Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Today's News > RiP / MSM Obituaries

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-09-2018, 07:58 PM   #41
hande
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,465
Likes: 680 (430 Posts)
Default

https://youtu.be/RdaD9I5QN6c

38 seconds shows aircraft positions

Note all facing in engines facing out - not possible to cause a rocket to launch from a plane 100ft in front of you as a result of a wet start flame behind you.

Therefore regardless of how good bad honest dishonest pro war etc Mccain is the Forrestal claims are a smear.



Also note F4 may in fact be in the video shot I said I couldn't see one - and I didn't ID it or is just out of Frame -

Edit - this video claims Mcains plane was hit official report says his wing mans - Mccain claims his was hit now possibly it clipped his as well or beating in mind the fire and explosion he is wrong and confused.

Last edited by hande; 06-09-2018 at 08:00 PM.
hande is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2018, 02:11 PM   #42
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,299
Likes: 1,499 (899 Posts)
Default

In April 2011, John McCain visits Libya. The country soon descends into chaos and various Islamic terrorist armed militias roam the streets.
Goldman Sachs loots the Libyan Sovereign wealth fund, reducing its value from over $1 billion to almost nothing in a few months.

John McCain visits Syria around May 2012. The violence soon escalates into all out civil war.
McCain makes a second visit to Syria in May 2013, meeting with known Islamic Extremists - he urges Obama to give them more arms.

John McCain visits Kiev, Ukraine and meets with the leader of the neo Nazi Svoboda party. Soon after, the violence escalates.
A fascist puppet government is installed in Kiev, led by an ex Central Banker. The new government doubles the price of gas in Ukraine followed by further price increases. Government pensions are cut by 50% to help pay off the banksters & Gazprom.
http://ian56.blogspot.com/2014/04/jo...y-poverty.html

__________________
Do NOT ever read my posts.
Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: https://forum.davidicke.com/showthre...post1062977278
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2018, 04:47 PM   #43
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,299
Likes: 1,499 (899 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hande View Post
https://youtu.be/RdaD9I5QN6c

38 seconds shows aircraft positions

Note all facing in engines facing out - not possible to cause a rocket to launch from a plane 100ft in front of you as a result of a wet start flame behind you.

Therefore regardless of how good bad honest dishonest pro war etc Mccain is the Forrestal claims are a smear.
The videos you posted don’t “prove” that John McCain wasn’t involved. Nowhere in the videos, it shows (the quality is low) what caused the fire.

I have found information that makes it more likely that John McCain was responsible for the fire of the USS Forrestal in 1967.
I admit that this isn’t “evidence” either...

This was already the 4th major incident in which John McCain was involved in.
Why would John McCain and/or the US army lie about what happened?

McCain wrote in 1999 that his plane was hit by a missile from another plane:
Quote:
I took my helmet back … and shut the plane’s canopy. In the next instant, a Zuni missile struck the belly fuel tank of my plane, tearing it open, igniting two hundred gallons of fuel that spilled onto the deck, and knocking two of my bombs to the deck.
According to the official Navy report of the disaster, the missile struck plane number 405, piloted by Lt. Cdr. Fred White, who was among those killed in the incident.
McCain’s plane was number 416, and was next to White’s.
So McCain’s version contradicts the “official” version.

On 5 august 1967, just a week after the fire, McCain thought he had caused the disaster:
Quote:
But when I saw LCDR Hope on the hangar deck, and I believe you can ask him about this, the first thing I said to him was, ‘Herb, I thought I had killed you.’ So I must have believed that it was from my aircraft at that time. Then I heard so many other stories as to what happened, I didn’t believe it was my aircraft. But at the time, I think, I believed that it was my aircraft or the one right next to it.
https://www.factcheck.org/2008/09/mc...plane-crashes/

Already on 31 July 1967, 2 days after the fire, Forrestal’s Captain John K. Beling stated:
Quote:
for some unknown reason, a plane parked near the carrier's island, midway up the 1,045 foot flight deck, experienced an 'extreme wet start’.
This malfunction, comparable to what happens when a cigarette lighter is ignited after having been filled to full, occurs about once a week on attack carriers, but almost never so severely as it did yesterday.

A thick tongue of flame lashed backward from the parked jet, igniting a missile on one of the dozen or so planes parked near the fantail, their engines turning over in readiness for a strike launching scheduled for 11 a.m. The rocket ‘shot across the deck,’ and by a quirk of fate smashed into a fuel tank under a plane on the port side.
Why would the navy change the story on what happened?
Possibly because it was the son of Admiral McCain’s plane that caused the disaster: https://www.opednews.com/articles/Jo...80904-278.html
__________________
Do NOT ever read my posts.
Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: https://forum.davidicke.com/showthre...post1062977278

Last edited by st jimmy; 09-09-2018 at 04:49 PM.
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2018, 06:57 PM   #44
hande
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,465
Likes: 680 (430 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
The videos you posted don’t “prove” that John McCain wasn’t involved. Nowhere in the videos, it shows (the quality is low) what caused the fire.
]
They Do

The Fact you dont believe this to be the case has proved conclusively that YOU want Mccain to be responsible and so refuse to actually consider the evidence.

Claim
Wet Start* by Mccain shot fire across the deck
This Ignited the missile causing it to fire from the F4 and hit his wingmans plane detonating bombs etc


What those videos show is the aircraft positions
Mccains, his copilot in fact ALL the parked aircraft have their back end facing the Ocean

So its physically impossible for Mccains exhaust flame to hit another aircraft

As its physically impossible for this to happen - its conclusive evidence The allegations against Mccain are false.

It is impossible to actually LOOK at the evidence and believe the wet start bullshit - because it does not stand up to even the most basic research


This story apart from slandering Mccain is an insult to the 137 men who died and a cruel joke for their families - who now have an old wound reopened and are being told they were lied to - that's not fair - every article traces back to the same Wayne Masden source - he is cited every time - theres no 2nd source - The Man doesn't like Mccain and made it up.

As for the navy changing story - yes Belling did espouse the theory it was a wet start
A) He did so before the investigation - so not a case of changing stories - just his initial thought was wrong
B) The position of the aircraft for the Wetstart was near the Island - so the opposite side of the ship to Mccain - I notice you aid near the fantail which is where Mccain was - I do hope a source you used changed that and you mistakenly copied it


**Which incidentally can damage the engine so nobody about to fly into battle would do.

Edit - I already raised myself the fact Mccain states his aircraft was hit but the official report says it was his wingman.
Under the circumstances its entirely possible - hes correct but it just clipped his and hit the other or B He is wrong and what he thought happened didn't - under the circumstances and dont forget theres been a big bang lots of shgaking and now his planes on fire - him being mistaken is understandable - it doesn't mean anyones lying

Last edited by hande; 09-09-2018 at 07:19 PM.
hande is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2018, 07:05 PM   #45
Dude111
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 20,404
Likes: 1,436 (935 Posts)
Default

Quite sad.........
Dude111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2018, 07:10 PM   #46
hande
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,465
Likes: 680 (430 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dude111 View Post
Quite sad.........
Aye its terrible

Oh wait - you mean its sad that someone doesn't let personal opinion interfere with how he sees the evidence and so even if he doesn't like someone he will point out false claims against them -

How suprising DIF doesn't like someone so will ignore all evidence that doesn't meet the agenda
hande is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2018, 09:50 AM   #47
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,299
Likes: 1,499 (899 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hande View Post
The Fact you dont believe this to be the case has proved conclusively that YOU want Mccain to be responsible and so refuse to actually consider the evidence.
I haven't claimed that there is enough "evidence" but simply pointed out that "your" videos don't "prove" that he wasn't...


Quote:
Originally Posted by hande View Post
Claim
Wet Start* by Mccain shot fire across the deck
This Ignited the missile causing it to fire from the F4 and hit his wingmans plane detonating bombs etc


What those videos show is the aircraft positions
Mccains, his copilot in fact ALL the parked aircraft have their back end facing the Ocean

So its physically impossible for Mccains exhaust flame to hit another aircraft
Here are some facts from my last post...

1) On 31 July 1967, 2 days after the fire, Forrestal’s Captain John K. Beling stated: that an "extreme wet start" caused the disaster.

2) If Beling was right than the Navy covered up the real cause of the disaster. Because the official report came up with another cause for the disaster.

3) John McCain has repeatedly changed his story on what happened during the disaster.

All 3 "facts" could be explained if Admiral's son McCain caused the fire and the US Navy covered this up.

Feel free to come up with another explanation for these 3 facts, but as long as you don't; please stop claiming that there is "evidence" that McCain wasn't involved...
__________________
Do NOT ever read my posts.
Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: https://forum.davidicke.com/showthre...post1062977278

Last edited by st jimmy; 10-09-2018 at 09:51 AM.
Likes: (1)
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2018, 10:20 AM   #48
hande
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,465
Likes: 680 (430 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
I haven't claimed that there is enough "evidence" but simply pointed out that "your" videos don't "prove" that he wasn't...


Here are some facts from my last post

1) On 31 July 1967, 2 days after the fire, Forrestal’s Captain John K. Beling stated: that an "extreme wet start" caused the disaster.
TRUE BUT FROM NEAR THE ISLAND NOT REAR OF SHIP

2) If Beling was right than the Navy covered up the real cause of the disaster. Because the official report came up with another cause for the disaster.
IF

3) John McCain has repeatedly changed his story on what happened during the disaster.

All 3 "facts" could be explained if Admiral's son McCain caused the fire and the US Navy covered this up.
The single fact and no it couldnt

Feel free to come up with another explanation for these 3 facts, but as long as you don't; please stop claiming that there is "evidence" that McCain wasn't involved...

Except the evidence is clear that the allegation Mccains wet start caused the fire is a blatent false hood.

1) LOOK at the pictures, LOOK at where the aircraft are positioned LOOK at the direction they face - Mccains aircraft cannot have caused the problem its engine is facing the Ocean - there is no other aircraft behind it.

2) Belling was proved wrong by the investigation

If Belling was right - then the Wet start was from an aircraft near the Island - which for the record is nowhere near Mccains aircraft - which is of course facing the wrong way. I think its a lot more likely Belings initial thought was wrong rather than the Navy decided to cover up an accident that Mccain couldn't have caused in order to protect him.

3) Mccainns story has remained fairly consistent - even where its at odds with the official report - that some bits have been misremembered , corrected over time is hardly a surprise.

So what we have is
1) A claim Mccain started a fire by doing a deliberate Wet start.

2) The risk of damage to an engine caused by a wetstart making such a deliberate activity unlikely

3) Mccains aircraft is parked in such a position that its impossible for his aircraft to emit a je of flame that touched another aircraft.

3 is an indisputable fact - you can argue there was a cover up - you can point out inconsistencies but there is one piece of evidence in black an white from live recordings that's indisputable - Mccains aircraft cannot cause the fire its facing the wrong way

Therefore Mccain cannot have caused the fire by deliberately wet starting - (or by accidently launching a missile as other have claimed)

I can only conclude you are refusing to actually look at the evidence because YOU WANT him to be guilty and therefore facts dont matter Mccain bad = must be guilty.

I cannot see how anyone who looks at the footage can believe this bullshit story.

Last edited by hande; 10-09-2018 at 10:22 AM.
hande is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2018, 02:34 PM   #49
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,299
Likes: 1,499 (899 Posts)
Default

Here’s the official story on what happened:
Quote:
On 29 July 1967, a fire broke out on board the aircraft carrier USS Forrestal. An electrical anomaly caused a Zuni rocket on a McDonnell Douglas F-4B Phantom to fire, striking an external fuel tank of a A-4 Skyhawk. The flammable jet fuel spilled across the flight deck, ignited, and triggered a chain-reaction of explosions that killed 134 sailors and injured 161.
I think that the supposed “electrical anomaly” is highly improbable…


Quote:
Originally Posted by hande View Post
3) Mccainns story has remained fairly consistent - even where its at odds with the official report - that some bits have been misremembered , corrected over time is hardly a surprise.
That's a lie: McCain has repeatedly changed his story, amongst others whether it was his plane or the plane next to him that was hit by the missile.
He has not only contradicted the official report but also his own statements.
Here’s McCain explaining in 1967. To me he looks like he’s telling a prepared story (lying) - look at his eyes.
The second witness, starting at 1:06, tells about the explosion. He doesn’t tell that it was preceded by any missile being fired or presents any other cause.


Quote:
Originally Posted by hande View Post
2) Belling was proved wrong by the investigation
Please give us the “evidence” that the commander of the ship was wrong that a “wet start” caused the disaster.

The video below is reportedly of one of the other pilots on the USS Forrestal, who tells that McCain was nicknamed Johnny “Wet start” and that he caused it and it was covered up because his daddy and grandfather were 4 star generals.
He tells that the flame caused a Zunni rocket on the wing of the plane parked “behind him” to ignite, which caused the whole disaster.
If I understand your arguments correctly there was no plane “behind him”. If this man is wrong about this important detail, this doesn't mean that McCain didn't cause it...
__________________
Do NOT ever read my posts.
Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: https://forum.davidicke.com/showthre...post1062977278

Last edited by st jimmy; 10-09-2018 at 02:35 PM.
Likes: (1)
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2018, 04:03 PM   #50
hande
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,465
Likes: 680 (430 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
Here’s the official story on what happened:
I think that the supposed “electrical anomaly” is highly improbable…
That's fine everyone who worked with both finds it likely - It was a known fault on the Phantom (all of them)
How unsurprising someone who knows nothing about aviation feels he knows more than the investigators and mechanics involved

Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post

That's a lie: McCain has repeatedly changed his story, amongst others whether it was his plane or the plane next to him that was hit by the missile.
He has not only contradicted the official report but also his own statements.
Here’s McCain explaining in 1967. To me he looks like he’s telling a prepared story (lying) - look at his eyes.
No His story has been pretty consistent - and i was the 1st person on this thread to point out his version differs slightly than the official story - That's not a big surprise - witnesses often differ in what they think they saw.

Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
The second witness, starting at 1:06, tells about the explosion. He doesn’t tell that it was preceded by any missile being fired or presents any other cause.
Well perhaps he is only reciting what he saw or heard my neighbour wont talk about a runaway winch when he tells you about the guy who lived in the house before me losing his fingers in a winch - that's because he only saw the trapped neighbour after his mate had hammered on the door . So man doesn't have full story = conspiracy because well beacsue YOU want it to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
Please give us the “evidence” that the commander of the ship was wrong that a “wet start” caused the disaster.
Well the report said that wasn't the cause
However I did also concede that if he was correct and it was a wet start and that was covered up - then it wasn't because Mccain did it - because Mccains aircraft was not in a position to do so - his aircraft was at the rear of the ship - Belling said he thought it was a wet start from near the Island (that's in the middle).

Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
The video below is reportedly of one of the other pilots on the USS Forrestal, who tells that McCain was nicknamed Johnny “Wet start” and that he caused it and it was covered up because his daddy and grandfather were 4 star generals.
The video is Bullshit its either a complete fabrication or the supposed pilot is lying
His daddy was an admiral not a General
Nobody deliberately wet starts - it can damage the engine - seriously THINK about this for a moment - You are about to fly into battle the only thing between you and death capture is your engine would you risk damaging it for a prank.

Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
He tells that the flame caused a Zunni rocket on the wing of the plane parked “behind him” to ignite, which caused the whole disaster.

If I understand your arguments correctly there was no plane “behind him”. If this man is wrong about this important detail
What do you mean IF the man was incorrect -

Have you actually bothered to look at the videos and images of the Forrestal or have you been more interested in simply finding more links to accusations

Theres no IF about it - The position of the aircraft is clearly shown.
Therefore from the actual evidence filmed on the day - not suddenly discovered 50 yrs later when he runs for presidency - its clear that there's no way Mccains aircraft can emit a jet of flame or fire a missile causing the rocket to fire at his wingman.

Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
If this man is wrong about this important detail, this doesn't mean that McCain didn't cause it...
Brilliant
Accusation - Mccain deliberately wet started his aircraft and the fire caused a rocket to fire from the aircraft behind him and it was covered up

Counter argument Mccains aircraft couldn't do this from where it was

Response Well even though he couldn't have done what hes accused of - it still might be his fault

In other words
Yeah well I dont like him so hes still guilty I will think of another way its all his fault.
I get it you need the conspiracy because it proves your awake and not a sheep following the media or the official line - unfortunately your proving to the world you are an alt media sheep instead.

This is one of those cases the evidence speaks for itself there is no need to even read the official story to know he couldn't have done the whole wet start thing.
If theres a cover up - and you may be right - it was either to protect someone else or to hide a huge mistake / problem with the ship - Mccain is simply in the wrong place to be responsible

I mean You would think if there was any evidence it was his fault that people would have used this rather than a fictitious tale in WMR

Editv like normal I cant watch the videos - but your summation of whats said proves they are lying - back to my point about where the plane was

Last edited by hande; 10-09-2018 at 04:07 PM.
hande is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2018, 04:07 PM   #51
hande
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,465
Likes: 680 (430 Posts)
Default

Ive got it Mccain was actually messing in the Phantom cockpit and accidently fired the Zuni - he then ran across the deck so it looked like he jumped from his own aircraft.

There you go a more plausible story for a cover up feel free to insist its what really happened - it will be harder to disprove because unlike the original accusation its physically possible
hande is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2018, 12:02 PM   #52
size_of_light
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 18,627
Likes: 595 (370 Posts)
Default

McCain was a real shithead.

Tramp the earth down hard.
size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2018, 12:37 PM   #53
hande
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,465
Likes: 680 (430 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by size_of_light View Post
McCain was a real shithead.

Tramp the earth down hard.
I wont argue with that - although I think he would be a better president than trump**

Im just of the opinion a man should be condemned for what he does - not for fables invented to make him look worse


**But then so would yeast
hande is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2018, 01:16 PM   #54
size_of_light
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 18,627
Likes: 595 (370 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hande View Post
I wont argue with that - although I think he would be a better president than trump**

Im just of the opinion a man should be condemned for what he does - not for fables invented to make him look worse


**But then so would yeast
Trump is the greatest President in American history.

John McCain was a small, irrelevant tumor.

Last edited by size_of_light; 11-09-2018 at 01:18 PM.
size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2018, 03:11 PM   #55
hande
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,465
Likes: 680 (430 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by size_of_light View Post
Trump is the greatest President in American history.

John McCain was a small, irrelevant tumor.
The man may be a tad more effective if somebody takes his I phone off him and or locks his twitter account

As it is his Twitter comments are cringe worthy and serve to undermine him.

That said I think he was a better choice than H Clinton.
hande is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-09-2018, 05:11 PM   #56
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,299
Likes: 1,499 (899 Posts)
Default

John McCain wasn’t just dumb; he was stooopid! We’re talking a “special” kind of dumb, as in retarded.
After McCain went to an elite boarding school, he went to the Naval Academy at Annapolis where he finished 894 out of 899 students (the bottom 0.5% of his class).

With his daddy and grandfather 4 star admirals in the Navy, McCain didn’t have to worry about getting ahead.
Possibly John McCain was among the top 0.5% of corruption though: http://mostcorrupt.com/5thfrombottom.htm

In the following video, in May 2007, John McCain admits that he graduated 5th from the bottom of my class.
In another short section, he tells that he can barely get the news clips that have my name on them (better watch it quick before it’s gone!).


See school buddy of Robert Mueller, Bonesman John Kerry (far left) and McCain (centre-right) with (other) psychopaths of the Saudi Royal Family after meeting King Salman, Riyadh, January 2015.
__________________
Do NOT ever read my posts.
Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: https://forum.davidicke.com/showthre...post1062977278

Last edited by st jimmy; 17-09-2018 at 05:11 PM.
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-09-2018, 09:38 PM   #57
spock
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vulcan
Posts: 2,596
Likes: 381 (270 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
Here’s the official story on what happened:
I think that the supposed “electrical anomaly” is highly improbable…


That's a lie: McCain has repeatedly changed his story, amongst others whether it was his plane or the plane next to him that was hit by the missile.
He has not only contradicted the official report but also his own statements.
Here’s McCain explaining in 1967. To me he looks like he’s telling a prepared story (lying) - look at his eyes.
The second witness, starting at 1:06, tells about the explosion. He doesn’t tell that it was preceded by any missile being fired or presents any other cause.


Please give us the “evidence” that the commander of the ship was wrong that a “wet start” caused the disaster.

The video below is reportedly of one of the other pilots on the USS Forrestal, who tells that McCain was nicknamed Johnny “Wet start” and that he caused it and it was covered up because his daddy and grandfather were 4 star generals.
He tells that the flame caused a Zunni rocket on the wing of the plane parked “behind him” to ignite, which caused the whole disaster.
If I understand your arguments correctly there was no plane “behind him”. If this man is wrong about this important detail, this doesn't mean that McCain didn't cause it...


Talk about Psycho.
His account. Days after. No emotion at all.

Whereas the dudes who lived who saw that fire.
And tried to put it out.
Still cry as they retell the tale.


There was no guilt from McCain.
None.
He didn't give a fuck.
Even if it was an accident.
You would expect for him have shown some remorse for the loss of all those men.
Some pain.
Nope.
Was like he'd spilled a tin of beans and let the maid clear it up.
He didn't give a single fuck.

His dad was head of the South Pacific fleet.
So the official story was "electrical fault"
Not "Knobhead McCain over here. Being a dangerous ****.
As was the overall conclusion from eye witnesses.
Or Johnny would have been court marshalled.
And even given life in prison for being such a dangerous cock end.

Bad enough having an enemy that you are fighting.
McCain was one of the biggest enemies of the US of the 20th century.
He has to be top 5.
Given his kill rate and willingness to help the enemy.
And work tirelessly against veterans till he died.


What a fucker.

Last edited by spock; 18-09-2018 at 09:40 PM.
spock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-09-2018, 09:43 PM   #58
spock
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vulcan
Posts: 2,596
Likes: 381 (270 Posts)
Default

Some people say he was actually shot for treason.
I'd love that to be true.
But I don't even know if he is really dead.
His funeral was a fuckin circus.


Who knows.
All I know is that John MaCain was a shit example of a human being.
spock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-09-2018, 05:11 AM   #59
hande
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,465
Likes: 680 (430 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spock View Post
His dad was head of the South Pacific fleet.
So the official story was "electrical fault"
Not "Knobhead McCain over here. Being a dangerous ****.
As was the overall conclusion from eye witnesses.
.
Not one eyewitness has said that

instead we have 1 individual with a grudge claiming he knows people who say this

Whatever the cause - McCain's aircraft isn't responsible - despite this allegation - physical location prevents it.

As for talking - thay all talked again its individuals claiming people said - not any one who was there.

Lets condemn a man for what he does / did not what some one with an agenda claims
hande is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2018, 04:09 PM   #60
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,299
Likes: 1,499 (899 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hande View Post
Lets condemn a man for what he does / did not what some one with an agenda claims
Why don't you find some interesting info on Johnny "wet start" McCain instead of "condemning" other forum members for a change?!?

On 11 September 1973, Propaganda Due and the CIA helped General Pinochet to overthrow the democratically elected government of President Salvador Allende by a bloody coup: https://forum.davidicke.com/showpost...6&postcount=15

In December 1985, Congressman John McCain travelled to Chile for a friendly meeting with Chile’s military dictator, General Augusto Pinochet, followed by a meeting with Admiral Jose Toribio Merino.
McCain didn’t criticise the dictatorship, even though Pinochet has been accused of killing more than 3,000 civilians and jailing tens of thousands for political reasons. McCain described the meeting with Pinochet “as friendly and at times warm”.

The “strictly private” trip was arranged by Chile’s ambassador to the US, Hernan Felipe Errazuriz, who described McCain as “one of the conservative congressmen who is closest to our embassy”.
McCain’s presence in Chile was kept quiet. John and his wife Cindy arrived 27 December and first spent several days as the guest of prominent Pinochet backer Marco Cariola, before meeting Pinochet on 30 December.

Pinochet remained in power until 1990 and in 2006 he was charged with 36 counts of kidnapping, 23 counts of torture and one count of murder. He was spared a trial for “health reasons” and died at 91 in December 2006: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-..._b_137422.html
(archived here: http://archive.is/6hfbo)
__________________
Do NOT ever read my posts.
Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: https://forum.davidicke.com/showthre...post1062977278

Last edited by st jimmy; 06-10-2018 at 04:16 PM.
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:51 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.