The event that "changed everything" [Archive]

Rapier

08-25-2008, 07:17 PM

This post from another forum very nicely unweaves the web.

The event that "changed everything", that kicked off a series of wars and more likely to come, likely starting the second cold war which could lead to an all-out nuclear war, brought to us by the biggest threat to world peace, freedom, and stability since the Nazi's, and some people want to sweep it under the rug? They want to accept the shady story given by these lying, ultra-secretive fascists, who have been caught numerous times lying about it and covering up important information, even when they tried to stop any investigations, and had foreknowledge of the Anthrax attacks seemingly designed to shut up the opposition party and the media?

You people have a lot of FAITH, why anyone would go to bat for these vile fascists who had everything to gain, with their story that makes zero sense while huge leads to this day go un-checked and un-investigated should have everybody asking questions. Not insulting and shouting down those that do.

If it was OBL who did it then why did Bush let him get away in Tora Bora so he could invade Iraq and out the people working to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction? Bush let the mass murderer of nearly 3000 Americans get away, he even said he no longer cares about him! Why didn't these wonderful Americans in the BA do anything to prevent the 9-11 attacks? They had ample warning yet did nothing. Was it because it fulfilled their need for a "new Pearl Harbor" as spelled out in their very own Bible? These nuts have killed lots and lots of people, unleashed hell on millions, and may very well get us all killed in the end, and you want to give them a free pass? Just trust them? Trust this government that never tells the truth about anything? Even though they actually planned on doing something very similar in the past? Even though it was carried out with military like precision and the "hijackers" were a bunch of twits? If elements within our "national security" military industrial complex thought they could get away with it in the 60's with the technology back then, why couldn't they with today's highly advanced tech? Remotely pilot 4 jets into pre-planned targets, plant a bunch of false stories in the pliant, corporate, talking head media machine, use simple tech to call family members or some high paid patsy terrorists, run a sham investigation and then use executive priviledge to cover up any info that may shed light on anything that might raise questions, and there you have it. Anybody that does discover they have morals or has information will instantly be attacked, smeared, accused of being anti-American, crazy, and "conspiracy theorist", etc. So even if people that have knowledge of it being an inside job speak out, it doesn't matter because everyone including our fake media will just call them crazy. The worse the crime the easier it is to get away with, the Muslims hate our guts so it will be no problem blaming it on them, and surely our government would never do anything so sinister.

Just remember, many governments in the past have done much worse things, over much less, that were far less powerful than ours.

They had the means, the motive, and the cover story, and a nation of drooling yuppie soccer moms to accept everything they are told.

These people kill for profit, whether it's when they ran Monsanto or Halliburton, 9-11 was their pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, and I want to flucking know whether they either knew about the attacks in advance and committed treason in letting them take place, or were complicit, way too much is riding on this to let it slide, you know, like everything?

Kuch

08-26-2008, 09:05 AM

Another example of someone with too much time on their hands and too much imagination to live in the real world. Pity...

David-M

08-26-2008, 08:35 PM

It seems to me that the same people who obsess on one issue, are the same people that end up on a roof top with a sniper rifle.

Rapier

08-27-2008, 04:21 PM

The "it fell by itself without some sort of controlled demolition" lie would be fine and dandy if only one tower collapsed.

Except that two towers collapsed in the same manner even though different locations of the building were hit/attacked with different amounts of force.

And a third skyscraper collapsed in the same manner as the first two due to another different amount of force without being hit/attacked by an airliner.

That's all the facts anyone in their right mind has to know to understand that the three buildings didn't collapse symmetrically without the assistance of controlled demolitions of some kind.

When two people meet again in a mall after 30 years since HS it can be a coincidence. If three persons meet in a mall at the same time after not seeing each other for the thirty years since HS there was a plan.

David-M

08-27-2008, 08:19 PM

Ok...I will play this kooky conspiracy game some more...

It was not the force of the airplanes that took down the buildings. It was the heat from the burning fuel that weakened steel structural members that took down both buildings.

Your turn to tell me how George Bush used alien technology to burn it down with invisible laser beams and only people wearing tinfoil hats that day that reflected the beams were able to see what actually happened. Can I ask, did you find burn marks on your hat?

Rapier

08-29-2008, 01:14 AM

bob

08-29-2008, 03:32 AM

I finally get D Riselys argument against anti-psychotic drugs. If you give this guy a drug that gives his mind a chance to function better it will only create a more dangerous person.:eek:

Jester

08-29-2008, 10:39 AM

Rapier

08-30-2008, 07:31 AM

I used to follow all the "loose change" conspiracy theries on 9 11. It is all bull. What happened is tragic and wrong but I really do not believe in my heart of hearts that our government could pull this off and then keep it such a secret. People talk. We couldn't keep a secret on water boarding what makes you think the govt could keep a secret of the magnitued you are speaking of? Someone would have leaked a "controlled demolition" situation long ago. There is no way to buy off the number of people that woud be involved in a conspiracy like this.

The implementation of Government policy generally results in collateral damage to its citizens and adversaries, real or perceived.

It seems to me that Bush was not originally in the loop for the 9/11 Pearl Harbor but a few of his point men inherited from his father were. Late in the planning he was probably informed along with a real threat of a catastrophic attack against the American public in abeyance. Others, apart from the neoconservative instigators and their well paid mercenaries, came aboard subject to the Pandoric consequences.

After 9/11 the conspirators played Post Office and sealed the kiss of compliance.

Jester

08-30-2008, 02:55 PM

Rapier

08-31-2008, 12:26 AM

You still did not address the fact that people talk. We found out that there was some knowledge before hand that was not acted on because people talk. The same thing happened with Pearl Harbor. The fact remains that our government did not perpetrate this atrocity. If it had information would have leaked and it have blown up in faces. It would have taken a huge amount of time and planning for the government to have done this and there is always a low guy on the totem pole that feels jilted and manages to talk. This didn't happen.

Do you know the names of the people who ponied up the funds to support the PNAC and its sister think tanks?
It's a well kept secret.

Project for the New American Century
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was an American neoconservative think tank based in Washington, D.C., co-founded in early 1997 as "a non-profit educational organization" by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. The PNAC's stated goal is "to promote American global leadership."[1] Fundamental to the PNAC are the views that "American leadership is both good for America and good for the world" and support for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity."[2] It has exerted strong influence on high-level U.S. government officials in the administration of U.S President George W. Bush and strongly affected the George Bush administration's development of military and foreign policies, especially involving national security and the Iraq War.[3][4]

Operation Northwoods
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Origins and public release

The main proposal was presented in a document entitled "Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba (TS)," a collection of draft memoranda written by the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) representative to the Caribbean Survey Group.[1] (The parenthetical "TS" in the title of the document is an initialism for "Top Secret.") The document was presented by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13 as a preliminary submission for planning purposes. The Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended that both the covert and overt aspects of any such operation be assigned to them.

The previously secret document was originally made public on November 18, 1997, by the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board,[2] a U.S. federal agency overseeing the release of government records related to John F. Kennedy's assassination.[3][4][5][6][7] A total 1521 pages of once-secret military records covering 1962 to 1964 were concomitantly declassified by said Review Board.

Jester

09-18-2008, 04:37 PM

All that information was a lot of nothing. You still have yet to present evidence that a conspiracy of this magnitued could be pulled of without anyone talking.

Maybe you should take some debate classes.

Kuch

09-19-2008, 02:10 PM

Jester - Leave the troll to his tin foil hats.

He doesn't know any better, which is why he has to let other websites tell him what to think. His mother's basement is a dark place to live, so this is probably his only enjoyment.

Kasturi

09-19-2008, 02:14 PM

Well if it was posted in Wikipedia it must be true.

I also do not believe that no one would have talked about this if it was a planned demo.

Jester - I dont think a debate class would do any good

Rapier

09-23-2008, 02:37 PM

David-M

09-23-2008, 06:54 PM

I told you before about mentioning my Mother in your posts.

Why is this? Was she abducted by aliens or a victim of the vast right wing conspiracy?

Kuch

09-24-2008, 09:23 AM

Why is this? Was she abducted by aliens or a victim of the vast right wing conspiracy?
It's because she still owes me money.

Jester

09-24-2008, 10:22 AM

I told you before about mentioning my Mother in your posts.

Gotta have thick skin if you are going to troll these boards.

Kuch when she pays you I need my cut or I'll have to give you some wall to wall counseling. :p

mbossman2

09-24-2008, 12:10 PM

moderators note: it is perfectly fine to attack the person who is actually posting on this, it is not acceptable to attack or impugn someone who is not here to defend him or herself. stay on topic please.

bob

09-25-2008, 05:17 AM

All that was said was he lived under his moms house - not an attack on his mom which we all are sure loves him.

David-M

09-25-2008, 10:01 AM

Did not see any attacks on his mom either.

Kuch

09-25-2008, 10:21 AM

The attacks on his mom happened at the same time the government operatives brought down the WTC towers - meaning they didn't occur.

bob

09-26-2008, 08:07 AM

Dont say that - could imply that it puts her at the scene of the crime. :D

Best wishes to everyones mothers - honestly.

Rapier

10-08-2008, 10:40 AM

WTF

You fuckin assholes.

Rapier

10-08-2008, 10:42 AM

It's because she still owes me money.

Only pussies talk about someones mother behind the internet.

Kuch

10-08-2008, 11:10 AM

Only pussies talk about someones mother behind the internet.

Ha ha...you're so funny.

Jester

10-10-2008, 01:24 PM

Only pussies talk about someones mother behind the internet.

The same could be said about veterans as mothers jerkwad.

Rapier

10-14-2008, 11:31 AM

The same could be said about veterans as mothers jerkwad.

I'm a vet. 4 years. How about you?

Gintaras

10-20-2008, 08:01 PM

Why to listen to someone WHO DID IT? to take into account what's going on in TODAY's in the World and that he had nothing to lie about- everything was over for him:

Quote by Hermann Goering:

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY." --Goering at the Nuremberg Trials

Jester

10-21-2008, 02:41 PM

I'm a vet. 4 years. How about you?

6 years with 1 tour in Iraq and 1 tour in Afghanistan with the scars to prove it.

I also really do not believe you ever served in any capacity except maybe JROTC. No vet would trash talk other vets. If you did I would like to see a copy of your DD-214. You can of course blur out the SSN

bob

10-22-2008, 12:21 AM

He served - in Russia

Jester

10-22-2008, 10:52 AM

USSR if he is as old has he claims to be. :D

WJWheels

10-23-2008, 06:05 PM

He served - in Russia
The only Russian Gingivitis ever served was Borsch & Beefstroganoff at Restaurant Rossiya in Brooklyn. :D

mbossman2

10-24-2008, 07:23 AM

IIRC he's Lithuanian

David-M

10-24-2008, 03:02 PM

Every forum has its resident lunatic. Bob, your fired!

Jester

10-24-2008, 03:23 PM

This really is my favorite part of the forum. I go here when i need a laugh or when i feel like arguing about absolutley nothing. I am still waiting for his DD-214. Either that or his 1D-10T ;)

jedi_knight01

10-29-2008, 05:54 PM

I would like to know what he puts in his s kool-aid every morning.. I be he is related to kathasung in some form or fashion!

Gintaras

11-06-2008, 11:45 PM

Jester

11-07-2008, 10:08 AM

Should I be scared that he keeps complimenting me? :confused:

David-M

11-07-2008, 11:31 AM

Just keep your doors locked and your shotgun loaded.

Gintaras

11-07-2008, 09:25 PM

Just keep your doors locked and your shotgun loaded.

At the Wallmart you can buy anti-nuclear missile radar. just go there and ask for one. It costs, I think $49 or around $50 plus tax. Very helpful to have one at home......

Jester

11-13-2008, 02:18 PM

they sell tin foil for 1.29 as well. You should stock up at "the wallmart"

David-M

11-13-2008, 08:15 PM

At the Wallmart you can buy anti-nuclear missile radar. just go there and ask for one. It costs, I think $49 or around $50 plus tax. Very helpful to have one at home......

Oh really?...so what is it supposed to do other than detecting a missile? :rolleyes:

Jester

11-14-2008, 07:44 AM

al-queda is training the rats in the floor boards of his hostel to carry nuclear material to make a dirty bomb.

Gintaras

11-18-2008, 10:22 PM

Jesus Christ.....:(

Problem is...I'm an atheist....:o

bob

12-03-2008, 04:03 AM

I never served and if I did I would consider myself stupid.:eek:
I was told to do laps in gym 9th grade and sad go fuck yourself
As well never said the pledge - mouthed the words.

I think diffferent. As soon as bin Ladin was located he should have been nuked.
Iraq was a Bush vrs Sadam bullshit

Watch "Charlie Wilsons war" and understand we took on Afganistan and Iraq at the same time and now we are bankrupt and no better off.

We have a chance to fix the damage but the US will not ever be controlled by the rightwing again.
Sad - hope Obama uses his right hand as well as the left one but we are in for about 7 years of shit when it comes to the economy

Kuch

12-03-2008, 10:55 AM

I never served and if I did I would consider myself stupid.:eek:

You'd never handle it. Ever. But don't worry; folks with a lot more character do the job quite well.

bob

12-04-2008, 12:21 AM

mbossman2

12-04-2008, 07:52 AM

Half the people in the US have IQ's under 100. Fast food, construction and military is where they get employed.
Here is a theory. The southerners lost out on 100 years of evelution (sic) due to inbreding (sic) and slavery making life easy. :D

you are being a world class jerk.

folks who can't spell (even/especially with the advent of spell checkers) shouldn't be throwing stones about the perceived intelligence level of others.

Fast Food, construction, military employment are all honorable trades, far more honorable than sitting on your ass in front of computer swilling your intoxicant of choice and spewing out vitriolic bullshit.

David-M

12-04-2008, 08:20 AM

you are being a world class jerk.

folks who can't spell (even/especially with the advent of spell checkers) shouldn't be throwing stones about the perceived intelligence level of others.

Fast Food, construction, military employment are all honorable trades, far more honorable than sitting on your ass in front of computer swilling your intoxicant of choice and spewing out vitriolic bullshit.

ROFLMAO :D

Kuch

12-04-2008, 11:38 AM

Half the people in the US have IQ's under 100. Fast food, construction and military is where they get employed.
Here is a theory. The southerners lost out on 100 years of evelution due to inbreding and slavery making life easy. :D
So now you're from the south? It would explain a lot. I'm a New Yorker. Don't worry though; folks like Jester and I will continue to guarantee your right to act as you do.

bob

12-05-2008, 05:14 AM

mbossman2

12-05-2008, 07:20 AM

I doubt you can find a link to IQ and the ability to spell. Being able to correctly spell stupidity, brainless, dazed, deficient, dense, dim, doltish, dopey, dull, dumb, dummy, foolish, futile, gullible, half-baked, half-witted, idiotic, ill-advised, imbecilic, inane, indiscreet, insensate, irrelevant, laughable, loser, ludicrous, meaningless, mindless, moronic, naive, nonsensical, obtuse, out to lunch, pointless, puerile, rash, senseless, shortsighted, simple, simpleminded, slow, sluggish, stolid, stupefied, thick, thick-headed, trivial, unintelligent, unthinking, witless or even puerile means nothing.

BTW, I was trying to be nice; I left out criminals, waitresses and Rush Limbo dido heads.

the inability to spell indicates sloppiness on your part and if you are sloppy with your spelling that makes folks question what else are you sloppy about?

it calls into you question your:

thinking
conclusions
creditibility

After all, these 3 are the only things that you have going for yourself here.

mbossman2

12-05-2008, 08:19 AM

I doubt you can find a link to IQ and the ability to spell. Being able to correctly spell stupidity, brainless, dazed, deficient, dense, dim, doltish, dopey, dull, dumb, dummy, foolish, futile, gullible, half-baked, half-witted, idiotic, ill-advised, imbecilic, inane, indiscreet, insensate, irrelevant, laughable, loser, ludicrous, meaningless, mindless, moronic, naive, nonsensical, obtuse, out to lunch, pointless, puerile, rash, senseless, shortsighted, simple, simpleminded, slow, sluggish, stolid, stupefied, thick, thick-headed, trivial, unintelligent, unthinking, witless or even puerile means nothing.

wow, bob found a synonym dictionary....I am impressed.

As to Rush Limbaugh....read back on my posts on Limbaugh: I found him pompous and overbearing and the best thing I can say about him is that he is the prime modern, American example of the theater of the absurd.

Meaningless plots, repetitive or nonsensical dialog and dramatic non-sequiturs are often used (this is almost a perfect description of a Limbaugh monologue)

bob

12-06-2008, 01:28 AM

the inability to spell indicates sloppiness on your part and if you are sloppy with your spelling that makes folks question what else are you sloppy about?

it calls into you question your:

thinking
conclusions
creditibility

After all, these 3 are the only things that you have going for yourself here.

I know you are not stupid Bossman – there is probably a good reason for you to lean to the right and while not true, think bad spelling is a sign of stupidity. For those that miss the content because of misspelling they probably just do not agree or are just nitpicking or are themselves impaired. Ironically one of the A+’s (Class grade) I received at the state university level was in technical writing and also in statistics.
If I thought anyone here had the willingness to change their mind on issues I would put a little bit more effort in my posts.

David-M

12-06-2008, 10:40 AM

All it takes is using Firefox which puts a little red line under misspellings. How hard is that?

Jester

12-06-2008, 01:43 PM

Bob I will have you know that I was in the military (medically discharged or I would still be in) and my IQ is around 135. Last check that is pretty high. Not tooting my horn here just proving a point.

Another little fact is that the military relies on people with IQ's higher than 100 to be officers, intel workers, pilots, and many other jobs that require massive amounts of brain power and potential.

This leads me to my third point. IQ has nothing to do with your intelligence but everything to do with potential. People with High IQ have the potential to be very intelligent. There are people with low IQ that are very intelligent because they applied themselves and worked very hard.

Finally, at least military, fast food workers, and construction workers are not taxing the welfare system as much as they could be.

bob

12-06-2008, 11:35 PM

bob

12-06-2008, 11:36 PM

All it takes is using Firefox which puts a little red line under misspellings. How hard is that?

That explains why your spelling is correct.:D

Jester

12-07-2008, 11:20 AM

I know the Special Forces, most officers, pilots, and other groups in the military are above average and there is probably no correlation to those that entered because of family tradition but the bulk in numbers of the total skew to the lower.
I am for everyone having the chance to have work.

I am sorry but your generalization of the military is flat wrong and frankly insulting. I went into the military because I was failing at civilian life (in debt failing out of school ect.). You failed to address that your IQ is a number that you can miss completely and or overcome by leaps and bounds. You are aware that IQ's change are you not?

mbossman2

12-07-2008, 04:01 PM

bob,

my point on the spelling was one of intellectual sloppiness.

as to military education: this (http://www.ndia.org/Divisions/Divisions/SOLIC/Documents/Content/ContentGroups/Divisions1/Special_Operations_Low_Intensity_Conflict/CDA%20-%20Who%20Serves%20in%20the%20Military%209-17-08.pdf) study shows that the "conventional" wisdom (military service disproportionately attracts minorities and men and women from disadvantaged backgrounds and they are poorly educated) is not accurate (chart 2 and table 1 respectively).

bob

12-07-2008, 10:52 PM

As for your post I see nothing wrong with it other than it does not refute mine.
First, education level has not been mentioned in this post and “minorities and men and women from disadvantaged backgrounds and they are poorly educated” was not my point.
IQ was not mentioned as well as stupidly. ; IQ is a standard measure but stupid is an opinion. As one chart in the study shows less people than average join from California. That’s my POV on stupidity.
Now the study was from the Heritage foundation clearly a conservative think tank.
Doubt it then http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritage_Foundation
The study is posted on http://www.ndia.org/Pages/Default.aspx - They say, “The National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) is America’s leading Defense Industry association promoting national security”

It is clearly not as scientific as it looks. They mention high school graduates and GED but no proportion. They don’t mention grades, which would correlate to IQ.

They had a novel way of determining the pre-income levels that I found contrived. A real study has a format that has references at the end. ;)

My conclusion of the study was that those in the military are more intelligent for serving in the military than the average person. That is what the test is for.
They use a test called AFQT - http://www.mo-media.com/afqt/ that is a test, which clearly has a "selection bias".

Jester

12-09-2008, 12:20 PM

David-M

12-09-2008, 02:37 PM

Jester,
Don't let Uncle Boob get under your skin. You know the facts since you have been in the military. He obviously knows very little about the military except from what he reads about the military in Rolling Stone Magazine, The New York Times, The Berkeley Gazette and High Times Magazine.

bob

12-09-2008, 10:06 PM

IQ has nothing to do with what you actually know and how you apply it. Therefore, you could be far more intellegent then your IQ says you are capable of. IQ is a predictor.

Again this thought that you have that people that go into the military are stupid and that the AFQT is designed to select these people is fucking insulting. People in the military are not just point and shoot, and turn the wrench.

I served proudly. I was medically dischared and now I am in the civilian sector. I landed a tech job (GIS Specialist) due to my military training with only a phone interview. My job depends on my ability to analyize large amounts of data, find patterns, and similarites in said amounts of data. I know my shit and can communicate that I know it very well.

I am by no means a rarity in the military either. Sometimes there is just no other way to crawl out of a hole than to go into the military. I will admit that there are some people in the military that are morons by definition, but even they can specialize.

Go tell the guy that is fixing your car, fixing your roof, fixing your burger, or fixing your plumbing that he is mentally inferior. See if any of your crap gets fixed properly, or that your burger arrives un tampered with.

I am one of the few people here who is to the left of everyone else. and your even pissing me off with this BS.

You are right. I should be nicer to stupid people. As for being left of everyone including me - I did not even notice. Bet everyone here loves you.
You are right - almost anyone can do many jobs well when trained by those with high IQ's and/or past knowledge. All I did was say where they get employed.
So I propose to you to locate the places where people with IQ's scores under 100 are working. Think of this before you try. If all the people in the US with IQ's under 100 (that’s half) die, then the half that are left will have IQ's under 100. ;)
Stupid is an opinion. Einstein went to his grave not completly accepting quantum mechanics after he discovered it. Some physicist’s thought him stupid. Seems the universe is governed by dice.

Jester

12-09-2008, 10:43 PM

I am one of the few people here who is to the left of everyone else. and your even pissing me off with this BS.

I'll lay this out for you since you cannot seem to read the sentence clearly. Something that I cannot do with you latest post.

I was saying that I am left of all the right. I am more likely to agree with you and yet your latest comments offended the everliving hell out of me.

The way that I read your last post your are just pushing buttons. I did not take you as that type of person. Everyone here likes me because unlike my other fellow lefties I am reasonable, listen to what they have to say, and don't stoop to name calling.

As for being able to do things when trained by those with higher IQ I will have you know that military teaches military. I was taught by knowledgeable people in all 4 services. As a matter of fact I was taught and competent in 4 jobs. Land Survey, AutoCad, GIS Mapping, GPS mapping. Most of this requires a little intelligence as well as intuitiveness to keep up with the tech.

I don't expect an ignorant pompous asshole like you to apologize, but I do expect you to again think about what you are saying. These so called stupid people have and will fought for your freedom. They have gone on humanitarian missions in other countries. I hope one day you get a chance to call them stupid to their face, or maybe you will have some sort of spark in that all powerful brain of yours and you will thank them.

bob

12-10-2008, 01:02 AM

Jester I never said you were stupid. You should already know your IQ. Did you miss some of my posts? It is not a matter of all being lower or all above – its averages and only IQ related.
When you are tall most people look short. When your rich most people look poor. When you are part of a group like the military you look out from the POV of the whole. So “be all you can be”
BTW, I studied LANDSAT images and proposed to a military expert who assisted my professor on how to create stealth. It was back in 1981-2 but still I saw his eyes open wide and had no answer.

Rapier

04-01-2009, 03:23 AM

bob

04-01-2009, 03:55 AM

I am not a vet and have lived to tell. Unless you were drafted you are an idiot.

David-M

04-01-2009, 09:47 AM

bob

04-01-2009, 10:58 AM

With your lousy knowledge of GPS and lack of knowledge about great circle routes (eg Mecca).....I highly doubt that Bob. I doubt you even know how radar works.

As usual you are wrong again. I have a 4 year degree in resourse planning and have full knowledge of all "remote sensing" that came from the LANDSAT.
In 1981 I wrote a paper on how stealth could work and covered the deflection and computer enhanced absorption of radar. Have you ever got an A+ at the university level?

Rapier

04-03-2009, 02:51 PM

Rapier

04-03-2009, 03:17 PM

As usual you are wrong again. I have a 4 year degree in resourse planning and have full knowledge of all "remote sensing" that came from the LANDSAT.
In 1981 I wrote a paper on how stealth could work and covered the deflection and computer enhanced absorption of radar. Have you ever got an A+ at the university level?

Re sour se.

That information was old news from the forties.

David-M

04-04-2009, 11:18 AM

As usual you are wrong again. I have a 4 year degree in resourse planning and have full knowledge of all "remote sensing" that came from the LANDSAT.
In 1981 I wrote a paper on how stealth could work and covered the deflection and computer enhanced absorption of radar. Have you ever got an A+ at the university level?

Yes Bob...I also have a four year college degree. Getting an A is not that big of a deal. Apparently it is for you.

bob

04-04-2009, 02:32 PM

A PLUS is different. Thats A+

Rapier, there were no computers in the forties you complete Idiot.

David-M

04-05-2009, 09:25 AM

heyhey

04-06-2009, 01:44 PM

Actually there were pure electronic computers in the forties, just not what we visualize as a computer today. There was the Colossus, ENIAC and a few others. They took up entire rooms. People were employed just to change out the tubes. The Computer History Museum in Mountain View has many of these old computers. Its well worth visiting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer
http://www.computerhistory.org/

I think he was referring to computers that could do what he said he did with them... not the kind of original computers not at all available to general usage by college students.

Im sure he knows computer history.

you really like arguing for the sake of arguing and not just to make your point, huh, David? :).. that is unless if your point is not to share ideas but to just prove you are correct and everyone else is wrong 100% of the time... you are smart David.. I mean that.. try to say that over and over again in the mirror so you can resist the urge to constantly trying to prove that on here at the expense of trying to make other people look stupid.

David-M

04-06-2009, 08:41 PM

bob

04-07-2009, 12:17 AM

Look...Bob said there were no computers in the forties which is absolutely false.

Why are you getting so bent out of shape that I proved Bob wrong again?

Its called debate. If you want to put your little spin on it and call it argument then so be it. Have a good time.

You did not prove me wrong. You see the world quite narrowly.
No plane could carry a "computer" from that time frame.

In the moon landing they used a computer that was nothing compared to the chip in your cell phone and even your video card. They used it as a backup and all-important data needed was sent from earth. Why? It could not do the job.

Lets say you wanted to put an early 1980's computer in a plane.
http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/80scomputers.html
We were at the point of doing something useful then. But stealth was just an idea to adsorb a single wavelength of an EM blast.

David, you confuse a punch card calculator that weighed so much that no plane could lift it and it would not be able to be programmed to do much.
It still took years to get the power, programming and speed for stealth.

The abacus and slide rule weighing tons is what you propose as a computer.
Trust me you are only making a fool of yourself.

David-M

04-07-2009, 09:56 AM

Yes bob, I too am aware of computer history. I am the one who posted a couple links relating to computer history. Remember?

When you go and say something ludicrous like "there were no computers in the forties" and then get bent out of shape because someone proves you wrong...and then come back and say, uhh..well...errr...let me modify that statement....then it is you who looks like the fool. Think first before typing something out and save yourself some embarrassment.

For being this self-claimed famous genius who gets "A+ papers at the university level", you sure say some pretty stupid stuff Bob.

bob

04-07-2009, 01:18 PM

The grade was for the class not a paper. Artificial intelligence exists now and works at about the same ability as your binary brain.

Rapier

04-10-2009, 03:11 PM

Ha ha...you're so funny.

You're a pussy alright. Didn't your old lady dump you? Ever find a new one to put up with your dumb shit?

Rapier

04-10-2009, 03:21 PM

I was talking to a 50 something very full of himself college grad who corrected me when I said something to the effect "that's as crazy as believing the three WTC buildings collapsed all by themselves." He said only 2 buildings collapsed.

Mind control, plain and simple. People believe what they are told and not told.

Hey mbossman2. Do you still believe the three WTC buildings collapsed without help of demolition experts? Silverstein bought the Twin Towers as some sort of investment? That the 4 Twin Tower black boxes just vanished? That none of the 70/80 some confiscated surveillance tapes in the Pentagon locale were of any consequence?

What's the matter boys and gals cat got your tongues?

http://www.seaoo.org/Events/2008_Conf__Agenda/wtc_collapse.jpg

http://www.seaoo.org/Events/2008_Conf__Agenda/wtc_collapse2.jpg

Do you see any raging fires?

Raging fires.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3304/3265062663_aa229d7862.jpg

http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/USA/betrug/filmprotokol01-Loose-Change-2-d/100-Madrid-brennender-wolkenkratzer-2005-02-12.jpg

http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff304/NorEaster_photo/BeijingFire2.jpg

http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff304/NorEaster_photo/Beijingfireaftermath.jpg

bob

04-11-2009, 02:05 AM

Yep it is day vrs night.:D

WJWheels

04-11-2009, 11:48 AM

Here's another picture taken right after impact. The black smoke indicates a fuel-rich fire. There looks to be plenty of raging flames.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/fig1.gif

Rapier

04-12-2009, 03:42 PM

Kewl. That looks like a doctored photo if there ever was one.

heyhey

04-16-2009, 06:59 PM

Kewl. That looks like a doctored photo if there ever was one.
yeah and that's the same scene we watched on live TV.

doctored my ass.

bob

04-19-2009, 03:29 AM

I know the planes dropped the trade centers but the picture was high-def and did not have the dust and white smoke I saw on TV.
The picture was most likely created by those that want to muddy the simple facts of the clear reality that planes full of fuel hit the buildings and toppled them. It is a no-brainer.
Please do not tarnish the label of liberal with your bullshit Rapier.:mad:

Rapier

04-19-2009, 04:00 AM

yeah and that's the same scene we watched on live TV.

doctored my ass.

How childlike. Look at the smoke. Solid black. No variation.
And the debris spans the whole picture. And you're allowed to vote? ahahahhahahhahahaha

Plus the debris is from the collapse. Not the crash into the tower.

bob

04-19-2009, 09:15 AM

How childlike. Look at the smoke. Solid black. No variation.
And the debris spans the whole picture. And you're allowed to vote? ahahahhahahhahahaha

Plus the debris is from the collapse. Not the crash into the tower.

It does not change the real facts. If you were on one of the planes you would know for sure. ;)

themistocles

05-05-2009, 05:01 PM

There's a distinction between the buildings you've shown. The ones that survived a fire were not hit by fucking airline planes in flight.

What's the matter boys and gals cat got your tongues?

http://www.seaoo.org/Events/2008_Conf__Agenda/wtc_collapse.jpg

http://www.seaoo.org/Events/2008_Conf__Agenda/wtc_collapse2.jpg

Do you see any raging fires?

Raging fires.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3304/3265062663_aa229d7862.jpg

http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/USA/betrug/filmprotokol01-Loose-Change-2-d/100-Madrid-brennender-wolkenkratzer-2005-02-12.jpg

http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff304/NorEaster_photo/BeijingFire2.jpg

http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff304/NorEaster_photo/Beijingfireaftermath.jpg

Gintaras

05-06-2009, 08:52 PM

There's a distinction between the buildings you've shown. The ones that survived a fire were not hit by fucking airline planes in flight.

And what about Pentagon? Where did parts of airplanes evaporated?

WTC...at least one terrorist trew his passport out of flying airplane window before hitting WTC....at least "terrorist" passport survived...
But what about Pentagon? nothing...no passports...no plane debris....just a little hole and windows next to hole intact......:rolleyes:

themistocles

05-07-2009, 02:41 PM

WTC...at least one terrorist trew his passport out of flying airplane window before hitting WTC....at least "terrorist" passport survived...
But what about Pentagon? nothing...no passports...no plane debris....just a little hole and windows next to hole intact......:rolleyes:

I've seen photographs of on-board magazines surviving plane crashes. There was plenty of plane debris at the Pentagon. So what's the problem?

Gintaras

05-07-2009, 09:27 PM

I've seen photographs of on-board magazines surviving plane crashes.

Of course, when plane crashes while landing...even people sometimes survive, but not in WTC crash case, where fuel fire is blamed for steel beams melting...

do you think others are as naive as you're?

There was plenty of plane debris at the Pentagon. So what's the problem?

I do have newspapers from 9/12, will scan photos from those newspapers...hopefully you'll be able to point to debris....if you will see any...

again..trying to make a fool of yourself?

David-M

05-08-2009, 09:09 PM

Don't encourage the conspiracy sheep. It only makes them more insane.

heyhey

05-08-2009, 11:02 PM

Don't encourage the conspiracy sheep. It only makes them more insane.

yeah especiailly climate change denier conspiracy sheep get wacko with encouragement....

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/3/9/1236611219595/Climate-change-deniers-To-005.jpg

Gintaras

05-09-2009, 06:37 PM

Don't encourage the conspiracy sheep. It only makes them more insane.

Best is to be stupid....stupid people don't even know that they're stupid...needless to say why should they care about anything else...

And there's no such thing as Conspiracy....there were no A.Hitler, no Stalin...no Gulags or Nazi Concentration camps...No one was even behind A.Hitler or Stalin...no one behind Jorge Boosh...Iraq? it's all Jorge Boosh's bloopers. Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle..others has nothing to do with it...

But one thing: if in the future anything should happen, it would be what YOU and THOSE LIKE YOU deserve IT...and you have no one to blame for that... not your own goverment, no russians or jews, etc...BUT YOURSELF...

I think, you at least understand that and can live with.....

bob

05-09-2009, 06:59 PM

No one with any usable brain cells will accept any theory other than fully fueled planes hitting their targets on 9/11.

Do not be more stupid than you already are anymore.
Stop the insane theories - you look like a fool.

Gintaras

05-09-2009, 07:46 PM

bob

05-09-2009, 08:24 PM

No one said that there was no fuel in tanks of the planes.....

How many tanker trucks do you think it takes to fuel up one of those planes.
Not how much - how many.

Gintaras

05-09-2009, 09:11 PM

Bob, before you make any deal with the Devil, you MUST agree with- what I posted before:

But one thing: if in the future anything should happen, it would be what YOU and THOSE LIKE YOU deserve IT...and you have no one to blame for that... not your own goverment, no russians or jews, etc...BUT YOURSELF...

Do you FIRMLY agree with IT?

If so...go ahead, just don't slip on the wet.....

bob

05-10-2009, 12:53 AM

Bob, before you make any deal with the Devil, you MUST agree with- what I posted before:

Do you FIRMLY agree with IT?

If so...go ahead, just don't slip on the wet.....

You are fucked in the head.

Gintaras

05-10-2009, 01:41 PM

You are fucked in the head.

Getting mad? :D

It's your perception while living in a fantasy world...in real world is a little different...

Crisies, World Wars are caused by People's Ignorance - so called normal people...

Normal People Worry Me...

bob

05-10-2009, 02:05 PM

You are full of bullshit. One minute you support that our government blew up the trade centers and then you say that is everyone’s fault. You are obtuse.

Gintaras

05-10-2009, 04:33 PM

You are full of bullshit. One minute you support that our government blew up the trade centers and then you say that is everyone’s fault. You are obtuse.

Bob, you're confused...:rolleyes:

I don'tdidn't) say words what you're trying to put into my mouth....

Gintaras

05-10-2009, 04:43 PM

One minute you support that our government blew up the trade centers

No one knows names, etc..who did blew up WTC...no documentaries name any names, I even sure that Jorge Boosh didn't know nothing about....but that's wasn't some stupid arabs...many people with a logic would agree...

No one knows as of today yet why and who murdered JFK...

bob

05-10-2009, 05:11 PM

You are still obtuse. Here are the people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks

As for JFK you do not trust any investigation. We have that answer too.

Gintaras

05-10-2009, 05:42 PM

You are still obtuse. Here are the people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks

As for JFK you do not trust any investigation. We have that answer too.

Bob, you loosing selfrespect when trying to back up this kind of things with a Wiki....

At the end, not my head is fucked up- it's yours.....
Do you think Wiki or you have your own head?

bob

05-10-2009, 06:22 PM

David-M

05-11-2009, 10:22 AM

No one knows names, etc..who did blew up WTC...no documentaries name any names, I even sure that Jorge Boosh didn't know nothing about....but that's wasn't some stupid arabs...many people with a logic would agree...

No one knows as of today yet why and who murdered JFK...

You're assumption is that it was blown up. The whole foundation of your statement is false. You cannot build a true statement upon a false foundation.

Rapier

05-11-2009, 12:13 PM

No one knows names, etc..who did blew up WTC...no documentaries name any names, I even sure that Jorge Boosh didn't know nothing about....but that's wasn't some stupid arabs...many people with a logic would agree...

No one knows as of today yet why and who murdered JFK...

I'm sure if you review the body language of the ex POTUS and his father's crew when they were together you'll see who ruled the roost.

Gintaras

05-11-2009, 07:07 PM

You can’t prove a negative. You will forever think the trade centers and JFK and UFOs have different explanations than the widely accepted ones. You make up other explanations. You live in the fantasyland – not me.

I guess, David created that forum for "minds" like you to tell "nuts" like me that there no conspiracy or cover-ups exist? :rolleyes:

"explanations" sooner ore later will come up....
If you believe in official 9/11 story, it means that your country is protected no better than ships that somali pirates attack...why it's called a "super power" if it's could be smashed in a minutes? imagine, if planes were a nukes...we wouldn't be discussing that here...

If some arabs could pull this "trick" out of the caves, it means that for Russia United States is like Mongolia....

Some of you are like running hammsters inside of media circle and not trying to get out of it -off that circle,

bob

05-11-2009, 07:52 PM

If If IF If you had a brain you could make a sane arguement.

Gintaras

05-11-2009, 09:01 PM

If If IF If you had a brain you could make a sane arguement.

If I had your brain...I would be like a hamster running in a same Media's circle...like you....no step to the left, no step to the right....:D

David-M

05-11-2009, 11:02 PM

If I had your brain...I would be like a hamster running in a same Media's circle...like you....no step to the left, no step to the right....:D

Seriously, I wonder if Gint is using one of those horrible language translators?

bob

05-11-2009, 11:12 PM

Seriously, I wonder if Gint is using one of those horrible language translators?

Yes he is. It's his brain.:confused:

Gintaras

05-13-2009, 08:00 PM

Just the "innocent article" with "innocent title" from Ny Post, from 9/12/2001(8 years ago!!!!)- next day after 9/11....:

http://i559.photobucket.com/albums/ss35/gbmax/Other/P5131019.jpg

Rapier

05-14-2009, 02:51 PM

I guess, David created that forum for "minds" like you to tell "nuts" like me that there no conspiracy or cover-ups exist? :rolleyes:

"explanations" sooner ore later will come up....
If you believe in official 9/11 story, it means that your country is protected no better than ships that somali pirates attack...why it's called a "super power" if it's could be smashed in a minutes? imagine, if planes were a nukes...we wouldn't be discussing that here...

If some arabs could pull this "trick" out of the caves, it means that for Russia United States is like Mongolia....

Some of you are like running hammsters inside of media circle and not trying to get out of it -off that circle,

This is an astute observation.

bob

05-14-2009, 03:19 PM

What a wacko lovefest.:D

David-M

05-15-2009, 10:26 AM

National Enquirer: "Inquiring minds want to know" ....pretty much sums up those two.

Raptor, did you know Sarah Palin's daughter gave birth to an alien?

Rapier

05-15-2009, 02:27 PM

National Enquirer: "Inquiring minds want to know" ....pretty much sums up those two.

Raptor, did you know Sarah Palin's daughter gave birth to an alien?

Hey nimrod did you know WTC7 was about THREE football fields in distance away from the tower closest to it?

bob

05-15-2009, 06:34 PM

Coming from someone that thinks FC/youonpolitics is a conspiracy against them personally. How many other people in your life conspire against you. Your parents, siblings. Teachers, coworkers etc.

Gintaras

05-15-2009, 09:09 PM

What a wacko lovefest.:D

First...you're in IT too...:rolleyes:

If you lived in Hitler's Germany, or in Stalin's USSR, you would be normal too...

How it's done? Hermann Goering explained it very well:

“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

bob

05-15-2009, 11:40 PM

If true how can my single ass do anything?

David-M

05-16-2009, 10:52 AM

Hey nimrod did you know WTC7 was about THREE football fields in distance away from the tower closest to it?

No its not. The distance from the southwest corner of WTC Seven to the northeast corner of where WTC One once stood is exactly 114 yards. I just got on Google Earth and measured the distance.

The distance from the southwest corner of WTC 7 to the north side of where WTC Two used to stand is 196 yards. Again, you are wrong.

Are you now going to say the the distance measure, "Ruler", on Google Earth is wrong because Google is conspiring with the CIA to cover up the facts? This would not surprise me my friend.

Perhaps you need to start learning how to think for yourself instead of believing everything your read on you're crackpot conspiracy websites?

Rapier

05-16-2009, 10:59 AM

If true how can my single ass do anything?

You can wake the ____ up.

Open your eyes and ears and pay attention to what the media is and is not telling you.

Once you realize the media is intent on distracting you from the real issues that you should be concerned about and pitting you against your neighbor on relatively nonsense ones like abortion, gun control and gay marriage
you'll be able to know your enemy.

While you were asleep for the past few decades our country was deregulated right beneath your nose.

Rapier

05-16-2009, 01:45 PM

rense.com

WTC 7 Smoke &
Mirrors On 9/11
By Jon Carlson
carlson.jon@att.net
5-23-5

Three days after 9/11, The Albuquerque Journal interviewed Demolition Scientist Van Romero.

Explosives Planted In Towers New Mexico Tech Expert Says

By Olivier Uyttebrouck
Journal Staff Writer

Televised images of the attacks on the World Trade Center suggest that explosives devices caused the collapse of both towers, a New Mexico Tech explosion expert said Tuesday. The collapse of the buildings appears "too methodical" to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures, said Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico
Institute of Mining and Technology.

"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said. Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures.
Romero said he based his opinion on video aired on national television broadcasts. Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures. "It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that."

http://www.world-action.co.uk/explosives.html

Apparently not wanting to be a lightning rod in the 9/11 controvery, later Romero added two quotes, "Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail." and "I'm not trying to say anything did or didn't happen."

Attorney Phil Berg comments:

"Although he would eventually recant his statements that explosives were used, perhaps there was some prodding by government officials," said Berg in the federal lawsuit, eventually hoping deposition testimony will clear up the confusion behind Dr. Romero's conflicting statements. "He is still on the record saying that 'the collapse of the towers was too methodical to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures.'"

http://www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.com/articles/article/1518131/17338.htm

The RENSE article, WTC Cutter Charges Clearly Visible shows screen captures from the videos that Romero probably studied.

http://www.rense.com/general63/cutt.htm

The Albuquerque Journal article doesn't mention what happened to WTC7, a 47-story steel-framed, brick masonry building that was located 355 feet from the North Tower.
This photo shows WTC7 viewed from the North Tower.

This photo WTC7 viewed from the South Tower, a distance of about 600 feet.

Since WTC7 was 'only' 355 feet away, some damage occurred when the North Tower 'went down' BUT no fires.

The WTC7 side opposite the NT also showed NO areas of fire.

In these photos areas of fire have miraculously appeared. Arson?

NIST reports fires not seen in photos all over the place . (The smoke is primarily from the Towers burning.)

SHOWTIME:

ENGINEER JERRY RUSSELL: Controlled demolitions have a striking and characteristic appearance of smooth, flowing collapse.As your eyes will tell you, the World Trade Center collapses looked like controlled demolitions. Building 7 was destroyed later in the afternoon. It was never hit by any airplane, so there is no known reason (besides explosives) for it to have collapsed into rubble.

http://www.attackonamerica.net/proofofcontrolleddemolitionatwtc.htm

FEMA: "The specifics of the fires in WTC-7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time.

http://www.wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY (An agency of the US Commerce Dept):: NISA has seen no evidence that the collapse of WTC7 was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition. April 5, 2005 .

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_latest_findings_1004.htm

911 COMMISSION: Their report...looks only at the 102 minutes between the first plane attack and the collapses of WTC 1 and 2. They thus ignored a crucial case where the available evidence militates against the official explanation.

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Fight-Terrorism-Scott1sep04.htm

LARRY SILVERSTEIN (The World Trade Center was leased by Westfield America and Larry Silverstein, on April 26th, 2001):
"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it (WTC7)." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html

Remarkably in only 10 days Controlled Demolition, Inc. submitted a plan to remove the remains of Ground Zero.

http://sept11.wasteage.com/ar/waste_construction_company_proposes/

HOWEVER, the company makes no claims for the demolition records that would have been established on 9/11. Their website claims the Detroit Hudson Department Store at 439 feet dropped in October, 1998 is the tallest structural steel buidling ever imploded.
IN ADDITION, CDI, Inc. is MUCH SLOWER than the NYFD that Silverstein claimed 'pulled' WTC7.

Under CDI direction, Homrich/NASDI's 21 man crew needed three months to investigate the (Hudson Store) complex and four months to complete preparations for CDI's implosion design.
CDI's 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=
7&reqItemId=20030225133807

BIG SURPRISE at http://www.cdi-uk.com/implosion.htm especially considering the Hollywood-style smoke and mirrors of 9/11.

Most important of all here is the Karl Schwarz group's plan to reverse the decline of America.

http://www.iconoclast-texas.com/default.htm

Of course Karl Schwarz has more hard-hitting 9/11 journalism at
www.karlschwarz.com.

DON'T MISS:

CBC 9/11 Video Secrets Revealed
http://www.rense.com/general65/911b.htm

911 CNN Reports Boeing 737s Struck WTC
http://www.rense.com/general65/911h.htm

Sneak Preview - 911 Pentagon Tapes
http://www.rense.com/general64/911et.htm

The Rest Of The 9/11 Street Engine Story
http://www.rense.com/general64/wth.htm

NYC Photos, Flight 93 Witnesses Identify 9/11 White Jet
http://www.rense.com/general64/white.htm

On 9/11 An Ill Wind Blew to Booker School
http://www.rense.com/general63/wte.htm

WTC Jet Engine Confirmed NOT From Boeing 767
http://www.rense.com/general63/wtcc.htm

Second 911 Remote Control Antenna Verified
http://www.rense.com/general63/secnd.htm

Avionics Expert-A 911 Remote Control Lesson for PM
http://www.rense.com/general63/remo.htm

WTC Cutter Charges Clearly Visible
http://www.rense.com/general63/cutt.htm

Real 911 Science For PM - The ST Airliner Photo
http://www.rense.com/general63/st.htm

PM Claims Landing Gear Made Pentagon 12 Foot Hole
http://www.rense.com/general63/pmm.htm

PM Missed NASA 911-type Airliner Crash 20 Years Ago
http://www.rense.com/general63/pm.htm

Is Popular Mechanics Hiding 911 NYC Engine In Street Photo?
http://www.rense.com/general63/hiding.htm

Missing Pentagon Jet Engine Identified?
http://www.rense.com/general63/ident.htm

Missing Pentagon Unobstructed Citgo Videos
http://www.rense.com/general63/unob.htm

MainPage
http://www.rense.com

heyhey

05-16-2009, 04:28 PM

Has Kathusung possessed Rapier's body?

VF500

05-16-2009, 06:13 PM

Has Kathusung possessed Rapier's body?

You mean kathaksung (or Kat Hak Sung) I think, but yes I'm sure there was a mind meld somewhere along the way.

I've avoided this thread on purpose because Rapier has no wit and is a bigger nut case than Bob.

bob

05-16-2009, 06:22 PM

You mean kathaksung (or Kat Hak Sung) I think, but yes I'm sure there was a mind meld somewhere along the way.

I've avoided this thread on purpose because Rapier has no wit and is a bigger nut case than Bob.

I must be doing somthing wrong. I usually win. :D

David-M

05-16-2009, 07:23 PM

No its not. The distance from the southwest corner of WTC Seven to the northeast corner of where WTC One once stood is exactly 114 yards. I just got on Google Earth and measured the distance.

The distance from the southwest corner of WTC 7 to the north side of where WTC Two used to stand is 196 yards. Again, you are wrong.

Are you now going to say the the distance measure, "Ruler", on Google Earth is wrong because Google is conspiring with the CIA to cover up the facts? This would not surprise me my friend.

Perhaps you need to start learning how to think for yourself instead of believing everything your read on you're crackpot conspiracy websites?

I find it interesting Rapier that I present you with irrefutable distances which obliterate your conspiracy theory and your response is complete silence to my facts.

This is such classic conspiracy theorist behavior. They only accept facts which fit their preconceived notions of what they believe to be true.

heyhey

05-16-2009, 08:40 PM

I find it interesting Rapier that I present you with irrefutable distances which obliterate your conspiracy theory and your response is complete silence to my facts.

This is such classic conspiracy theorist behavior. They only accept facts which fit their preconceived notions of what they believe to be true.

like I said he seems to need an exorcism to rid himslef of Kat because his posts are starting to look exactly like him.

you know Bill Maher (liberal and all) has a HUGE fight with these 9-11 consipracy theorists.. as many of them are ultra left wing "liberals" they could not understand someone like liberal leaning like Maher would not embrace them... he called them on they carpet how full of shit they were and the launched a mssive campaign against him and actually a group of them had to by physically removed from his live TV show for trying to disrupt it... I think they even threatened his life...

there are nutcases on all sides of the aisle..

what is sad is that these people thinking they are doing some service to some pure truth of 9-11 when in fact they are doing a huge diservice to the familes of people who lost thier lives on that day by trying to making them feel actually worse at the inference this was done to them by thier own government.

heyhey

05-16-2009, 08:44 PM

here a great article he should consider reading from not a politcal source, but a scientific one:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

Rapier

05-17-2009, 01:54 AM

here a great article he should consider reading from not a politcal source, but a scientific one:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

Commentary Last Updated: Oct 23rd, 2008 - 20:14:51

Refuting the lie, a response to Popular Mechanics: debunking 9/11 myths
By Craig Schlanger
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Sep 25, 2006, 00:59

It’s been an exciting year to be a 9/11 Truth Seeker. With each passing month there’s been a trend of continuing revelations and historic events that will break the dam of government deception once and for all. There have been actors, musicians, scientists, engineers, former presidential cabinet members, rescue workers, survivors, historians, and even foreign officials weighing in with their doubts about the official 9/11 narrative.

Recent polls by both Zogby and Scripps Howard show the number of Americans questioning the government about 9/11 to be growing exponentially. When they know you have the truth on your side, those who stand to lose will employ the most underhanded tactics to keep their own conspiracy theory alive.

As if right on cue, Popular Mechanics returns to the arena of 9/11 Truth to present an extension of their March 2005 hit piece, “Debunking 9/11 Lies: Conspiracy Theories Can’t Stand up to the Hard Facts.” Now they’ve taken the original piece and extended it into a book-length format. In view of the fifth anniversary of 9/11 and the 9/11 Truth movement gaining more mainstream coverage than ever, it’s only to be expected that an attack on the movement’s credibility would emerge.

On the inside cover of the book there is a list of endorsements from some well-known talking heads. For example, Glen Reynolds, proprietor of the neocon blog Instapundit.com, takes time away from equating the people of Lebanon with Nazis (see Instapundit.com, 8/13/06) to endorse this collection of “hard facts.”

However, for the ultimate grand slam, Popular Mechanics (and by association Hearst Publishing) chose to enlist the literary talent of America’s “maverick” Senator John McCain for the book’s forward. Senator McCain tows an extremely Orwellian line, reminding readers that Americans were attacked for their freedoms on 9/11 and that the evidence of al Qaeda’s central role in the attacks is “overwhelming.” (p. xii) The senator explains that over the years many Americans have had trouble accepting such historical occurrences as the “surprise” attack on Pearl Harbor or the murder of a president by a lone gunman in a book depository. Certainly Senator McCain knows better, and I would imagine he has access to the same declassified documents that I do, which prove both claims to be incorrect. But before plucking the reader from the rabbit hole, McCain goes for the grand slam by claiming that anyone who questions the official 9/11 narrative is directly insulting all who tragically perished on that day, as well as “those who have fought in all the wars in our history.” (p. xiv) The suggestion here clearly is that any questioning of the government’s official line is treasonous.

In the interest of time, I will not go through each “myth” and refute it point by point. Since this book contains most of the same information as the original Popular Mechanics article, I would instead recommend that the reader track down Jim Hoffman’s excellent piece in Global Outlook Magazine #10. A more detailed piece by Peter Meyer was also posted on the Serendipity website last year. Other responses have come from Alex Jones, as well from the always resourceful website, Killtown.

It’s important to note from the start that this book is not meant to debunk anything. Its’ main purpose is to craft a mindset where anyone who questions the official 9/11 story likely spends their weekends at Roswell. This is a psychological attack on those who dare question their government’s account of a most tragic day in our history; it’s a return fire in an ongoing information war. The purpose is not to answer pressing questions. Instead, the writers choose the path of assassinating the character of anyone who dares ask such questions. Additionally, the book plants a seed in the mind of the reader that all 9/11 Truth seekers agree on every “myth” discussed. To reinforce this, the editors focus on major strawman arguments that I will discuss briefly.

Starting on page 8, a section focuses on an unsupported theory that the planes that hit WTC 1 and 2 were carrying pods that unloaded a cargo upon impact. As both of the pieces cited above (Global Research, and Meyer's) pointed out, this is an argument that has been made by a handful of fringe 9/11 activists and popularized in the widely discredited “In Plane Site” video. It usually goes hand in hand with the “no windows on the plane” theory regarding flights United 175 and American 11. This can be disproved by simply examining video and photographic evidence. These two arguments are analogous to the Umbrella Man theory in the JFK assassination.

The editors don’t do so well in trying to pull together a theory that explains the lack of air defense. Popular Mechanics wants the reader to believe that there was no air response simply because there was no protocol for intercepting domestically hijacked planes previous to 9/11. Some simple background research on NORAD, FAA or Department of Defense regulations should clear this up entirely.

Rather than refute what the book does tell us, it’s important to acknowledge what it does not report. As discussed in numerous arenas, including Capital Hill testimony by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers, there were a number of military war games taking place on the morning of 9/11. A consequence of the war games was that instead of seeing four hijacked aircraft on their screen, the honest people at NORAD were looking at nearly 30. Popular Mechanics doesn’t even mention these and the impact they may have had on a successful air defense campaign. This absolutely warrants discussion.

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1242.shtml
Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal

Rapier

05-17-2009, 01:58 AM

Refuting the lie, a response to Popular Mechanics: debunking 9/11 myths
By Craig Schlanger
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Sep 25, 2006, 00:59

The book then shifts to the question of what exactly hit the Pentagon. This is the most wildly debated and divisive topic in the 9/11 Truth movement. Few people agree on the specifics: some say the building was struck by a missile, some say a commercial plane, while others feel that Flight 77 indeed hit the Pentagon. So while few of us agree completely on what did happen at the Pentagon, almost all skeptics agree that something smells rotten here. Video of the second plane hitting the WTC has become the iconic image of the horrific events of that day. However, we have never seen any photographic evidence of a 757 crashing into the Pentagon. This seems a bit strange when you consider that we’re talking about the most heavily guarded and visually monitored building in the country. The Pentagon has cameras covering it at all angles such that the image of a plane should at least register as a large blur.

But to this day, we have not been given much more than five still video frames. These frames do not show any visual evidence of a 757. Add to that the immediate seizure of videotape from a nearby Citgo Station and Sheraton Hotel and red flags should shoot up. The government has said that they do have multiple videos of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. However, when the DOD responded to a FOIA request by the right-wing organization Judicial Watch to release footage that would put “conspiracy theories” to rest, what was released was actually described as “underwhelming” by a Fox News reporter. Indeed, this was the government’s big opportunity to make their case. Instead, we were given no clear evidence of Flight 77, but what looked like still photos taken from almost the same angle as the previously released frames. If there is photographic evidence, which at least one of the 84 other surveillance cameras should have caught, why not release them all and shut us up?

The Pentagon section of the book offers a good example of some of the many inconsistencies present in this book. On page 61, the editors remind the reader that “it was unrealistic to think that the low-quality security camera image would reveal the crystal clear image of a Boeing 757 traveling at 780 feet per second.” Now turn to page 63 under the section titled ‘Flight 77 Debris.’ Here William Kagasse is quoted as saying, “It [Flight 77] was close enough that I could see the windows and the blinds had been pulled down. I read American Airlines on it . . . I saw the aircraft above my head about 80 feet off the ground.” This quote was aired on ABC’s Nightline. According to Mr. Kagasse, the plane was extraordinarily identifiable down to specific details of the position of the window shades.

So which is it? If Mr. Kagasse was able to leave the scene with such detail, how could not one single security camera capture at least the blurry outline of a plane?

When discussing the size of the hole caused by the plane, we run into another psychological tactic frequently employed in the book. As stated previously, the Pentagon is one of the most hotly debated aspects of the official 9/11 narrative. There are hundreds of web sites that explore the events of 9/11 with some entirely dedicated to the incident at the Pentagon. Yet, Popular Mechanics chose to cite www.the7thfire.com as their primary source for their information on the Pentagon. Why do that when sites such as www.pentagonresearch.com exist to focus solely on this topic?

I can answer that pretty easily. If the reader decided to check the source given, they would find themselves on a web site dedicated to new age topics such as dream catchers and miracles. Information related to 9/11 is something of a footnote in the grand scene of the page. The implication would be that those who question 9/11 typically sit around talking mind control and “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion,” both of which are hot topics on the site. This is pure misrepresentation.

Continuing the trend of misrepresentation, the editors went out of their way to tie as many sources as possible to Holocaust deniers. One example would be their choice to cite an article from www.rense.com, noting afterwards that the site focuses frequently on Zionism and Holocaust denial. The message being that if the reader was starting to empathize with these conspiracy nuts, they should be aware that anti-Semitism dominates the movement. Nothing could be further from the truth. There will always be those who pin every wrongdoing in the world on Jews, Zionists and Israel.

Perhaps the most ludicrous assertion made in the entire book relates to WTC Building 7. Building 7 is often seen as the smoking gun of 9/11 research, based on its classic demolition-style collapse and lack of coverage in the “9/11 Commission Report.” Leaseholder Larry Silverstein also made an infamous confession in a PBS documentary. Mr. Silverstein states that he instructed the fire department commander to “pull” the building at 5:20PM. While some have argued that the first two towers collapsed because of the combination of fire and plane impact, the same could not be said of Building 7. While there were fires (pictured in the book), it was not hit by any aircraft. When combining the fact that the building collapsed at near free fall speed with Mr. Silverstein’s comments, this would seem an open and shut case: World Trade Center Building 7 was demolished. Mr. Silverstein later emerges to explain that by “pull it,” he was referring to removal of the fire fighters from the building. This is troubling when you factor in that the New York Times reported on November 29, 2001, that by 11:30 am all firefighters had been removed from the area due to safety concerns. Further, FEMA’s initial report indicated that there was only light structural damage caused by the fires. In fact, FEMA has all but literally scratched their proverbial heads in trying to explain the building collapse.

The editors also decided to take on the definition of “pull it” once and for all. After speaking with four unnamed demolition and engineering experts, they claim that not one of these individuals have ever heard the term “pull it” to describe controlled demolition. Instead the term is a reference to a procedure where a building is cut at the foundation and literally pulled over. To cover themselves, Popular Mechanics made sure to include a mention that the technique of literally pulling a building over itself was tried unsuccessfully on buildings 5 and 6. However, the aforementioned documentary showed a demolition team announcing that they were about to “pull” one of the other buildings. Once the order is given, the building clearly collapses in perfect symmetry. So it would seem that the attempts to “pull” the buildings were quite successful.

Since the publication of the original Popular Mechanics piece, Brigham Young University Physics Professor Steven Jones has released one of the most vital studies in 9/11 truth. Last year Dr. Jones began to study the possibility of a thermite reaction at both of the main towers of the WTC, thus causing their collapse. Further, Dr. Jones recently obtained a piece of debris from the rubble and was able to positively test it for the existence of compounds that would be consistent with a thermite reaction. As Dr. Jones’s study is very well sourced and thorough, the study must obviously be discredited in some fashion. Popular Mechanics carted out several metallurgic professors who disagree with the Jones hypothesis. They also quote Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc.,, who was contracted to remove all debris from ground zero. Mr. Loizeaux explaines that, "Dr. Jones misunderstands the properties of explosive charges.” Other than Mr. Loizeaux’s title, no other credentials are cited for him to make such an assertion. Finally, it’s noted that, “Dr. Jones primary field of study at BYU (Brigham Young University) is metal-catalyzed or cold fusion, a study that is unrelated to engineering or the performance of tall buildings.” The key word here is “primary.” While Dr. Jones may focus on such said issues in his studies at BYU, it does not mean that he hasn’t studied basic physics and metallurgy. So once again, the reader is to rely on assumptions and half-truths in the face of irrefutable evidence and dictates of logic.

Rapier

05-17-2009, 02:02 AM

Refuting the lie, a response to Popular Mechanics: debunking 9/11 myths
By Craig Schlanger
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Sep 25, 2006, 00:59

Like a jury delivering a verdict, the book ends with a 20-page epilogue that serves as an indictment of the mind of “the conspiracy theorist.” Popular Mechanics Editor-In-Chief James B. Meigs manages to invoke the Illuminati, New World Order, and Zionism in the first sentence. Meigs cites numerous pieces of hate mail he has received, which accuse him of being everything from a government shill to a MOSSAD agent. Ironically, most of the charges leveled against people questioning the official 9/11 story are tactics employed throughout this book. A few examples include, but are not limited to, marginalization of opposing views, guilt by association, slipshod handling of facts, demonization and circular reasoning.

To his credit, Meigs acknowledges the questions some raised about the relationship between Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff and Benjamin Chertoff, head of the magazine’s research department. Meig’s admits that they are likely related, but have never met and had no contact for the purpose of the 2005 article. This is a great example of the use of circular reasoning. It defies logic to think that, in writing a story like this, any journalist worth his/her weight wouldn’t cover all the bases. In this case, if a member of your staff is related to the head of the very agency that was born out of the ashes of 9/11, why not tap into that resource? It would seem to be as good a time as any for a Chertoff family reunion.

Let me be clear. I do not pretend to know exactly what happened on 9/11: I also have my disagreements with many of the theories that have been put out there over the years. What I do know is that what the people were told happened on 9/11 is not the truth. If Americans are to take any lessons from history, it is that those in power will redefine the truth in a way that bests suits their interests and agenda. Those who stand to profit from an event like 9/11 have no interest in opening themselves up to any line of questioning. They also suffer in that the facts are not on their side. This book tries to serve as the bandage for a gaping wound in the official 9/11 narrative. Unfortunately for those in charge, that wound shows no signs of healing.

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1242.shtml

Rapier

05-17-2009, 02:35 AM

Sunday, December 30, 2007
A tale of three broadcasters

CairnsBlog contributing writer Sid Walker takes an unexplained bomb to the ABC...

I am one of growing number of people around the world who believes the western mass media is deeply dishonest about some very important topics.

I believe something must be done to rectify this - urgently.

Sad to say, the mass media’s tendency to report selectively is not confined to commercial media.

In this tale, written from an Australian perspective, I’ll review an incident that took place overseas several years ago - and the remarkable failure of Australia's premier public broadcaster to report the story.

Then I’ll look at equivalent public broadcasters, in Britain and the USA, to examine their bizarre reportage of the same extraordinary event.

Publicly-funded mass media can - and should - survive only if they enjoy widespread confidence. Why should the public fund media which lies about very important topics - matters of life and death? Read on - and judge for yourself whether the tangled web woven by these three mass media organizations is evidence of deliberate deception.

All Quiet at the ABC

http://bp1.blogger.com/_aTig6QfQ1iI/R3b2DPpt6vI/AAAAAAAABlU/E1EUYg9m9HI/s320/wtc7_on_fire.jpg

This is the story of a 47-story building, in a world-famous city, that collapsed several years ago. The collapse was not ‘intended’ - in the sense that this was no listed demolition site. It was a busy office building, occupied by working staff until the previous day. Then, a little more than six years ago, it simply collapsed.

If you think that’s odd, hold on tight... there’s more...

As far as I can observe from a search of the ABC’s public web archive, the unexpected collapse of this rather large building has never once been reported by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

That’s right! A large building (World Trade Center Building 7 - also known as the Salomon Building) drops to the ground in daylight. It was a massive steel-framed concrete construction - built to last. After what appeared to be a localized fire lasting a few hours, the entire structure fell neatly in its own footprint at near free-fall velocity.

Finally, and quite amazingly, “Our” ABC simply ignores the incident. Trawling the archives of the ABC website as best I can, I’ve found:

- No investigative report of the collapse of WTC-7
- No profile of the building and its strange history
- No report on the ongoing mysteries surrounding its collapse
- No report on its rapid rebuilding & re-opening

A couple of qualifications are in order. First, if I missed the story in the ABC's archives, I do apologize and would like to put the record straight. I did find one obscure mention of WTC-7 in an edited ABC talkboard (although re-checking more recently, I'm unable to locate even that). On that particular page, I recall a participant from the general public mentioned the unexplained collapse once. There may be more references to find on the ABC site - but they certainly don't 'stand out'.

Second, it is possible the story was reported by the ABC - but that report has not been added to the public web archive. Probably not all ABC reports get archived? Yet the archive is quite comprehensive for major 21st century stories. Big news items are almost always recorded for posterity. Take, for example, the massive blaze that lasted many hours in the Madrid Windsor Building in 2005 (which incidentally didn’t cause the building to fall) . Coverage of that incident can be found easily when searching the ABC's website.

In summary, not one significant report about World Trade Center 7, the remarkable 47-storey collapsing building, seems to have survived (if it ever existed) in the ABC archives.

In case you weren’t previously aware of the event under discussion, WTC-7 collapsed in the late afternoon of September 11th 2001. A smaller building than the Twin Towers (WTC 1 & 2), it was partially on fire for only a few hours before falling to the ground.

Now of course, the collapse of the Twin Towers was widely reported by the Australian media. You may feel therefore consider, as the demise of their smaller sibling resulted in no apparent loss of life, that not reporting WTC-7's mysterious drop was a permissible oversight. Perhaps so.
Before making a judgment about that, let's review equivalent coverage by the ABC’s sibling organizations.

Precognition at the BBC

Australia’s ABC was largely based on its British counterpart, the well-respected BBC – a veritable institution of public broadcasting with increasingly global reach.

How did the BBC dealt with the collapse of WTC-7? Did it also ignore the event?

Not at all! The BBC covered the collapse on the day, quite promptly. The remarkable thing, it turns out, is how promptly!

Early in 2007, a sharp-eyed skeptic trawling through tapes of the BBC’s live media coverage of the 9-11 atrocity, discovered to his amazement that the BBC actually reported the collapse half an hour before it happened!

You read that right.

This extraordinary, quite unprecedented collapse of a steel-framed concrete tower block - an event essentially unreported by Australia’s mass media - was noted by the flagship British broadcaster in advance.

When the footage in question was brought to the attention of the BBC (and tens of thousands of interested citizens around the world who track the mystery of 9-11 via the internet) , the discovery caused quite a stir at BBC HQ. Unable to deny the accuracy of the video footage or its astonishing timing, the BBC eventually settled on the position the premature report was simply a ‘mistake’.

http://bp2.blogger.com/_aTig6QfQ1iI/R3b1vfpt6uI/AAAAAAAABlM/haGlLh9_7IU/s320/wtc+7+-jane_standley_wtc-7.jpg

The BBC's News Editor attempted damage limitation partly by rebutting ‘conspiracy theories’ about the overly-prescient report in his official BBC blog. He has permitted (moderated) reader responses to be posted. See them here and here. Nearly a year later, alarmed, angry and concerned people are still demanding an adequate explanation from the BBC. It doesn’t seem we’re going to get one... anytime soon.

Significantly, the BBC hasn’t reported on its own miraculous reporting in on BBC news or current affairs (nor has ‘Our’ ABC for that matter). You’ll only find out about this story if you are looking for it.

Precognition at the Beeb? Nothing to see here, folks! Move along!

Admission on PBS

So, perhaps the ABC was right to be cautious about telling the tale of WTC-7? The story is a minefield for public broadcasters!

Even so, after a seemly six year delay, perhaps there's an opportunity for the ABC to break its silence on the topic and leap-frog the competition? It’s about time Australian journalists got a real scoop.

If the ABC does investigate the case, a call to the influential and well-resourced Lowy Institute for International Policy might be useful.

Scarcely a week goes by without the Lowy Institute pronouncing on one or other of the topics de jour… climate change, terrorism, the world economy etc. The ABC runs frequent stories about the Lowy Institute's latest opinions, which it seems to hold in very high regard.

The Lowy Institute was founded by billionaire-philanthropist Frank Lowy. Sometimes described as the richest Australian, Lowy had a long and interesting career that included a spell, early on, as a warrior in the Haganah during the Israeli ‘War of Independence’ (which others call the Nakba). Lowy settled in Australia in the 1950s and became a shopping center magnate.

Lowy’s global corporation Westfield has been exceptionally successful in the USA, where it operates under the name of ‘Westfield America’.

In 1997, Larry Silverstein was appointed to the board of Westfield America.Now, Larry Silverstein was the leaseholder on WTC 7 – and also the leaseholder for the Twin Towers – at the time of the September 11th mass murder.

Silverstein was interviewed by America’s public broadcaster (PBS) a year or so after the attacks. In that interview, he made the extraordinary statement that the order was given during the afternoon of September 11th to ‘pull’ WTC-7.

Now, that remark implies that the building was pre-rigged with explosives – a very odd suggestion indeed. A controlled demolition of a tower block cannot be carried out in a few hours. It requires days, if not weeks, of careful preparation.

America’s mainstream media hasn’t followed up Silverstein’s gob-smacking admission. Perhaps it feels he deserves a little privacy to get on with his life? Nor, it seems, have the US law enforcement authorities bothered him unduly.

However, Australia’s very own Frank Lowy is presumably on first name terms with the New York developer. Frank must be able to pick up the phone and ask Larry exactly what happened with WTC-7 and what he meant by ‘pull it’.

Publishing Larry’s clarification might just give this aspiring research organization a world exclusive.

http://www.cairnsblog.net/2007/12/tale-of-three-broadcasters.html

Rapier

05-17-2009, 04:45 AM

Rapier

05-17-2009, 04:55 AM

BBC Reports Live that WTC7 has fallen, yet it still stands

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejjySUVOGKA

Rapier

06-09-2009, 03:21 PM

The silence is deafening.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rapier View Post
I was talking to a 50 something very full of himself college grad who corrected me when I said something to the effect "that's as crazy as believing the three WTC buildings collapsed all by themselves." He said only 2 buildings collapsed.

I met another brain trust who believed the three WTC buildings collapsed au natural. His belief almost swung me over when he said anthrax was about as lethal as the swine flu virus.:eek:

bob

06-09-2009, 09:09 PM

The silence is deafening.

I met another brain trust ......... His belief almost swung me over when he said anthrax was about as lethal as the swine flu virus.:eek:

On that issue we do not know yet. ;)

Rapier

07-16-2009, 02:38 PM

How anyone can observe the three collapses and not be amazed beyond belief and suspicious of each one's liquidity and flow gives new meaning to ADD.

David-M

07-16-2009, 07:54 PM

People who obsess this much over something usually have mental problems. I'm just happy you don't know where I live.

bob

07-17-2009, 02:18 AM

People who obsess this much over something usually have mental problems. I'm just happy you don't know where I live.

Any where near Pentz rd?;)

Rapier

07-18-2009, 10:13 PM

People who obsess this much over something usually have mental problems. I'm just happy you don't know where I live.

Wait. Obsess? A plot means that our elected officials answer to an authority that is not "we the people." Which means that legislation is being passed, and has been passed for many years, to strengthen the hold a non elected group has on the US and its citizens.

Pay attention. Odd bedfellows like Bill Maher and Rush Limbaugh agreeing that anyone who thinks 9/11 was a false flag operation is stark raving mad. Likewise the entire Western media. Are you stark raving mad?

Do you have children?

David-M

07-19-2009, 09:49 PM

Rapier

07-23-2009, 11:07 AM

After reading what you said three times, it still did not make sense. Is there some secret committee of non-elected people who control the country? If they are secret then how would you know? If you know of them then by definition they are not secret. Do black helicopters follow you to work? Do you think your phone is tapped? Do you think the CIA intercepts your emails? Do you see dead people?

Your head is in the sand yet your eyes are open. Go figure.

Concerned Americans of all political stripes often ask the same simple question – why is it that no matter which party or politician is in power, the course of the nation never seems to change? There are many who answer that question by pointing to the vast concentration of economic, cultural, and political influence held by an organization called the Council on Foreign Relations, also known as the “CFR.”

The “nonpartisan” foreign policy organization was founded in 1921 as a solution to post World War I America’s resistance to the growing trend toward internationalism; specifically the refusal of these United States to join the so-called ‘League of Nations.’

Edward Mandell House founded the organization. He was a top adviser to President Woodrow Wilson and an architect of the League of Nations. He was also the driving force behind the establishment of the income-tax and Federal Reserve.

Resistance to the agenda was strong in America. The league faced fierce opposition by non-interventionists like Senator William E. Borah. Considered one of the great orators of the 20th century, Senator Borah reminded Americans of “the great policy of ‘no entangling alliances’ upon which the strength of this Republic has been founded.”

While House was plotting the creation of the League of Nations in Europe, Senator Borah took the case against it directly to the American people.

“America has arisen to a position where she is respected and admired by the entire world,” he said. “She did it by minding her own business... the European and American systems do not agree.”

With membership in the League of Nations defeated in vote after vote, House and the cabal of internationalists who worked with him realized that their dream of creating what they called a “new world order” might not succeed. The fundamental power structure of America would have to be changed, so according to historians, they created the CFR and used the vast fortunes and resources at their disposal to shape the next generation of American leaders.

A list of the founding members of the CFR reads like a virtual “who’s who” of early 20th century: John Foster Dulles (older brother to CIA Director Allen W. Dulles), Herbert H. Lehman (Governor of New York and founder of Lehman Brothers investment banking firm), Averell Harriman (son of railroad baron Edward Henry Harriman), Paul M. Warburg (architect of the U.S. Federal Reserve system), as well as insiders from the J.P. Morgan and Rockefeller families like John W. Davis, Alexander Hemphill, and Paul Cravath.

The organization today has infiltrated virtually every aspect of American life in its quest to fulfill its founders’ agenda.

Every American president elected since the end of WWII has been a member with the exception of Ronald Reagan. But even Reagan was forced to take CFR insider George H.W. Bush as his Vice President.
Republican presidential nominee John McCain’s affiliation with the CFR should be particularly troubling to conservatives concerned with upholding American sovereignty. Democratic senator and Hillary Clinton is also a prominent member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Barack Obama’s wife is actually on the board of the CFRs Chicago branch.

“Make no mistake about it: the CFR has dominated every administration, Republican and Democrat, since World War II. They hold sway over most every critical Presidential appointment. Look carefully and one will discover that the Republican President George W. Bush has had as many CFR members in his administration as Democrat President Bill Clinton did in his,” said Florida Pastor Chuck Baldwin who has studied the organization.

So why isn’t this all over the news? Unless you are reading The Liberty Sentinel or some other alternative source, you are most probably getting your information from CFR controlled media. Walter Cronkite was a member, and he was the so-called “most trusted man in America.” He was congratulated by Hillary Clinton for receiving the “global governance” award. Katie Couric is a CFR member too. Other prominent members include David Brinkley, Barbra Walters, Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather, Diane Sawyer, George Stephanopoulos and Jim Lehrer, along with the editors and publishers of virtually every major “mainstream” news organization. Most of this information is available right from the CFR’s own Web site.

With the media as part of the CFR, the group had free reign to pursue its goals unhindered by public scrutiny.

“We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years,” explained David Rockefeller. “It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”

Global socialism under a one-world government is the unapologetic goal of the CFR - even the current president of the organization has written articles calling for an end to national sovereignty and for the rise of an all-powerful United Nations. U.S. Presidents declare it proudly as well, though former CFR director Dick Cheney mentioned on C-SPAN that it isn’t something he told voters about.

“We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order,” proclaimed the first President Bush as he announced the first invasion Iraq to enforce U.N. mandates. “An order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.’s founders.”

Bill Clinton told the world on C-Span that every president since Truman had been working towards the creation of this so-called “new world order.”

After the Sept. 11 attacks the co-chair of the CFR and former senator Gary Hart said it was time for Bush’s vision. Former vice-president Dan Quayle agreed on CNN, saying it was “the best chance to establish the new world order.”

Countless officials have attempted to publicize the intentions of the organization, but the media refused to help.

Dan Smoot, a former member of the FBI Headquarters staff, summarized as follows: “The ultimate aim of the CFR is to create a one-world socialist system, and to make the U.S. an official part of it.”

Navy Admiral Chester Ward was a member for 16 years. Upon resigning from the organization in disgust, he warned the American people.

“The most powerful clique in these elitist groups have one objective in common – they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty of the national independence of the United States,” he said. “A second clique of international members in the CFR comprises the Wall Street international bankers and their key agents. Primarily, they want the world banking monopoly from whatever power ends up in the control of global government.”

Some reporters have written about the subject as well. William Blase of The Courier explained, “If one group is effectively in control of national governments and multinational corporations; promotes world government through control of media, foundation grants, and education; and controls and guides the issues of the day; then they control most options available. The Council on Foreign Relations, and the financial powers behind it, have done all these things, and promote the “new world order,” as they have for over seventy years.”

Critics of the organization also point to evidence and writings of the most important members. On page 405 of his autobiography, David Rockefeller boasts of his family’s plan for the U.S. and the world.

“For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents ... to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” According to Mr. Rockefeller, anyone who opposes global socialism and rule by an amoral elite is an “extremist.”

In a deathbed interview, film producer and patriot Aaron Russo described his invitation to join the Council on Foreign Relations and what he learned from Nick Rockefeller. According to Russo most of its members are in the dark.
The expressed goals of the Council on Foreign Relations are contradictory to the U.S. Constitution and therefore represent a violation of the oath every politician must take. Critics of the organization come from all political orientations but many agree that membership in the CFR should alone disqualify anyone from holding office in the United States.

Voters desperate for positive ‘change’ will be seriously disappointed in November. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John McCain are all high-ranking members of the Council on Foreign Relations.
http://www.libertysentinel.org