will offend you no further about any other topic; namely, the destruction of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.
Cappy Erikksen
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 8:26 pm

Postby Bob » Wed Dec 20, 2006 12:53 pm

Cappy, thanks for your reply. As I said earlier, any discussion is good discussion, as long as it is kept cordial. I for one, do believe that 9/11 and the JFK assassination are related. I also firmly believe that George W. Bu$h is NOT sincere, but really just another Bu$h that is carrying on his family's modus operandi. Check out these links and get back to me Cappy.

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/ ... ath_part_1

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/ ... ath_part_2

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/northwoods.html


Notice the similarities between Operation Northwoods and 9/11? The same dark forces that planned Operation Northwoods were in on the JFK assassination.
User avatar
Bob
 
Posts: 5766
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:39 pm
Location: Florida/Wisconsin

Bob Alert

Postby Jim Thompson » Wed Dec 20, 2006 1:45 pm

Bob wrote:Cappy, thanks for your reply. As I said earlier, any discussion is good discussion, as long as it is kept cordial. I for one, do believe that 9/11 and the JFK assassination are related. I also firmly believe that George W. Bu$h is NOT sincere, but really just another Bu$h that is carrying on his family's modus operandi. Check out these links and get back to me Cappy.

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/ ... ath_part_1

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/ ... ath_part_2

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/northwoods.html


Notice the similarities between Operation Northwoods and 9/11? The same dark forces that planned Operation Northwoods were in on the JFK assassination.


Bob, in regard to the Twin Towers, have you ever considered the very strange fact that post collapse there was a gross absence of rubble, or debris? Question, not asked: Where the hell did the buildings go? Uh Oh! :shock:

Better see: http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam1.html
Jim Thompson
 

Postby Bob » Wed Dec 20, 2006 5:02 pm

Cappy, here is another list of things to ponder as we address the issue of Bu$h being sincere...

Who blocked investigations into the Bin Ladens shortly after his 2000 election?

Who sent $43M to the Taliban who protected Osama & eased passport requirements for Saudis 4 months before 9/11?

Who threatened intelligence officers w/ prosecution if they testified before the 9/11 commission?

Who refused to testify under oath, and only with Dick Cheney at his side, to the 9/11 commission?

Who attempted to prevent formation of the 9/11 commission and then cut funding for its investigations?

Whose present head of the Dept of Homeland Security blocked investigations into 9/11 financing regarding Osama & got one financeer who sent Osama $5M off, scot free?

Who said something like I don't think anyone imagined an airplane crashing into a building when his own military was using those very same exercises for years?

Whose oil company was rescued from bankruptcy by the Bin Laden's?

Who said he wasn't concerned about seeking out Osama after 9/11?

Whose friend, James Baker III, defended the Saudis against law suits by U.S. citizens related to the 9/11 victims slaugthered that day by 15 terrorists from Saudi Arabia.

Who fabricated the facts to make it look like Iraq had weapons of mass destruction so the U.S. could invade Iraq and kill 655,000 people, lose 3,000 of their own and torture thousands more?

Who won fixed elections in both 2000 & 2004, according to Censored News?

Who partnered w/ Bin Ladens of Bin Laden Construction that builds all USA bases even ones that Osama blows up?

While he sends innocent Americans to die in Iraq, who do you see holding hands with the Saudi Prince, who hates Iraq?

Whose family is making millions of dollars a day on the War in Iraq &, apparently, never wants to leave?

The answer...George "Dumbya" Bu$h.
Last edited by Bob on Wed Dec 20, 2006 7:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Bob
 
Posts: 5766
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:39 pm
Location: Florida/Wisconsin

Postby Billy Boggs » Wed Dec 20, 2006 6:02 pm

Bob, that looks more like a list of charges at a trial than a investigation into 911. Well, in this case an impeachment of the government, the whole government. Anyone with half a brain knows the Bush crime family was involved. Now, all you democrats think everything is going to be okay. But why are the democrats not procceding with impeacment? Because they are involved as well.

Down with the king, and all of his court gesters!
Billy Boggs
 
Posts: 212
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 9:25 pm

Postby Bob » Wed Dec 20, 2006 6:53 pm

Billy, there is no doubt that the Democrats are complicit in this as well. Especially about the war in Iraq. Leading Democrats like Clinton, Biden, Kerry, Edwards and many more gave Bu$h a blank check by giving him the authority to go to war. That's why none of them, at least the ones that still won't admit their mistake, will never get my vote. But as you know Billy, it's really not about political parties, it's about the secret sub-culture that permeates beneath politics. Most of the members of those secret groups do have far right leanings however. And the Bu$hes are the poster children of that secret and evil society.
User avatar
Bob
 
Posts: 5766
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:39 pm
Location: Florida/Wisconsin

Postby Cappy Erikksen » Wed Dec 20, 2006 7:36 pm

Well, Bob, with all due respect, that list of Bushisms doesn't contain what I would call "facts". It's more like a list of ultra-leftwing accusations and propaganda cooked up by the likes of people like Michael Moore and Ward Churchill, both of whom I consider dyed-in-the-wool, bona-fide crackpots with personal axes to grind on anything that appears to be remotely conservative.

I've seen Ward "SkunkStripe" Churchill interviewed on television before. He couldn't debate his way out of a wet paper bag. Like most liberals, he refuses to answer straight, basic questions (because he can't) but dances around them by changing the subject over and over again, no matter how many times he's asked to answer one simple question. In one televised phone interview with Bill O'Reilly, he wriggled his way out by claiming he had lost the signal transmission and couldn't hear what was being asked. The whole time, there was another guy standing right next to him who, for some reason, could clearly hear everything O'Reilly was saying. The scene was quite comical and highly revealing about the character of this asanine fool who is unfortunately employed in a position of educating young, impressionable minds.

As Neal Boortz once said on the air, "There are no liberal talk-radio shows because a talk-radio host has to be able to defend everything he says with facts. Liberals are unable to do that. Facts are a liberal's worst enemy. The only avenue they have for defending their beliefs is to call their opponents names like 'stupid', 'racist', 'bigot', ect. and to make them look silly with childish jokes. They use these methods in videos and news articles and walk away without having to respond to any criticism. You can't do that on talk radio. When you have callers, you have no choice but to defend your words immediately, and to do that requires being armed with lots of facts to back up what you say."
If Michael Moore had to respond to callers, within ten minutes he'd be pulling the plug on his phone and rolling into the nearest mudhole to hide.

Earlier in this thread, a member described Cynthia McKinney as "brave" and "heroic" and such. Outrageous statements like those make it virtually impossible for me to believe anything else the person might say from then on. IMHO Cynthia Mckinney has all the validity of a back-alley crackwhore, and it amazes me that any human being, black or white, is unable to recognize that.

Well, in my last post I said I'd try not to offend the rest of you from now on, but I'm sure this response will do exactly that. Not that I'm trying to offend...I'm not...but I don't see any way of being honest about my beliefs without raising the hackles of most of the active members here. That's why I'd prefer to stick to the JFK topic.
Cappy Erikksen
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 8:26 pm

Postby Bob » Wed Dec 20, 2006 8:01 pm

I understand where you are coming from Cappy. But I would be willing to debate point for point the Bu$h list I provided earlier with you. But if the JFK assassination is where you want to stay focused, that's fine as well. There is no doubt that your point of reference is slanted from the right and mine is slanted from the left, but that doesn't mean we can't have some real dialogue. By the way, what was your take on the Dynasty of Death articles concerning the Bu$hes and Operation Northwoods?
User avatar
Bob
 
Posts: 5766
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:39 pm
Location: Florida/Wisconsin

Postby Bob » Wed Dec 20, 2006 8:47 pm

Cappy, one other point I would like to address. You mentioned Bill O"Reilly. Please Cappy. The guy talks out of both sides of his mouth. How about his accusing the Americans of war atrocities at Malmedy, when it was the other way around. And he never had the guts to apologize. He always says he's an independent. Yet on his voter's registration card, he checked off Republican. If one fact checks Bill, one will find a mountain of utter bullshit. To me, O'Reilly and Sean Hannity are nothing more than bombastic blowhards that work for the biggest right wing propaganda machine ever produced in the world of "news" organizations. Nobody is more rabid as right wingers than Rupert Murdoch or Roger Ailes. And their "news" organization reflects that.
User avatar
Bob
 
Posts: 5766
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:39 pm
Location: Florida/Wisconsin

Postby Cappy Erikksen » Thu Dec 21, 2006 5:15 pm

Bob, Bob, Bob...you liberals are so hard to talk to. Whenever I'm trying to make a point to a left-winger, one simple word (in this case "O'Reilly") can touch a nerve so quickly that the whole topic can be immediately destroyed and abandonded. I was having the same problem with my sister last night. She claims she wants to understand my beliefs, and she pleads, "Please explain what you mean!" but then, before I can finish the first or second sentence, a word will come out of my mouth that will send her into a frenzy. Of course, then I'll be immediately interrupted and the whole conversation will be derailed. In my experience, that's how liberals argue...not with facts but with conversational sabotage. Then, after she's steered the topic away from every single point I've tried to make, she walks away not having learned a single thing about my beliefs, and thinking somehow she's achieved some sort of victory. It's really maddening and a complete waste of time.

Anyhow, just because I used Bill O'Reilly in an anecdote, you really shouldn't assume that I worship the guy or subscribe to everything he believes. I don't even watch him at my own house, but when I'm visiting my Mom, she watches him every night. He just happened to be the one who was interviewing Ol' Skunkstripe that evening, and it was hilarious. As far as I'm concerned, Bill O'Reilly is just another puppet of the Zionist media. Now and then he might say something I agree with, but mostly I think he's just an opinionated blowhard who grabs for ratings by overexposing every stupid distraction that comes down the pike simply because he knows the majority of his viewers are mediocre lemmings with little capacity for intelligent, independent thought.
Cappy Erikksen
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 8:26 pm

Postby Bob » Thu Dec 21, 2006 5:39 pm

Cappy...Cappy...Cappy, first off Merry Christmas. You mentioned O'Reilly in your previous comment and I just wanted to give my opinion of him. That's all. By the way, my Dad watches him religiously. But you act as though all of the stuff I've posted here is bullshit. Some liberal bullshit bias. As I said earlier, I'm slanted to the left, but I call them like I see them. Trust me, I don't just post things to get a reaction. I research them first. I am just as disgusted with some Democrats as I am with Republicans. I mentioned a few earlier that gave Bu$h a blank check on the war in Iraq. Again, it's not so much political affiliation, but corruption and greed, no matter the party. I've brought this up before, but have you noticed the Bill Clinton-George H.W. Bu$h love fest as of late? No two people are more politically opposite, but their past was joined in the drug running days out of Mena, Arkansas. They both know that they each have plenty on each other. You and I talked about the LCAP earlier. Barry Seal was in the LCAP and also was a prominent figure out of Mena. Again, he was murdered in his car with Poppy Bu$h's telephone number in his trunk. Finally, you still haven't responded to my question about "Dynasty of Death" concerning the Bu$h family history and about Operation Northwoods.
User avatar
Bob
 
Posts: 5766
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:39 pm
Location: Florida/Wisconsin

Postby Cappy Erikksen » Fri Dec 22, 2006 4:06 pm

Merry Christmas to you too, Bob.

The reason I haven't commented on the links you provided is because I haven't studied them yet. As I mentioned briefly earlier, I'm out of town right now for the holidays. I'm in the state where I grew up, visiting different family members on a day-to-day basis, so I really don't have time to engage in a detailed debate. (My slow typing is a factor too)

Anyhow, I've made a promise to myself to get to it eventually. Until then, I hope you and all the other forum members here enjoy your holidays.

Cheers!
Cappy
Cappy Erikksen
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 8:26 pm

Postby Bob » Fri Dec 22, 2006 5:11 pm

I appreciate the holiday sentiments Cappy. I also want to wish everyone in the forum a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
User avatar
Bob
 
Posts: 5766
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:39 pm
Location: Florida/Wisconsin

Postby M.C.Newton » Fri Dec 22, 2006 9:15 pm

Sorry for the late addition to the debate/conversation/argument, but I couldn't help but to feel offended by most everything Cappy has said.

Now Cappy,

Just observing the back and forth of this thread has been very interesting. You've seemingly walked into a room and started slandering everybody you see. Interesting technique using your first post to "slam" a significant portion of this forum. Then when members who raise absolutely legitimate questions, challenging your views, you avoid the questions altogether and label them "a list of ultra-leftwing accusations and propaganda". Seems that this could be an apt description of your actions thus far:

"...has to be able to defend everything he says with facts. Liberals are unable to do that. Facts are a liberal's worst enemy. The only avenue they have for defending their beliefs is to call their opponents names like 'stupid'['liberal'], 'racist'['marxist'], 'bigot' [back-alley crack whore], ect. and to make them look silly with childish jokes... [I suppose you also think Tupac is still alive, smoking a joint somewhere with Elvis and Jim Morrison...]" "...You can't do that on talk radio [forum]. When you have callers [other members of forum], you have no choice but to defend your words immediately, and to do that requires being armed with lots of facts to back up what you say."

So there you have it Cappy you better start defending your words immediately but remember that that is going to require some facts, lest the day should arrive when you have to look in the mirror and call yourself a
"liberal" (by your stated definition above). It would appear from the outside looking in on the debate that you are the exact thing that you vehemently oppose only on the opposite end of the spectrum. Interesting.

Now regarding 9/11

You have also stated that "I based my own conclusions on what I saw on the news reports and videos." Interesting is this the same "news" as the "liberal Marxist media" or was it more of your standard run of the mill "Zionist media" that you referred to before. From where I'm standing it looks like you've based your conclusions on what you were fed by sources which you seem to be absolutely opposed to.

For you to dismiss out of hand the scores of important and legitimate questions regarding 9/11 (or Iraq, or Oklahoma City, Pearl Harbor, etc..) is irresponsible at best. To not feel inclined to see any of the information regarding 9/11 is pretty telling as well. You think anyone who is opposed to Bush is a liberal or better yet "...people who had the rational parts of their brains removed right after they were born, in a government experiment to see what causes mental retardation." That's a good point Cappy. You think some of these people couldn't possibly be people who care about their country, and saw some things that were being glossed over, and decided to investigate? That would be impossible, right? Their all "liberals", Hell bent on achieving their Jewish goals. Sound ridiculous? It should.

Then you go on a tirade about the Jews. You just seem to use the generalized term Jew so freely and negatively. It would seem from your words that you believe that there is a conspiracy, but that that conspiracy is a Jewish one. Make no mistake about it when you use a term that describes a whole swath of people (i.e. Jew, Muslim, Black, White, American, French, etc.) you are going to be wrong just about everytime.

But maybe it's just semantics. In which case I wouldn't necessarily call you anti-semitic but more anti-semantic.

But anyway moving forward, you came into the room slandered as many as could hear, you just have to expect some people to raise their voice in opposition. Otherwise we'd be spineless liberals.

P.s. To answer your question in this statement:

"You say that towers can't collapse straight down and that plane fuel can't melt steel. How do you know that? How many times in history have airliners been crashed into the world's tallest superstructures? If you don't know, I'll tell you...NEVER!"

Well one time actually, http://library.thinkquest.org/J002604/EmpireState.html

The size of the plane is smaller true, but the building I would say was not built to the same strength of the WTC 1 & 2, to a significant degree. (Speculative)
Last edited by M.C.Newton on Fri Dec 22, 2006 11:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past."

Orwell
User avatar
M.C.Newton
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 1:12 am

PreviousNext

Return to Who shot JFK, and why?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests