The 9/11 Forum

[Obwon]

We are all too familiar with the arguments that go: "too many people involved, too much to be done, too much to cover up", etc., on and on. So this should stand as a dramatic reminder
of what is, in fact possible:
Attorneys for RFK convicted killer Sirhan push 'second gunman' argument
http://us.cnn.com/2012/03/04/justice/ca ... ?hpt=hp_t3

Briefly:

1. Where it is verified that Sirhan fired two shots freely, before being subdued. His 8 shot pistol
fired 6 shots while his hand was pinned to a steam table.

2. Neither of his two shots hit RFK.

3. He was firing from some distance in front of RFK, who was not hit from the front at all.

4. RFK was shot from behind, from a position close enough to leave powder burns on him.

So then, given the above, how does he come to be charged and convicted of assassination of RFK?

(please tell me I've missed some important point(s) about this, since I haven't read much more than the above linked article about it).

Okay, but assuming these details from that article are true, there is absolutely no case for those who would claim that 9-11 presents insurmountable obstacles, to shaping public opinion, by "perpetrators" working from within.

I eagerly await all replies.
Obwon

[OneWhiteEye]

Hi Obwon. I have to move this thread From Scientific and Technical forums to Other Issues because... it's not technical and is an "issue related to 9/11 that doesn't fall into the other categories."

This forum has, by and large, tended to stay away from topics which are heavily subjective in interpretation and which hinge primarily on differing views about the provenance of certain evidence. The reasons are several.

Most active and/or long term members, regardless of whatever personal convictions they may have about any or all of the events surrounding 9/11, recognize there are controversial topics and ones which are not going to be resolved easily if at all in a thread, anywhere. Some things fall into the "agree to disagree" pile, sometimes there just isn't much interest in pursuing it. The less specific it is, the less likely much of a discussion will occur.

When it does happen, it becomes a battle of wills ("My incredulity is stronger than yours") and isn't pretty or terribly useful. Yes, it is a given amongst many that governments are lying sacks of shit. How much further can that line go? Is everything fake? A little tiny bit fake? No fake, only coverup? No cover up AND no complicity, just plain ol' lying sacks of shit? Everyone has their own lines of personal incredulity, rarely do you find any two on the same page with everything.