Can Americans accept the
scam possibility?

Nobody has “proof” that explosives were placed in the World Trade center. Rather, we only have “reasons to believe” that explosives were placed in the buildings.

From what I have seen of my fellow Americans, our suspicions of explosives will not have an effect on the majority of them. Most people need more obvious proof.

Consider the theory of evolution. Nobody can “prove” that animals evolved into humans. All we can do is provide “reasons to believe” the concept of evolution. However, this reasoning has no effect on millions of Americans.

Emotions play a role in which theory we believe

Some people call this attitude “pride”. Whatever we call it, our emotions play a role in whether we accept the theory of evolution.

Emotions play a larger role in the killing of President Kennedy, and an even more significant role in the World Trade Center attack. Let me first review the Kennedy killing.

The killing of President Kennedy

As is typical of crimes, the testimony is full of contradictions. The government had to pass judgment on which testimony was the most accurate, and which testimony should be ignored. They ended up concluding that Oswald acted alone.

Unfortunately, somebody else can take the same conflicting testimony, ignore different bits, and the result is an FBI killing of Kennedy. And somebody else can ignore other bits and find a military or CIA killing. Another person will find a Soviet killing. How do we determine whose theory is more accurate?

So as not to bore you, I will discuss only the testimony of the doctors who treated Kennedy at the hospital.

The following indented blocks enclosed in braces, ie, { }, are actual quotes from the Warren Report.

The hospital was only a few miles from the shooting so Kennedy arrived within a few minutes of being shot. The experienced doctors were certainly busy with patients when Kennedy arrived. Some may have been in surgery and could not stop what they were doing. Who were the first doctors to see Kennedy?

In care you are unaware of this, after a medical student gets out of school he often gets on-the-job training at a hospital. These students are often referred to as “interns”, and people refer to them as “doctors”, but they are actually “students”.

Also, in 1963 people who were not fully experienced doctors, such as nurses, interns, and medical equipment salesmen, would sometimes assist with medical treatments when doctors were busy. Malpractice lawsuits were not as much concern to the doctors in that era. In fact, these abuses were one of reasons malpractice lawsuits started to occur on a large scale.

As you read about the treatment Kennedy received, see if you can figure out if the first few doctors to help him were experienced doctors or students.

The potential danger in letting a student treat Kennedy is that he may be familiar with only a few treatments, so he could easily give Kennedy an inappropriate treatment simply because it is the only treatment he has learned to do. And a salesman may be familiar only with the equipment he sells.

Doctor Carrico was the first to arrive

{ Dr. Carrico noted two wounds: a small bullet wound in the front lower neck, and an extensive wound in the President's head where a sizable portion of the skull was missing. He observed shredded brain tissue and “considerable slow oozing” from the latter wound, ... }

In Appendix 8 we find more details:

{ Dr. Carrico noted the President to have slow, agonal respiratory efforts. He could hear a heartbeat but found no pulse or blood pressure to be present. }

People such as myself — who lack medical training — would assume the lack of pulse and blood pressure means that Kennedy's heart was not beating, which in turn means that there was only a few minutes before irreversible brain damage occurs. Since I don't know how to start a heart beating, I would give up and announce that Kennedy is “dead”. But Dr. Carrico did not consider him dead yet:

{ He noted that the President was blue-white or ashen in color; had slow, spasmodic, agonal respiration without any coordination; made no voluntary movements; had his eyes open with the pupils dilated without any reaction to light; evidenced no palpable pulse; and had a few chest sounds which were thought to be heart beats. On the basis of these findings, Dr. Carrico concluded that President Kennedy was still alive. }

Doctor Carrico had a plan to treat Kennedy and bring him back to good health. He decided to use the bullet hole in his neck to help him breathe; doctors refer to this procedure as a “tracheotomy”.

The doc's plan was to widen the bullet hole, insert a tube in the hole, and connect it to a machine that forces oxygen into Kennedy's lungs. Doctor Carrico started this tracheotomy almost immediately after seeing Kennedy. Soon Doctor Perry arrives and takes over the tracheotomy while Carrico starts other treatments.

I never had any medical training, so I don't understand the purpose of the tracheotomy. Specifically, why put oxygen into his lungs when his heart is not circulating the blood? Was it because these doctors had no idea what to do about a failed heart, so they did what they knew and hoped that soon a heart specialist would arrive?

And why did these two doctors ignore the wound in Kennedy's head? Was it because brain problems are even more complex than heart problems, and neither of these doctors had a clue as to what to do with the head wounds?

Even with my lack of medical training I can figure out how to force air into a person's lungs, but I don't know how to start a heart beating, and I have no idea how to deal with brain injuries. Maybe these two doctors were as inept as me. Maybe they were not real doctors; maybe they were salesmen for tracheotomy equipment, or maybe they were students. Maybe the oxygen tank was the only device they knew how to use!

The doctor told the Warren commission that the tracheotomy required 3 to 5 minutes. This is plenty of time for the doctors to ask themselves why they bother to force oxygen into his stagnant blood.

Doctor Jones soon arrived to assist these two nitwits.

{ While Dr. Perry was performing the tracheotomy, Drs. Carrico and Ronald Jones made cuts down on the President's right leg and left arm, respectively, to infuse blood and fluids into the circulatory system. Dr. Carrico treated the President's known adrenal insufficiency by administering hydrocortisone. }

So, just in case a heart specialist arrives in time to start his heart beating, the oxygen, hydrocortisone, and other fluids these doctors were forcing into his stagnant blood would begin to circulate.

Of course, with a “sizeable portion” of his skull missing, if his heart started beating again, wouldn't his blood just pour out of his head and onto the floor? Shouldn't the doctors close the hole soon? Or did they not know how to do that, either?

A fourth doctor soon arrived to assist these medical morons:

{ Dr. Robert N. McClelland entered at that point and assisted Dr. Perry with the tracheotomy. }

So now we discover that three Dallas doctors are needed to give a dead man a tracheotomy. How many are needed to change a lightbulb?

What did Doctor McClelland say to the other doctors?

“Come on, you guys! It's my turn to do something! Move over! I just got here; you've already done a lot of stuff! I wanna help!”

Anyway, Kennedy now has four doctors giving him injections and oxygen. Unfortunately, Doctor Perry told the Warren Commission that air and blood got into Kennedy's chest, and he suspects it was because they screwed up the tracheotomy!

Just how difficult is a tracheotomy? Then ask yourself, if they cannot perform a tracheotomy, how could they do something more complicated, such as getting his heart to beat?

Anyway, Doctor Perry decides to correct the tracheotomy mistakes by putting a few more holes and tubes into Kennedy:

{ When Dr. Perry noted free air and blood in the President's chest cavity, he asked that chest tubes be inserted to allow for drainage of blood and air. Drs. Paul C. Peters and Charles R. Baxter initiated these procedures. }

So these other two doctors had to insert drainage tubes to undo the damage. Seems to me that these doctors were incompetent. Was this the first tracheotomy these doctors had performed?

Maybe this was the conversation:

Carrico: “Oh, hi doc Perry! Look what I'm doing! I'm giving the President a trakyotemy... um, trikatomy..uh..”

Perry: “A tracheotomy?”

Carrico: “Yeah! You wanna finish it?”

Perry: “Sure! I always wanted to try one of those.”

McClelland: “Hi guys. Hey! Let me help! What are you doing?”

Perry: “It's called a tracheotomy. You can take that knife and cut this hole a bit bigger so I can cram this tube down his throat.”

<a few moments later...>

McClelland: “Oops! When I turned on the oxygen, it went into his chest cavity instead of his lungs!”

Peters: “Hey! I'll take care of that! Move over!”

Baxter: “No, that aint how to fix it! Here, let me insert a drainage tube!”

While those incompetent doctors were making Kennedy's situation worse, Doctor Clark arrived and gave Kennedy a “closed chest cardiac massage” in order to start his heart beating. He was the first doctor to work on Kennedy's heart. Maybe the real doctors were finally starting to arrive!

Unfortunately, Doctor Clark discovered that his life-saving procedure had an unfortunate side effect, as Doctor Jenkins mentioned in his testimony:

{ “... with each compression of the chest, there was a great rush of blood from the skull wound.” }

Well, golly! I guess the bullet holes and missing skull portions should be sealed off before somebody starts pumping blood.

Did any of the doctors complain to Doctor Clark about the “great rush of blood”? Maybe this was the conversation:

Clark: “Hey, guys! I'll get his heart to beat!”

<he starts pumping Kennedy's chest>

Jenkins: “You idiot! Blood is squirting all over! Quit it!”

Clark: “Hey, don't criticize! I don't tell you how to... uh, whatever you're doing with that stupid, plastic tube.”

These doctors gave Kennedy what we refer to as:

Soon more doctors arrived, and more treatments were given. Kennedy was surrounded by doctors; they must have resembled a bunch of ants around a drop of honey. But would you say these doctors were helping Kennedy, or making his situation worse?

Consider that if the Dallas hospital treats the President in this manner, what would they do to you or me? They obviously didn't worry about malpractice in 1963.

Stress can cause idiotic behavior

To make the situation more bizarre, she insisted that she doesn't remember doing it (photos prove she did it), so that would mean the event was never recorded in her memory! She can be considered proof that a person can behave in a strange manner, and then not have any memory of it! She is an example of how unreliable the human mind is under stress (or, at least a woman's mind).

Therefore, maybe all of the doctors flipped out over the trauma of seeing their dead President. Rather than face the fact that Kennedy was dead, perhaps these doctors went into some sort of “medical denial” mode in which they assured themselves that their patient will be OK despite evidence to the contrary. Maybe the doctors were in a “temporary state of medical insanity”.

Or maybe the doctors were so accustomed to performing unnecessary surgery in order to boost their income that they just couldn't stop themselves; ie, maybe Kennedy was treated as a common patient.

Alive for a “medical purpose”?

{ “.... He was, therefore alive for medical purposes.” }

A cadaver has a medical purpose. For example, we can give a cadaver a tracheotomy and a shot of hydrocortisone, and in so doing we can learn how to perform those operations. But we cannot get the heart of a cadaver to beat, nor can we fix the brain of a cadaver, so students cannot practice such techniques on cadavers. Maybe these doctors were students, and maybe they were doing the only operations that they had practiced on cadavers.

Or does being alive for a “medical purpose” mean that money can still be made from the patient? Did those doctors get paid for their treatment of Kennedy? Maybe they knew Kennedy was dead, so they immediately began performing quick and simple procedures that would bring them a lot of profit in a short period of time.

So...were they students? Or real doctors?

Well, I got a B+ on my last quiz about treating deep wounds!

I was shocked to read that Doctor Perry estimated that he had already treated 150 to 200 gunshot wounds. Some of the other doctors claimed to have treated even more gunshot victims than Perry. (Incidently, this brings up the issue of how could a society possibly have so many gunshots victims that a doctor can treat hundreds of victims during a few years of medical practice. What kind of society is America?)

If the doctors are telling the truth about themselves, then the hospital sent only highly experienced doctors to treat Kennedy. But if all the doctors were experienced, how do you explain their idiotic treatments?

Did the doctors even want to help Kennedy?

{

Mr. Specter: Why was it, Dr. Perry, that there was no effort made to examine the clothing of President Kennedy and no effort to turn him over and examine the back of the President?

Dr. Perry: At the termination of the procedure and after we had determined that Mr. Kennedy had expired, I cannot speak for the others but as for myself, my work was done. I fought a losing battle, and I actually obviously, having seen a lot of wounds, had no morbid curiosity, and actually was rather anxious to leave the room. I had nothing further to offer.

Basically, the doctor went in the room, helped out with a sloppy tracheotomy, and was “rather anxious” to get out as soon as possible. Was this just another boring, gunshot victim? Was the doctor concerned about missing his golf appointment?

Whereas Doctor Perry was anxious to get out of room, Doctor Jenkins said that:

{ “...those in attendance who were there just sort of melted away, well, I guess “melted” is the wrong word, but we felt like we were intruders and left.” }

Next, consider that the doctors ignored (or avoided) Jackie Kennedy. Here is a remark from Doctor Perry when he was asked about her:

{ “I was informed subsequently that Mrs. Kennedy left the room several times to just outside the door but returned although as I say, I saw her several times in the room. I did not speak to her nor she to me so I do not have any knowledge as to exactly what she was doing.” }

{

Mr. Specter: Where was Mrs. Kennedy, if you know, during the course of the treatment which you have described that you performed?

Dr. Perry: I had the initial impression she was in the room most of the time although I have been corrected on this. When I entered the room she was standing by the door, rather kneeling by the door, and someone was standing there beside her. I saw her several times during the course of the resuscitative measures, when I would look up from the operative field to secure an instrument from the nearby tray.

Is it common for a doctor to ignore their presidents's wife during such a tragedy? Did any of the doctors even say “Hello” to her? Or did all the doctors behave like Perry; ie, rush in, perform some sloppy medical procedure, and then rush out? Is this standard hospital treatment in Texas? Is this what they call “Southern Hospitality”? Furthermore, if this is how Southern Doctors treat our President, how do they treat niggers?

Let's review the medical treatment before moving on:

• The hospital sent experienced doctors to treat Kennedy. They immediately began performing idiotic treatments of absolutely no medical value,


• The doctors didn't show any enthusiasm for what they were doing; no interest even in saying hello to Jackie Kennedy.


• They were anxious to get out of the room when they finished their idiotic medical procedures.

{

Mr. Specter: What did you observe as to President Kennedy's condition on arrival at the hospital?

Mr. Hill: The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head.

Clinton Hill described the injuries with vague terms, such as a “large gaping wound”. The autopsy report is more technical:

{ There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter. }

How obvious does this conspiracy have to be?

The testimony from the doctors is enough to convince me that the our government, hospitals, police, and media were involved in the Kennedy killing. The rest of Warren report makes the conspiracy even more obvious (as if it can get any more obvious).

Even the world's most incompetent medical student who failed every medical course would have immediately realized that Kennedy was hopelessly dead when he saw his brains “oozing” out of an enormous hole in his head.

Actually, I suspect that some of the more intelligent doctors would have deduced that Kennedy was dead when they realized — as Clinton Hill described it — "There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car."

Or how about Clinton's remark: “The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car.”

While we could insist that the goofy behavior of the doctors was due to stress, these doctors had seen hundreds of gunshot victims and other medical problems. Let's be serious. Every doctor knew that Kennedy was dead the moment they saw his “shredded brain tissue”. Their treatment of Kennedy was merely to cover the signs that there was more than one sniper.

How obvious does this conspiracy have to be before the American patriots will face the fact that America is incredibly corrupt? What if the doctors had asked Clinton Hill to scoop up the bits of brain in the car so they could stuff it back into Kennedy's head?

“Partial death” murders (or “late-term” murders)

Maybe the doctors were relieved when they saw the hole in Kennedy's head because maybe they didn't want to kill him.

I think it is more likely that the doctors were hoping he would come in alive so that they could kill him. This would explain the lack of enthusiasm among the doctors. Their behavior suggests boredom and disappointment. Kennedy was already dead; they had nothing to do except the boring work of removing bullets.

Is the Dallas hospital a CIA testing center?

Maybe Doctor Perry was one of the doctors who would send reports to the CIA:

Dear Secret Agent 454,

That last nigger (ie, #2434) was better than nigger #2433, but there were still a few clumps of beryllium in his lungs. You must find a better way to disperse the beryllium dust.

Sincerely,
Your fellow Anti-Commie, Evil Fighting, Freedom Fighter, Agent 451.
(This message will self destruct in five seconds.)

Doctor Perry was one of the doctors who “treated” Oswald after Jack Ruby shot him. As you know, Oswald soon died from that little bullet. Perry said Oswald was unconscious and blue from lack of oxygen when Oswald arrived at the hospital, and the doctor says it was because the bullet ripped open some major arteries, but maybe the doctors ripped open the arteries. And maybe on the ride over to the hospital the cops choked him until he turned blue.

Why do so many people believe Oswald acted alone?

Furthermore, the killing is a significant scandal in American history, but our schools do not teach us that it was a scandal. Why not? Does our government influence school textbooks, as we condemn the Russian government for doing?

The World Book Encyclopedia that I grew up with, published in 1965, lies about the killing. For just one example:

"Doctors worked desparately to save the President, but he died at 1pm..."

The article was written by Eric Sevareid, a news reporter. Since when do reporters qualify as authors of encyclopedia articles?

I checked the Internet for the latest version in case the lies have been corrected, but that section of the article is still the same. Sean Wilentz, a history teacher at Princeton University, updated the article but did not remove the lies. Obviously, Princeton's history teachers should not qualify as authors of encyclopedia articles, either.

I think the main reasons millions of people believe Oswald acted alone are:

1) Our government is so incompetent and the American people fight with each other so often that many of us find it difficult to believe that these nitwits can get together for such a killing.

2) America's “free press” has been corrupted by money, political pressure, and who knows what else. This results in school textbooks and news reports that are full of lies about the killing, and information is suppressed. Our media keeps us ignorant and misinformed.

Incidentally, Dan Rather (the TV news reporter) was a young reporter at the Kennedy killing. He was such a special person that he was supposedly the only news reporter allowed to view Zapruder's 8 millimeter film of the killing. But he lied in his news reports about what he saw in that film (or he made a big mistake). Nobody noticed the lie because the film was hidden from the public until 1975, and by then nobody cared.

Dan was given a promotion shortly after the killing, and soon he became rich and famous. Coincidence?

3) Admitting the killing was a conspiracy is admitting America is a corrupt, hypocritical nation. This is even more insulting than admitting that we evolved from apes.

I did not realize the Kennedy killing was a scam until a few years ago. I suppose I picked up the Oswald-Acted-Alone theory from encyclopedias, school textbooks, and other sources of FBI propaganda. Somehow the killing came up in a discussion I was having with my father, and my father mentioned that our corrupt government killed Kennedy. I was surprised to hear him say this, and I defended the FBI. I could not believe the FBI was that corrupt.

My dad continued to ramble on about how corrupt Lyndon Johnson was, that John Connally was lucky he was not in jail, and how Earl Warren was a gullible fool who was taken advantage of. He complained about other officials, as well, and somehow Jimmy Hoffa's name came up also.

I already knew that the Kennedy family was not one of America's best behaved families, but if I were to believe my father, practically everybody in the American government should be arrested for at least one serious crime; our supreme court consists of senile old people who are easily manipulated; our unions are corrupt; and most big businesses are corrupt. I knew America had problems, but I could not believe America was that crummy. I essentially told him: "Give me a break, Dad!"

Months later I discovered the Warren report on the Internet. As I read through it I realized that my father was correct that our government killed Kennedy. Actually, the killing is so obviously a scam that I felt like a fool for defending the FBI and telling my father he was incorrect. From now on I will consider the FBI guilty until proven innocent. I suppose my father's other accusations are correct, also.

I also just discovered these remarks:

The business of the journalist is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread.

We are the tools and the vassals of rich men behind the scenes.

They pull the strings, and we dance.

Those remarks are attributed to John Swinden in 1953, who was head of the New York Times. Did he really make those remarks? If so, was he serious?

Here is the entire quote. It is a short quote, so take a look:
http://www.uoregon.edu/~llynch/swinden.html

If the Kennedy killing was a scam, what else was?

1) The bomb was so powerful I wonder if two guys really did just a mix a few bags of fertilizer with diesel fuel.

2) Tim McVeigh was caught as he was driving away in a beat-up car that was missing its license plate. How could anybody be intelligent enough to create such a powerful bomb and then be so stupid as to drive away in a car that would attract the attention of the police? It appears as if somebody was trying to help the police notice McVeigh.

Was the FBI involved in that bombing? I suppose so. And perhaps Dan Rather assisted by suppressing information and spreading lies. And I suppose the FBI and Dan Rather were involved in the killing of Martin Luther King, as well as hundreds of other killings, bombings, rapes, bank robberies, drug sales, stock swindles, and car thefts.

Incidently, why was anthrax sent to Dan Rather? Anthrax victims may have been selected for a reason. For example, Tom Daschle may have been sent anthrax because he doesn't support Americas' "War On Arab Terrorists", but Dan Rather may have been sent anthrax because his buddies in CBS are tired of him.

Since it is possible that Dan's “friends” are trying to kill him, why doesn't he tell us everything he knows before he is killed? What does Dan have to lose by being honest? He might even enjoy honesty!

Maybe the explosion at Port Chicago was nuclear

Another investigation that suspects a nuclear bomb comes from the Napa Sentinel:
http://www.freeamerica.com/National/usa4.html

Were the killings by the Libyan embassy faked, also?

Years later came accusations that the killing was actually conducted by the CIA and/or SAS. These people claim that Yvonne was killed in order to stir up anger toward Libya so that the US and/or British military would have public support to attack Qaddafi.

I am tempted to believe these accusations without even bothering to investigate. After all, what are the chances that embassy personnel from any nation would fire a burst of 11 bullets at the police, and then wait inside for the entire police squad to surround the embassy?
One report is:http://www.deepblacklies.co.uk/terminal_velocity.htm

Maybe the DynCorp accusation is true

Did you hear any details about these accusations on your TV news? Perhaps DynCorp officials gave Dan Rather a few of the kids as presents in order to suppress these accusations.

And maybe this accusation is true, also

Some people accuse the FBI of knowing who did it, but they believe the FBI is afraid to arrest him because he knows something the FBI doesn't want to get out in public. Here is one accusation:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=134396

What information could terrify the FBI to such an extent?

Perhaps the anthrax guy has evidence that FBI officials have sex slaves in their basement. Or does he have evidence that explosives were put in the World Trade Center?

Another speculation is that Philip Zack, a Jewish microbiologist, mailed the Anthrax letters. Zack worked at an Army biological-warfare research facility until 1991 when he was fired for bad behavior towards an Egyptian-born scientist at the lab. Security cameras supposedly show him entering the lab on 23 Jan 1992. The next month the lab reported that they were missing some of their specimens of anthrax, Ebola, hantavirus, and other deadly organisms. Coincidence? Here are two articles about him:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/134393798_anthrax21.html http://aztlan.net/zack.htm

By the way, the author of the second article claims that Wall Street Journalist, Daniel Pearl, was an Israeli citizen, and that the people who killed Pearl insist he was a CIA/Mossad spy.
http://aztlan.net/pearlisrael.htm

Dead biologists may keep universities quiet

In regards to anthrax, I recently noticed that some biologists have been murdered and others died a strange death since Sept 11. Perhaps these deaths are keeping other scientists quiet.

Even if all the deaths are from accidents, natural causes, and "normal" murders, they are odd enough to make you wonder if perhaps some of the deaths are connected to the Anthrax case.
Here is one site that mentions these deaths: Dead Biologists

1) It is difficult to believe that a group of people could be so violent and destructive as to fill the buildings with explosives. This is far beyond “normal” crimes.

2) Such a scam would be so complex and expensive that only a government would have the resources to do it, but our government seems too incompetent to succeed at such a complex scam.

3) Our “free press” is corrupt. The news reporters are suppressing information and lying to us. A few Internet sites (eg, eionews, public-action, and Serendipity), have been discussing this scam for months, but those people are never interviewed on television or put on the cover of Time magazine. The end result is that most people have never seen the reasoning for the Explosives Theory.

4) Most people are too ignorant about explosives, concrete, the demolition of buildings, and steel beams to be able to carry on an intelligent discussion about how the buildings collapsed.

For an amusing example, when I pointed out to several people that building #7 collapsed into a pile of rubble, a few responded to me that they heard the fire created stress in the building. In other words, these people give human qualities to the building. Perhaps we should have had sent psychiatrists to the buildings instead of firemen.

5) The people who promote the explosives theory are individuals that nobody knows. We appear to be a group of oddballs, whereas the TV news reporters appear to be “official”.

6) Admitting the attack was a conspiracy is admitting America is an incredibly corrupt nation, possibly beyond anything the world has ever seen. I think this is the primary reason most Americans are refusing to accept the explosives theory.

Most Americans are in denial

Before you can accept the possibility that the World Trade Center attack was a scam, you must be willing to accept the possibility that America's government, universities, and media are corrupt beyond anything the world has ever seen. The flag-waving Patriots who insist that Americans are “The Greatest People In The World” will find it difficult to accept such a possibility.

How can we be the greatest people in the world while we are being taken advantage of to such an incredible extreme? How can we boast about our “Free Press” when it is covering up such an unbelievable scam and lying to us to an extent that not even Pravda has been accused of? How can we boast about our universities when some of them are contributing false theories to help cover up this scam, and other universities are ignoring the issue?

Our FBI and CIA look bad no matter what

If these agencies cannot notice crimes of this magnitude, what are the chances they will identify smaller crimes that involve smaller numbers of people?

Now that this World Trade Center attack has occurred, both the FBI and CIA could be making an attempt to figure out who did it, but are they? If so, they are keeping quiet about it.

It is possible that both the FBI and CIA are involved in the attack, and both may be involved in the cover-up, also. This would explain why both of them failed to stop the attack, and it explains why neither of them wants to investigate it.

As you can see, the reputation of the FBI and CIA will be hurt from this. The best they can do is appear incompetent. (Unless, of course, they actually solve the case soon.)

Can you admit that we ain't the greatest people?

The corruption in American business and government has always been beyond what we might call “normal” corruption. Slavery also reached extreme levels in America, and so has crime, alcoholism, and other drug problems. Cravings for money and fame in America are even beyond what we can call “normal”. How can we be the greatest people in the world when we have such a terrible history?

Most Americans want to feel important, but to admit that the World Trade Center is a scam is to admit Americans are violent morons who are easily taken advantage of, and we will destroy our economy in the process of getting revenge on Afghans who didn't attack us.

This scam belongs in the Guinness Book of World Records

Compare the American government to others that have been elected by the citizens. Has there ever been a democratically elected government that has been as corrupt as ours? And look through the news reports and school books of other nations that have democracies. Can you find any democratic nation that has a media as corrupt as ours? Even communist news reporters seem to have higher moral standards!

America is reverting to its original condition

World War Two changed America's situation dramatically by providing America with a lot of advanced European technology and lots of intelligent, well behaved Europeans. For a few decades after 1945 America was a wealthy, respected nation. But the war in Europe is over, and Europe has recovered. The flow of technology into America has stopped, and so has the flow of intelligent Europeans. America is reverting to what it originally was.

What should we do about this scam?

We also need to get rid of our current government and start over with a new nation. This gets into complex issue, however, so maybe in some other document.

Is there hope for America?

Furthermore, how can we create a better government when the American voters are so incompetent that in the previous election they selected Gore and Bush as the only two qualified candidates for president?

The American voters have to do more than admit their government is crummy; they have to admit that they are incompetent voters. Then they have to do a better job of voting. What are the chances of that happening?

My prediction is that the majority of people will refuse to believe that the attack was a scam, just as millions refuse to believe the Kennedy killing was a scam. That in turn means that they will do nothing to correct the problem. A problem cannot be solved unless you are willing to admit that it exists.

The Israelis, CIA, and/or FBI would have to announce on television that the attack was indeed a scam. But nobody is likely to admit it.

Rather than improve, I think the situation will get worse for America. For one reason, we are wasting a lot of our money and resources on the killings of Arabs, which is hurting our economy.

Second, many nations are becoming angry and disgusted with us, and that will certainly hurt us in the long run because they may not want to do as much business with us, and some may try to hurt us.

Third, some Americans may wonder why they bother being honest and/or why they bother trying to help America.

JFK and American Pride, Part 2

This has more details about the JFK conspiracy. Even if you already realize it was a conspiracy, you might want to skim through it. The testimony that puts most of the pieces of the puzzle together comes from Roger Craig, and Lt. Baker provides lot of laughs about police procedures.

An interesting site I recently found about JFK:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/assassins/jfk/index.htm

And this will make you wonder about Dan Rather and others:
http://www.skolnicksreport.com/liars.html

The Warren report
http://www.nara.gov/research/jfk/wcindex.html

This has much of the Warren report in a plain text format, and lots of other links:
http://www.jfk-assassination.de/index.html