Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15

Thread: Lack of continuity between Dallas & Chicago plots

  1. #11

    Default

    OKC and TWA 800 are, I argue, linked.

    Shots across the bow.

    Messages unheeded.

    And so 9-11.

    Remember Jimmy Breslin -- the wreath at the funeral of the victim of a mob hit and its banner, which reads, "We're sorry it had to come to this."

    Peter: Welcome, brother. I've missed the sight of your voice. You have a home with us.

    I'll agree with you that JFK and the Unspeakable is the most important JFK assassination-related volume in recent years. But brother Douglass's interpretation of Chicago is naive (as is his interpretation of the JFK hit as a justification for an invasion of Cuba).

    Chicago was theater, pure and simple.

    Cuba and the Castros, then and now, are far more valuable to the unspeakable powers-that-be in place than overturned.

    Which, of course, does not diminish Douglass and his towering achievement.

    Heady stuff, ey?

    I'm so proud of what we've made happen on this forum.

  2. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Drago View Post
    OKC and TWA 800 are, I argue, linked.

    Shots across the bow.

    Messages unheeded.

    And so 9-11.

    Remember Jimmy Breslin -- the wreath at the funeral of the victim of a mob hit and its banner, which reads, "We're sorry it had to come to this."

    Peter: Welcome, brother. I've missed the sight of your voice. You have a home with us.

    I'll agree with you that JFK and the Unspeakable is the most important JFK assassination-related volume in recent years. But brother Douglass's interpretation of Chicago is naive (as is his interpretation of the JFK hit as a justification for an invasion of Cuba).

    Chicago was theater, pure and simple.

    Cuba and the Castros, then and now, are far more valuable to the unspeakable powers-that-be in place than overturned.

    Which, of course, does not diminish Douglass and his towering achievement.

    Heady stuff, ey?

    I'm so proud of what we've made happen on this forum.
    Thanks for the welcome. I was making a visit to the 'Heimat' and will report soon about some of my observations after having being outside for 7.5 years! (Now outside again looking in - had some interesting interactions with TSA et al.). I think in considering the Chicago v. Dallas 'plots' one needs to also consider those that were also 'run' in FL - even the SS agents spying on JFK in the White House from nearby. To a great extent they were all theatre - even (especially?) Dallas. However, I think they all were to varying degrees seen as opportunities to be seized upon, if available. There was also a backup in Dallas at the Trade Mart and no doubt other cities lined up should Dallas 'fail'. All that said, it could be you are correct that Chicago was not a major attempt, as was Dallas, and more a diversion or warning [or test]...time will tell. We certainly agree 100% that Cuba/Castro and other virtual enemies [OBL et al.] are of greater value to the 'unspeakable' when not removed - and the theatre of attempted removal is just that...theatre [of the political absurd].
    Last edited by Peter Lemkin; 10-04-2008 at 04:10 AM.

  3. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myra Bronstein View Post
    ...while I doubt that a pile of fertilizer can do that kind of damage to a building...
    Type "Manchester Bomb fertiliser" into Google for just one example (Canary Wharf, Baltic Exchange are others). Seriously, read how very simply these things can be constructed for devastating use. I don't know the amount of fertiliser used in Oklahoma but around 3000lbs was packed into a van for the Manchester bomb and only a few pounds of Semtex.

    Fertiliser is cheap, can be purchased and stockpiled easily without suspicion, finally it can be turned into explosive grade material with ease. It can be transported relatively easily and is super stable.

    The percussion wave of the blast is what causes the damage and it can and does blow out most structures nearby (it is not the actual explosion per se). The Manchester bomb had a damage radius of approximately 1 mile and the crater left where the van was, was quite huge. Anything within the first couple of hundred yards is obliterated.

    The point of the post - there is absolutely no doubt that a pile of fertiliser (assisted by various parts such as detonator) can cause the Oklahoma damage.

    Now why McVeigh did what he did, or in fact, why, his and the other bombs noted above weren't prevented, you or I won't know, definitively, the whole answer. There is more than one right answer and it varies with each layer. Usually quite base and crude fundamentalism at the operator level rising to a complex gaming scenario at the highest level. It goes beyond terrorism (in it's commonly understood form) and the fear factor and leverage it gives to the people and the politicos et. al. respectively.

    The people directly involved in the operations could not tell you one definitive answer either. They can only give you their truth and it would be correct to them and their level of operational knowledge. The clever aspect is that if/when all the truths are combined it can look quite contradictory and one could presume that some 'stories' are dishonest. At any rate by the time anyone gets that far the stage has been cleared, the scripts burned and a new play begun.

  4. Default

    Myra is correct. An ANFO bomb cannot do the damage which occurred in the Murrah case. The truck was parked 20/30 feet away from the OUTSIDE of the building, yet building debris was EJECTED away from the building hundreds of feet away, indicating in internal explosion. General Partin, a highly qualified expert said NO WAY. Support columns were cut, which was impossible using an ANFO bomb OUTSIDE the building.

    A good article on the alleged ANFO bomb in this case compares it to the MC rifle in the JFK case. Click on:

    http://www.constitution.org/ocbpt/ocbpt_01.htm

    Jack

  5. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack White View Post
    Myra is correct. An ANFO bomb cannot do the damage which occurred in the Murrah case. The truck was parked 20/30 feet away from the OUTSIDE of the building, yet building debris was EJECTED away from the building hundreds of feet away, indicating in internal explosion. General Partin, a highly qualified expert said NO WAY. Support columns were cut, which was impossible using an ANFO bomb OUTSIDE the building.

    A good article on the alleged ANFO bomb in this case compares it to the MC rifle in the JFK case. Click on:

    http://www.constitution.org/ocbpt/ocbpt_01.htm

    Jack
    A fertiliser based bomb can do that damage. The above article actually does little, if anything, to refute that fact. The photos etc. of Oklahoma I have seem are comparable to damage inflicted by other fertiliser based bombs.

    A red post box stood unscathed from the Manchester bomb despite being feet away from the centre of the explosion.

    I am not stating it was definitely a fertiliser based bomb that was used.

    More broadly I am saying the comment that a fertiliser based bomb could not do the damage attributed to Oklahoma is plain wrong.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •