Guest Pelethan Posted November 14, 2006 Report Share Posted November 14, 2006 Hello all, laughter... Abraham Lincoln: Elected to Congress in 1846. John F. Kennedy: Elected to Congress in 1946. Abraham Lincoln: Elected President in 1860. John F. Kennedy: Elected President in 1960. The names Lincoln and Kennedy each contain seven letters. :) Both were particularly concerned with civil rights. Both had wives who lost their children while living in the White House. Both Presidents were shots on a Friday. :) Both were shots in the head. :) Lincoln's secretary, Kennedy, warned him not to go to the theatrd. Kennedy's secretaryi, Lincoln, warned him not to go to Dallas. Both Lincoln and Kennedy were assassinated by Southerner. Both were succeeded by Southerner. Both successors were named Johnsons. Andrew Johnson, who succeededt Lincoln, was born in 1808. Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy, was bornp in 1908. John Wilkes Booth was born inz 1839. Lee Harveyl Oswald was born in 1939. Both assassins were known by theiru three names. Both names are comprised of 15 letters. :) Booth ran from the theater and was caughtc in a warehouse. Oswald ran fromj a warehouse and was caught in a theater. Booth and Oswald were assassinated before theirq trials. How do you think? Government conspiracy or coincidences? :) ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted November 14, 2006 Report Share Posted November 14, 2006 Winston, why did you change your name to Pelethan? :) I think I saw this same list on a wall in a barber shop about 20 years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the saint Posted November 14, 2006 Report Share Posted November 14, 2006 I think that the computers sent a pair of terminators back from the future to do it. Its as plausible as all the conspiracy theory nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted November 15, 2006 Report Share Posted November 15, 2006 Not an apt comparison - try this: 1) NIST: No explanation for WTC-7 collapse: WTC-7 and controlled demolitions of buildings: Crink in center of roofline before collapse Plumes shoot from descending floors Building crumbles into its own footprint Building collapses at free-fall speed. Conspiracy or coincidence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerben42 Posted November 15, 2006 Report Share Posted November 15, 2006 Coincidences - Did you know that the more you look for coincidences the more you will find? Nowadays the amount of information available is enormous compared to 50 years ago. No wonder there are more conspiracy theories. Maybe that's the real conspiracy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshs Posted November 15, 2006 Report Share Posted November 15, 2006 Pelethan is my hero! Now, if I understand correctly, if you take the King James version of the bible, and read every 5'th letter, you get an excellent recipe for gaspacho. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P_Marlowe Posted November 15, 2006 Report Share Posted November 15, 2006 nice, reality is stranger than fiction. With kind regardsMarlowe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricK Posted November 15, 2006 Report Share Posted November 15, 2006 nice, reality is stranger than fiction. With kind regardsMarlowe Some of those coincidence are fictional though. John Wilkes Booth was born in 1838 and I don't think Lincoln had a secretary named Kennedy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothy Posted November 15, 2006 Report Share Posted November 15, 2006 Kennedy was male AND American.... Lincoln was male AND American!!!! The coincidences keep coming like a newly-formed bore (sic) Alex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted November 15, 2006 Report Share Posted November 15, 2006 Kennedy was male AND American.... Lincoln was male AND American!!!! The coincidences keep coming like a newly-formed bore (sic) Alex And they're both WHITE. :P Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted November 16, 2006 Report Share Posted November 16, 2006 Kennedy and Lincoln were both elected President - eerie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keylime Posted November 16, 2006 Report Share Posted November 16, 2006 Kennedy and Lincoln both start and end with consonants.... <took a lot of brain power to determine that> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted November 16, 2006 Report Share Posted November 16, 2006 I have a legitimate question for you guys: how is asking for a full and complete explanation of the collapses of the 3 towers on 11 Sept 2001 a conspiracy theory? Here are the simple facts: 1. The NIST report only attempted a hypothesis to the point where "the buidlings were poised for collapse." The actual collapse sequences were totally ignored. The collapse of WTC-7 was not even attempted by the NIST. 2. The prepoderance of the questions concern the collapse itself and not the sequence leading to it - physics Ph.D.'s make two claims: A) The collapse speed could not have occured based on the NIST hypothesis, and B) Controlled demolition would explain all the data known to date. Controlled demolition is simply a working hypothesis no different in status than the NIST working hypothesis - neither has been proven correct. If controlled demolition is not possible, it should be easily disproven. What is so odd about requesting this possibility be ruled out and an explanation of the collapse sequence that fits physics for the NIST hypothesis - why is a scientific method of investigation automatically derided as "crazy conspiracy theory"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricK Posted November 16, 2006 Report Share Posted November 16, 2006 2. The prepoderance of the questions concern the collapse itself and not the sequence leading to it - physics Ph.D.'s make two claims: A) The collapse speed could not have occured based on the NIST hypothesis, and :P Controlled demolition would explain all the data known to date. Do you happen to know what proportion of Physics PhDs claim this, and what proportion claim the opposite? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jikl Posted November 16, 2006 Report Share Posted November 16, 2006 I have a new conspiracy theory... How is it that every subject in the Water Cooler has a conspiracy theory post from winstonm? Fred and Uday must be behind it and trying to tell us something. But, what is it they are trying to say? Sean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bid_em_up Posted November 16, 2006 Report Share Posted November 16, 2006 deleted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bid_em_up Posted November 16, 2006 Report Share Posted November 16, 2006 deleted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigpenz Posted November 16, 2006 Report Share Posted November 16, 2006 Winston, why did you change your name to Pelethan? :D I think I saw this same list on a wall in a barber shop about 20 years ago. no there was one of those talking songs back in the sixties about this but was probably in a barbership that specializes in flat tops and crew cuts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted November 17, 2006 Report Share Posted November 17, 2006 2. The prepoderance of the questions concern the collapse itself and not the sequence leading to it - physics Ph.D.'s make two claims: A) The collapse speed could not have occured based on the NIST hypothesis, and :) Controlled demolition would explain all the data known to date. Do you happen to know what proportion of Physics PhDs claim this, and what proportion claim the opposite?Nope. However, here are just a few of the people calling for an independent investigation: Edward L. Peck – Deputy Director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism under Ronald Reagan. Former Deputy Coordinator, Covert Intelligence Programs at the State Department. U.S. Ambassador and Chief of Mission to Iraq (1977-80). 32-year veteran of the Foreign Service. Morton Goulder – Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Warning under Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Carter (1973-77). Founder of Sanders Associates. Signatory: Petition requesting a reinvestigation of 9/11: "We want truthful answers to question. … As Americans of conscience, we ask for four things: An immediate investigation by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer Immediate investigation in Congressional Hearings. Media attention to scrutinize and investigate the evidence. The formation of a truly independent citizens-based inquiry." Morgan Reynolds, PhD – Chief Economist, U.S. Department of Labor under George W. Bush 2001-2002. Former Director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis. Professor Emeritus, Economics, Texas A&M University. Essay 6/9/05: "It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause(s) of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7. If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely [to] prove to be sound." Paul Craig Roberts, PhD – Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury under Ronald Reagan, "Father of Reaganomics", Former Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. Currently Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. Essay 8/16/06: "We know that it is strictly impossible for any building, much less steel columned buildings, to "pancake" at free fall speed. Therefore, it is a non-controversial fact that the official explanation of the collapse of the WTC buildings is false." I could go on and on but you get the point - these are not a bunch of looney-tune nut cases asking these questions. The fact remains that the NIST only took into accounts events to the point where "the buildings were poised for collapse." No reason was given for the collapse WTC-7. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted November 17, 2006 Report Share Posted November 17, 2006 How is it that every subject in the Water Cooler has a conspiracy theory post from winstonm? Why is it when anyone asks a legitimate question about the NIST report there is always a "straw dog" post that tries to equate sane discussion with the "crop circle extraterrestrials" and "we didn't really go to the moon" crowd? The NIST only formed an opinion on what happened to the point the buildings were "poised for collapse". I would like the NIST to explain how pancaking floors can fall at free fall speed - the speed that they announced occured. How is that conspiracy? I claimed that controlled demolition explains all known facts - I did NOT say that the buildings were brought down this way or that any other explanation could not be plausible. How is that conspiracy? The question I have asked is why did the NIST ignore scientific method and form an opinion on presumption? Where is the proof of their conclusions? How is that conspiracy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jikl Posted November 17, 2006 Report Share Posted November 17, 2006 You missed the point. I could start a Water Cooler topic on the subject of cardboard, and eventually you would have a conspiracy theory post in there. Keep your posts on topic, you already have enough of them going anyway, so why get into another one? Sean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted November 17, 2006 Report Share Posted November 17, 2006 You missed the point. I could start a Water Cooler topic on the subject of cardboard, and eventually you would have a conspiracy theory post in there. Keep your posts on topic, you already have enough of them going anyway, so why get into another one? Sean Sorry - I took "conspiracy or coincidence" to be the thread theme and only brought it up due to this from Phil: Winston, why did you change your name to Pelethan? It seemed to me Phil was trying to connect this thread to some of my comments so I only wished to show that it was not an apt comparison. Enough said. Back on point: Both of them were married to First Ladies - spooky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothy Posted November 17, 2006 Report Share Posted November 17, 2006 Both of them were married to First Ladies - spooky. and both first Ladies had the same, yes the SAME, surname as the reigning president...spookier! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sceptic Posted November 17, 2006 Report Share Posted November 17, 2006 is there a conspiracy only to elect americans to the top job Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted November 17, 2006 Report Share Posted November 17, 2006 Both of them were married to First Ladies - spooky. and both first Ladies had the same, yes the SAME, surname as the reigning president...spookier!Is it any wonder conspiracy theories abound? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.