The John Kennedy assassination ..who's who on the Grassy Knoll

[daws101]

how'd this thread go from JFK to 911...?
maybe Jfk's ghost knocked the towers down..?
that's just as viable a theory as the steaming piles that handjob, and mr. beele espouse.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

how'd this thread go from JFK to 911...?
maybe Jfk's ghost knocked the towers down..?
that's just as viable a theory as the steaming piles that handjob, and mr. beele espouse.

Maybe "Kenendy"'s driver shot the towers too?

 

[daws101]

how'd this thread go from JFK to 911...?
maybe Jfk's ghost knocked the towers down..?
that's just as viable a theory as the steaming piles that handjob, and mr. beele espouse.

Maybe "Kenendy"'s driver shot the towers too?

naw ! they retired him after ruby ridge..

 

[Montrovant]

Apparently it is for NIST. Their own reports contradict each other, they won't release the data their predictive models are based on, and they won't allow peer review of any of their studies. So, yeah, I guess it is.

How does one prevent peer review of a study? Other than by not releasing the study, of course....

It just seems odd, as NIST is certainly not in charge of worldwide scientific study or publication.

No, but if you want scientific credibility, you MUST release the data you have used to reach your conclusions. They haven't. So saying a building has collapsed due to fire is just what you think until you have proved it. They haven't. If you had bothered to research and read about the issue, you would know that.

Read it and weep. It is no conspiracy, it is a fact. The data is being withheld. This is from a partner organization to Wikileaks called Cryptome.

http://cryptome.org/wtc-nist-wtc7-no.pdf

"We are, however, withholding 3,370 files. The NIST Director determined that the release of these data might jeopardize public safety. This withheld data include remaining input and all results files of the ANASYS 16-story Case B collapse initiation model, break element source code, ANSYS script files for the break elements, custom executable ANSYS file, and all spreadsheets and other supporting calculations sued to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities, in order to work with the ANSYS files, a copy of the licensed software is required."

The upshot? In order for the engineering and scientific community to verify NIST collapse models, they need to use their hypothetical data models. NIST won't release it. Basically, it's a, "Because we said so," or "Trust us," situation. REAL scientists and engineers do peer review. You don't go by that. This is a classic coverup. But then, if you bothered to research and READ, you would know that.


After I uncovered this document, I asked the guy that first made me aware of issues like this a question. He is a rabid "troother," (I tend to be more sober and fact based.) In this document from Cryptome, it stated the reason NIST is with holding the data is for reasons of public safety. I was very dumbfounded and confused. Public safety? How could it endanger public safety to know how fire can cause a steel high rise to collapse due to fire I questioned him? He told me, "Naw. . . you college types are so dumb sometimes. It'd be a public safety issue if'nd the public ever found out them goberm't types kilt muricans for policy goals. Shit, they'd be riot'n loot in the street before sun down."

I don't think we would go that insane to find out our own government had betrayed us. But, I suppose, that is a whole other thread. Public Safety. huh. . . .

None of that is really my point. The way you said it in the first post is that NIST won't "allow" peer review. That seems to indicate that peer review would be done if only NIST would grant permission. It's a little different than concealing data. Mostly a matter of semantics, I think.

 

[MisterBeale]

How does one prevent peer review of a study? Other than by not releasing the study, of course....

It just seems odd, as NIST is certainly not in charge of worldwide scientific study or publication.

No, but if you want scientific credibility, you MUST release the data you have used to reach your conclusions. They haven't. So saying a building has collapsed due to fire is just what you think until you have proved it. They haven't. If you had bothered to research and read about the issue, you would know that.

Read it and weep. It is no conspiracy, it is a fact. The data is being withheld. This is from a partner organization to Wikileaks called Cryptome.

http://cryptome.org/wtc-nist-wtc7-no.pdf

"We are, however, withholding 3,370 files. The NIST Director determined that the release of these data might jeopardize public safety. This withheld data include remaining input and all results files of the ANASYS 16-story Case B collapse initiation model, break element source code, ANSYS script files for the break elements, custom executable ANSYS file, and all spreadsheets and other supporting calculations sued to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities, in order to work with the ANSYS files, a copy of the licensed software is required."

The upshot? In order for the engineering and scientific community to verify NIST collapse models, they need to use their hypothetical data models. NIST won't release it. Basically, it's a, "Because we said so," or "Trust us," situation. REAL scientists and engineers do peer review. You don't go by that. This is a classic coverup. But then, if you bothered to research and READ, you would know that.


After I uncovered this document, I asked the guy that first made me aware of issues like this a question. He is a rabid "troother," (I tend to be more sober and fact based.) In this document from Cryptome, it stated the reason NIST is with holding the data is for reasons of public safety. I was very dumbfounded and confused. Public safety? How could it endanger public safety to know how fire can cause a steel high rise to collapse due to fire I questioned him? He told me, "Naw. . . you college types are so dumb sometimes. It'd be a public safety issue if'nd the public ever found out them goberm't types kilt muricans for policy goals. Shit, they'd be riot'n loot in the street before sun down."

I don't think we would go that insane to find out our own government had betrayed us. But, I suppose, that is a whole other thread. Public Safety. huh. . . .

None of that is really my point. The way you said it in the first post is that NIST won't "allow" peer review. That seems to indicate that peer review would be done if only NIST would grant permission. It's a little different than concealing data. Mostly a matter of semantics, I think.

But of course peer review WOULD be done if NIST weren't concealing their data. It isn't any different. They aren't allowing the possibility of any peer review to be done. Call it what ever you like, semantics, what ever. They are telling the public, that they have concluded through scientific findings, the reason WTC 7 fell was through a fire induced collapse. Their first report was a complete sham, they had to go back and rework it. The second one came out, and it relied on a statistical model that used data points, that were, well, classified. When you start with a conclusion, and then make your model fit that conclusion? That isn't science. If you don't release your data to PROVE that is not what you did, the public has to regard what you did as, well, the technical term is. . . .

JUNK SCIENCE​

 

[Montrovant]

No, but if you want scientific credibility, you MUST release the data you have used to reach your conclusions. They haven't. So saying a building has collapsed due to fire is just what you think until you have proved it. They haven't. If you had bothered to research and read about the issue, you would know that.

Read it and weep. It is no conspiracy, it is a fact. The data is being withheld. This is from a partner organization to Wikileaks called Cryptome.

http://cryptome.org/wtc-nist-wtc7-no.pdf


The upshot? In order for the engineering and scientific community to verify NIST collapse models, they need to use their hypothetical data models. NIST won't release it. Basically, it's a, "Because we said so," or "Trust us," situation. REAL scientists and engineers do peer review. You don't go by that. This is a classic coverup. But then, if you bothered to research and READ, you would know that.


After I uncovered this document, I asked the guy that first made me aware of issues like this a question. He is a rabid "troother," (I tend to be more sober and fact based.) In this document from Cryptome, it stated the reason NIST is with holding the data is for reasons of public safety. I was very dumbfounded and confused. Public safety? How could it endanger public safety to know how fire can cause a steel high rise to collapse due to fire I questioned him? He told me, "Naw. . . you college types are so dumb sometimes. It'd be a public safety issue if'nd the public ever found out them goberm't types kilt muricans for policy goals. Shit, they'd be riot'n loot in the street before sun down."

I don't think we would go that insane to find out our own government had betrayed us. But, I suppose, that is a whole other thread. Public Safety. huh. . . .

None of that is really my point. The way you said it in the first post is that NIST won't "allow" peer review. That seems to indicate that peer review would be done if only NIST would grant permission. It's a little different than concealing data. Mostly a matter of semantics, I think.

But of course peer review WOULD be done if NIST weren't concealing their data. It isn't any different. They aren't allowing the possibility of any peer review to be done. Call it what ever you like, semantics, what ever. They are telling the public, that they have concluded through scientific findings, the reason WTC 7 fell was through a fire induced collapse. Their first report was a complete sham, they had to go back and rework it. The second one came out, and it relied on a statistical model that used data points, that were, well, classified. When you start with a conclusion, and then make your model fit that conclusion? That isn't science. If you don't release your data to PROVE that is not what you did, the public has to regard what you did as, well, the technical term is. . . .

JUNK SCIENCE​

I'm not arguing the point. If no one sees your data, it can't be considered conclusive.

I was just pointing out that the way you worded things earlier made it sound like you were saying something else, that's all.

 

[MisterBeale]

how'd this thread go from JFK to 911...?
maybe Jfk's ghost knocked the towers down..?
that's just as viable a theory as the steaming piles that handjob, and mr. beele espouse.

I'll remind you. . Predfan made this little denial post,

I'm probably wasting my time but here's a public service announcement designed to help you all seem not so ignorant:

1. Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F. Kennedy.
2. Aliens did not crash at Roswell.
3. We did actually land on the moon.
4. Al Queda operatives flew three planes into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.
5. Those two kids blew up the Boston Marathon.

You're welcome.

implying that no false flag ever occur. And while I never thought twice about them, until TPTB made the god awful mistake of knocking down WTC 7, then, well, I, like many well educated individuals started asking questions, lot of them.

In fact, I didn't know it until just a year a go, but hell, did you know the sinking of the Titanic was planned by the Jesuits? Yup, I had no clue till I had myself educated.

The did it to saddle us all with a national income tax. And sick irony of ironies, now "tax day" is the same day that the big ship went down and the did away with all of it powerful opponents in one fell swoop; John Jacob Astor IV, Benjamin Guggenheim, Isidor Straus, etc.

 

[MaryL]

If, and when we find out the truth about this, it will become irrelevant by new outrages, so what is the point?

 

[MisterBeale]

Agreed. lol

 

[MisterBeale]

I guess that point is, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to be taken in by the events of the future leaders and events.

 

[Montrovant]

how'd this thread go from JFK to 911...?
maybe Jfk's ghost knocked the towers down..?
that's just as viable a theory as the steaming piles that handjob, and mr. beele espouse.

I'll remind you. . Predfan made this little denial post,

I'm probably wasting my time but here's a public service announcement designed to help you all seem not so ignorant:

1. Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F. Kennedy.
2. Aliens did not crash at Roswell.
3. We did actually land on the moon.
4. Al Queda operatives flew three planes into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.
5. Those two kids blew up the Boston Marathon.

You're welcome.

implying that no false flag ever occur. And while I never thought twice about them, until TPTB made the god awful mistake of knocking down WTC 7, then, well, I, like many well educated individuals started asking questions, lot of them.

In fact, I didn't know it until just a year a go, but hell, did you know the sinking of the Titanic was planned by the Jesuits? Yup, I had no clue till I had myself educated.

The did it to saddle us all with a national income tax. And sick irony of ironies, now "tax day" is the same day that the big ship went down and the did away with all of it powerful opponents in one fell swoop; John Jacob Astor IV, Benjamin Guggenheim, Isidor Straus, etc.

Wait, what? A Jesuit on the Titanic got on the bridge and steered them into an iceberg?

 

[MisterBeale]

how'd this thread go from JFK to 911...?
maybe Jfk's ghost knocked the towers down..?
that's just as viable a theory as the steaming piles that handjob, and mr. beele espouse.

I'll remind you. . Predfan made this little denial post,

I'm probably wasting my time but here's a public service announcement designed to help you all seem not so ignorant:

1. Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F. Kennedy.
2. Aliens did not crash at Roswell.
3. We did actually land on the moon.
4. Al Queda operatives flew three planes into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.
5. Those two kids blew up the Boston Marathon.

You're welcome.

implying that no false flag ever occur. And while I never thought twice about them, until TPTB made the god awful mistake of knocking down WTC 7, then, well, I, like many well educated individuals started asking questions, lot of them.

In fact, I didn't know it until just a year a go, but hell, did you know the sinking of the Titanic was planned by the Jesuits? Yup, I had no clue till I had myself educated.

The did it to saddle us all with a national income tax. And sick irony of ironies, now "tax day" is the same day that the big ship went down and the did away with all of it powerful opponents in one fell swoop; John Jacob Astor IV, Benjamin Guggenheim, Isidor Straus, etc.

Wait, what? A Jesuit on the Titanic got on the bridge and steered them into an iceberg?

The captain of the boat was a Jesuit. He didn't steer them into an iceberg, he told them to not worry about steering way clear of it. After all, the Titanic was, "Unsinkable."

 

[MisterBeale]

But hey, that's entirely different thread. I have no wish to discuss that. . .

 

[PredFan]

I guess that point is, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to be taken in by the events of the future leaders and events.

Here's what I've learned from history:

There are those who will blame some shadowy cabal for just about anything. You cannot reason with them, you cannot change their minds. I have learned that it's a waste of time so usually I just point and laugh. Like my wildly entertaining posts in this thread: Who's on the Grassy Knoll, What's on the bridge, I Don't Know's behind the motorcade.

 

[7forever]

I guess that point is, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to be taken in by the events of the future leaders and events.

Here's what I've learned from history:

There are those who will blame some shadowy cabal for just about anything. You cannot reason with them, you cannot change their minds. I have learned that it's a waste of time so usually I just point and laugh. Like my wildly entertaining posts in this thread: Who's on the Grassy Knoll, What's on the bridge, I Don't Know's behind the motorcade.

Here's what I've learned from jfk case:

There are a few trolls who still push Oswald or some other fiction but offer no proof. You cannot reason with them, you cannot change their minds. I have learned that it's a waste of time so the facts that refute their nonsense laugh at them throughout tons of threads. Like my wildly entertaining posts of video proof in this thread: The driver shot jfk and nothing else can or will ever be proven it its place.

 

[7forever]

George Bush laughs at JFK ASSASSINATION.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aUsOVzv7LI&feature=player_detailpage

Killing John F. Kennedy was most certainly at the front of that very telling statement.

and who was the alleged "diluted" guman??? he's not laffin at JFK but were laffin at YOU !!!!

You can't even spell laugh, retard. You laugh at yourself because the driver shot jfk and there's nothing you can do to change that fact.

 

[PredFan]

I guess that point is, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to be taken in by the events of the future leaders and events.

Here's what I've learned from history:

There are those who will blame some shadowy cabal for just about anything. You cannot reason with them, you cannot change their minds. I have learned that it's a waste of time so usually I just point and laugh. Like my wildly entertaining posts in this thread: Who's on the Grassy Knoll, What's on the bridge, I Don't Know's behind the motorcade.

Here's what I've learned from jfk case:

There are a few trolls who still push Oswald or some other fiction but offer no proof. You cannot reason with them, you cannot change their minds. I have learned that it's a waste of time so the facts that refute their nonsense laugh at them throughout tons of threads. Like my wildly entertaining posts of video proof in this thread: The driver shot jfk and nothing else can or will ever be proven it its place.

The only actual proof in the case points to Oswald. What you offer is purely fiction. But hey, history shows that you will disagree without anything of substance or truth to back up your claims.

 

[7forever]

George Bush laughs at JFK ASSASSINATION.

This chimp laughs at your silly "driver killed Kenendy" theory.

Of course it's silly you idiot, but it's true.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

I guess that point is, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to be taken in by the events of the future leaders and events.

Here's what I've learned from history:

There are those who will blame some shadowy cabal for just about anything. You cannot reason with them, you cannot change their minds. I have learned that it's a waste of time so usually I just point and laugh. Like my wildly entertaining posts in this thread: Who's on the Grassy Knoll, What's on the bridge, I Don't Know's behind the motorcade.

Here's what I've learned from jfk case:

There are a few trolls who still push Oswald or some other fiction but offer no proof. You cannot reason with them, you cannot change their minds. I have learned that it's a waste of time so the facts that refute their nonsense laugh at them throughout tons of threads. Like my wildly entertaining posts of video proof in this thread: The driver shot jfk and nothing else can or will ever be proven it its place.

**** your theory, this is the only wildly entertaining post of a video you will ever need!!!!!!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4uDSnYQx3Q]Gangnam Style by Hitler - YouTube[/ame]

 

[7forever]

Here's what I've learned from history:

There are those who will blame some shadowy cabal for just about anything. You cannot reason with them, you cannot change their minds. I have learned that it's a waste of time so usually I just point and laugh. Like my wildly entertaining posts in this thread: Who's on the Grassy Knoll, What's on the bridge, I Don't Know's behind the motorcade.

Here's what I've learned from jfk case:

There are a few trolls who still push Oswald or some other fiction but offer no proof. You cannot reason with them, you cannot change their minds. I have learned that it's a waste of time so the facts that refute their nonsense laugh at them throughout tons of threads. Like my wildly entertaining posts of video proof in this thread: The driver shot jfk and nothing else can or will ever be proven it its place.

The only actual proof in the case points to Oswald. What you offer is purely fiction. But hey, history shows that you will disagree without anything of substance or truth to back up your claims.

All the evidence points to Greer and no one or nothing else. The witnesses, the films, all point to Greer shooting jfk over the right eye.