|
psy0ps
|
 |
« Reply #1040 on: June 29, 2010, 11:25:08 PM » |
|
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2009/08/30/investigation-pentagon-attack-show-monst A three year independent investigation into the September 11, 2001 attack on the Pentagon has yielded new eyewitness evidence which, according to the Southern California-based researchers who conducted the investigation, "conclusively (and unfortunately) establishes as a historical fact that the violence which took place in Arlington that day was not the result of a surprise attack by suicide hijackers, but rather a military black operation involving a carefully planned and skillfully executed deception."
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stomping on a human face -- forever."
|
|
|
|
kingp43
|
|
« Reply #1041 on: June 29, 2010, 11:36:30 PM » |
|
WOW ! watching the 84 min vid now! another nail in the coffin of the NWO! spread it!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
kingp43
|
|
« Reply #1043 on: June 30, 2010, 12:24:21 AM » |
|
argh, 26 pages of posts. care to clarify for the uninformed? I'm only half way thru the video
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
grapecrusher1
|
|
« Reply #1044 on: June 30, 2010, 12:53:27 AM » |
|
argh, 26 pages of posts. care to clarify for the uninformed? I'm only half way thru the video
Jimd destroys these guys in typical devestating fashion pointing out that their theory makes no sense and is full of gaping holes. Skip through and read some of his posts. There is also a short movie called the pentacon, I think. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"The meek shall inherit NOTHING" -- Zappa
|
|
|
|
Dig
|
|
« Reply #1045 on: June 30, 2010, 01:11:33 AM » |
|
argh, 26 pages of posts. care to clarify for the uninformed? I'm only half way thru the video
CIT is another 3 letter agency |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
|
|
|
|
phasma
|
|
« Reply #1046 on: June 30, 2010, 02:43:11 AM » |
|
Maybe we should start a "what we all agree on" thread and go from there ?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Things are not what they appear to be: nor are they otherwise - Surangama Sutra
|
|
|
|
matrixcutter
|
|
« Reply #1047 on: June 30, 2010, 06:45:13 AM » |
|
Maybe we should start a "what we all agree on" thread and go from there ? OK, I'll start. 1) we were lied to about 9/11. 2) most people believe at least some of the lies we were told, including people in the "9/11 truth movement". 3) talking about 9/11 brings out the worst in certain people, who behave like they are not nice people and seem to think that they can just insult others into submission (and with some people, they can.) 4) even people that obnoxious can have "fans", such is the nature of the human race. 5) a massive plane that flies into a building doesn't leave a hole much smaller than the plane, leave damage totally inconsistent with a massive plane flying into the building, and doesn't leave the lawn totally undamaged. It is a physical impossibility. 6) Physical impossibilities don't happen. If your beliefs rely on a physical impossibility, then either they are wrong, or one must infer some sort of supernatural involvement i.e. a "miracle". 6) A news reporter witnessing the scene on the day said that there was no sign of any plane crashing at the Pentagon, only to change his mind later on. 7) The first news reports after a major event like that tend to reveal pieces of the story that are subsequently dropped and never mentioned again e.g. bombs inside the building in Oklahoma. 8 ) It doesn't matter how many people believe something that is wrong, they can never make it right because that's impossible. 9) The idea that the government could not capture clear video footage of a plane crashing the Pentagon, or that this footage must be kept secret for purposes of "national security" is ridiculous. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Scootle
|
|
« Reply #1048 on: June 30, 2010, 07:21:42 AM » |
|
OK, I'll start.
1) we were lied to about 9/11.
True, but not about everything. Planes did crash, people did die. Anyone who says otherwise might aswell be a holocaust denier. 2) most people believe at least some of the lies we were told, including people in the "9/11 truth movement".
Not necessarily we just try to maintain credibility by not endorsing fringe theories. 3) talking about 9/11 brings out the worst in certain people, who behave like they are not nice people and seem to think that they can just insult others into submission (and with some people, they can.)
It's a sensitive topic, anyone who isn't passionate and doesn't get emotional isn't human. 4) even people that obnoxious can have "fans", such is the nature of the human race.
Obviously, that's why we're in the mess we are. 5) a massive plane that flies into a building doesn't leave a hole much smaller than the plane, leave damage totally inconsistent with a massive plane flying into the building, and doesn't leave the lawn totally undamaged. It is a physical impossibility.
 6) Physical impossibilities don't happen. If your beliefs rely on a physical impossibility, then either they are wrong, or one must infer some sort of supernatural involvement i.e. a "miracle".
True but the Pentagon attack was not physically impossible. The flight maneuvres were difficult, but not aeronautically impossible, and as for the crash, a few small anomolies does not invalidate the testimony of hundreds of heros and patriots. 6) A news reporter witnessing the scene on the day said that there was no sign of any plane crashing at the Pentagon, only to change his mind later on.
Maybe because he was basing his initial oppinion on what he could see at the time, but then went and took a closer look and saw much more. 7) The first news reports after a major event like that tend to reveal pieces of the story that are subsequently dropped and never mentioned again e.g. bombs inside the building in Oklahoma.
True, but so what? Unless you can dig up footage of a firefighter saying there's nothing there, it's irrelevant. Thousands of first responders in new york said they heard explosions, that was revealed on the day and then dropped. Not a single firefighter at the pentagon said there was anything unusual. 8 ) It doesn't matter how many people believe something that is wrong, they can never make it right because that's impossible.
Yeh we know. We scientific people who believe a plane did hit seem to be a minority within the truth movement. Despite the fact that both Stephen Jones and Richard Gage, without a doubt the two most credible of the prominent 9/11 truth researchers, have warned about Pentagon no-plane theories. 9) The idea that the government could not capture clear video footage of a plane crashing the Pentagon, or that this footage must be kept secret for purposes of "national security" is ridiculous.
They are covering up videos ... it's called a psyop. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
matrixcutter
|
|
« Reply #1049 on: June 30, 2010, 11:31:14 AM » |
|
It's pretty obvious already that Scootle is not interested in listening to anybody who disagrees with him (or more accurately, disagreeing with the beliefs he has been given and has accepted as his own), either in terms of small details or significant differences, but let's see where this goes anyway. 1) we were lied to about 9/11. True, but not about everything. Planes did crash, people did die. People did die. That is certain. There are people who believe that planes crashed and people who don't, so clearly that is not something that everybody can agree on. Simply saying that planes crashed doesn't make it true. Whether or not planes crashed into the Twin Towers isn't something that is worth debating with closed-minded stubborn people, so I won't. But repetition of a theory combined with ridicule of any alternative theory is not proof of anything. It certainly isn't scientific. Anyone who says otherwise might aswell be a holocaust denier. This is a very revealing statement. There is no logic to it at all, no sign of any explanation, just a deliberately misleading slur used by the mainstream media to smear anybody they want to be considered insane by those members of the audience who are easily-led. The added bonus for the mainstream media is that there are people with no critical thinking skills who will simply take the slur and use it as part of their own so-called "arguments", so that eventually it effectively comes to be used as punctuation, and any meaning it once had is diluted. 2) most people believe at least some of the lies we were told, including people in the "9/11 truth movement". Not necessarily we just try to maintain credibility by not endorsing fringe theories. Another highly revealing statement. With whom are you trying to maintain credibility, each other? For anyone who believes the official story, you lost credibility years ago. You are a silly "conspiracy theorist" who believes that conspiracies are actually possible. So does this loss of credibility in their eyes actually matter? No, of course not. And why doesn't it matter? Because they are wrong. So now apparently it's all about remaining credible by not endorsing "fringe" theories. This is of course another slur on people you disagree with. You don't need to look at the evidence or actually consider what the data shows, just call them "fringe" theories. Of course, everything you say is a fringe theory to someone. Does that make it false? Have you ever even considered that concept? Do you see your own doublethink? 3) talking about 9/11 brings out the worst in certain people, who behave like they are not nice people and seem to think that they can just insult others into submission (and with some people, they can.) It's a sensitive topic, anyone who isn't passionate and doesn't get emotional isn't human. Your sweeping statements reveal a lot about the way you think. You have inadvertently asserted that anybody who is capable of discussing 9/11 without getting emotional is not a human being. Obviously that is false, but that doesn't stop you saying it anyway because you think it somehow strengthens your argument and weakens any opposing arguments. You need to start thinking critically and using logic. It's pretty obvious that you have never developed a decent understanding of simple logic. 4) even people that obnoxious can have "fans", such is the nature of the human race. Obviously, that's why we're in the mess we are. It's far more complicated than that. 5) a massive plane that flies into a building doesn't leave a hole much smaller than the plane, leave damage totally inconsistent with a massive plane flying into the building, and doesn't leave the lawn totally undamaged. It is a physical impossibility. Point number 5 still stands, obviously. Posting unlabelled, unreferenced and unsourced photos does not negate the evidence that we've all seen, which prove that the damage done was certainly not done by the plane that the government would have us believe did the damage. 6) Physical impossibilities don't happen. If your beliefs rely on a physical impossibility, then either they are wrong, or one must infer some sort of supernatural involvement i.e. a "miracle". True but the Pentagon attack was not physically impossible. Obviously what happened was not physically impossible. But what they said happened is, was and will always be physically impossible. The flight maneuvres were difficult, but not aeronautically impossible, Difficult for someone who could actually fly, almost impossible for someone who couldn't. and as for the crash, a few small anomolies does not invalidate the testimony of hundreds of heros and patriots. You and your childish soundbites. Patriots, heroes, don't question, don't look at any "anomalies" because they can't compete with heroes and patriots. Ridiculous. Big plane, small hole. Impossible. Big plane, moving quickly, massive downward force, lawn completely undamaged. Physically impossible. Not difficult, impossible. And that isn't going away. The fact that you ignore the physical impossibilities is conclusive proof that a theory doesn't need to make sense for you to accept it. So either you don't think for yourself, or you can't, or you can but you just happen to not be very good at it. 6) A news reporter witnessing the scene on the day said that there was no sign of any plane crashing at the Pentagon, only to change his mind later on.
Maybe because he was basing his initial oppinion on what he could see at the time, but then went and took a closer look and saw much more. You just keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. But in the real world, 9/11 was a false-flag terror event, and like all false-flag terror events it relies on the mainstream media to give the general public the official story. It takes time before the mainstream media is made aware of what is tolerable and what is not. That is the cause of these complete U-turns, not some sort of temporary blindness. 7) The first news reports after a major event like that tend to reveal pieces of the story that are subsequently dropped and never mentioned again e.g. bombs inside the building in Oklahoma. True, but so what? Unless you can dig up footage of a firefighter saying there's nothing there, it's irrelevant. Obviously it isn't irrelevant. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C02dE5VKeckJamie McIntyre: "from my close-up inspection there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon ... the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you could pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, a fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon." Thousands of first responders in new york said they heard explosions, that was revealed on the day and then dropped. Not a single firefighter at the pentagon said there was anything unusual. How many of them were measuring that against their previous experiences of planes crashing into the Pentagon like they usually do? 8 ) It doesn't matter how many people believe something that is wrong, they can never make it right because that's impossible. Yeh we know. Yet you behave as though you don't. For you it's all about soundbites and smears and slurs and ridicule. It's not about logic. We scientific people Do you think that wearing a 9/11 T-shirt and putting it in your avatar makes you scientific? Or is there some other reason you have attributed this to yourself? who believe a plane did hit seem to be a minority within the truth movement. Nevertheless, you're sticking to it like flies to ... It must be the stubborn scientist in you. Despite the fact that both Stephen Jones and Richard Gage, without a doubt the two most credible of the prominent 9/11 truth researchers, have warned about Pentagon no-plane theories. If you are attributing credibility to Steven Jones then the word has lost all meaning and worth for you. Steven Jones’ Contributions to Science, Humanity and the Planetby CB_Brooklyn Harrit, Jones et al Conclude Remains of WTC found in WTC Dust9) The idea that the government could not capture clear video footage of a plane crashing the Pentagon, or that this footage must be kept secret for purposes of "national security" is ridiculous. They are covering up videos ... it's called a psyop. Oh, you think psy-ops are government operations in which evidence that would support the government's own assertions are covered up. How very scientific of you. Look, it's not a crime to be young and naive, as you obviously are, but when you combine it with rigid certainty, total dismissal of things you obviously haven't bothered taking the time to understand, misleading soundbites and a total absence of critical thinking, then you're going to make mistakes. Big mistakes. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dig
|
|
« Reply #1050 on: June 30, 2010, 12:08:32 PM » |
|
I have no clue what happened to this thread...
CIT are nuts and the acronym is nuts. They are against citizens, they are counter-investigators, and they do not play well on a team.
Is there any disagreement with that?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
|
|
|
|
Scootle
|
|
« Reply #1051 on: June 30, 2010, 12:42:21 PM » |
|
Dude your the one who refuses to be proven wrong... I believed in the pentagon no plane theories at first, as did alot of the prominent people who now don't, like Wolsey and Hoffman. But when we dug deeper and actually did research beyond what's in loose change second edition we realized, using science and ockham's razor, a plane probably did hit. My arguments are often debunked when I debate people, not only on the subject of 9/11 but other things aswell, like Climate Change. Not long ago I was debating a friend of mine on facebook who's studying earth science at university. He believes humans are causing global warming, I don't. I argued that the troposhere hotspot, the fingerprint of CO2 warming, has never been discovered. He sent me a link to a more recent peer-reviewed scientific paper that proves that it has indeed been observed. I browsed through it, I checked the skeptic sites like wattsupwiththat etc. to see if anyones published a refutation to it, noone has. I did however learn that there are other things that can cause the hotspot so it doesn't really prove anything. Regardess, I admited my argument was false and I will never use that argument again. You see I admit when I'm proven wrong because there's no shame in it. It's part of the science. The CIT guys refuse to be proven wrong, coz they have a vested interest (i.e money, $1,000 for 500 copies of their 'documentary' - I feel sorry for whoever wasted their money on that!) in keeping their joke of a flyover theory, which has no direct, tangible evidence whatsoever supporting it, alive. They've made thousands of dollars harassing patriots, accusing ordinary citizens of being accomplices in mass murder, making cheap, crappily produced movies - which are mostly just scrolling white text on a solid black background and Craig Ranke sitting on his couch, and discrediting one of most important causes in human history. It's pretty dispicable really. I have to hand it to them though, it's an ingenious con - Al Gore would be proud! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jimd3100
|
|
« Reply #1052 on: June 30, 2010, 05:08:31 PM » |
|
OK, I'll start.
1) we were lied to about 9/11.
And you no plane assholes keep the lies going. 2) most people believe at least some of the lies we were told, including people in the "9/11 truth movement". Actually the so called truth movement is full of liars, you being the perfect example. 3) talking about 9/11 brings out the worst in certain people, who behave like they are not nice people and seem to think that they can just insult others into submission (and with some people, they can.) I like peppering my insults with facts, you no planers deserve no respect. 4) even people that obnoxious can have "fans", such is the nature of the human race. And dealing with no plane fruitloops is the nature of being a mod on the board. 5) a massive plane that flies into a building doesn't leave a hole much smaller than the plane, leave damage totally inconsistent with a massive plane flying into the building, and doesn't leave the lawn totally undamaged. It is a physical impossibility. still telling the same lies after 9 years...it wasn't a small hole as you keep lieing about and as for the lawn, the plane flew into the building not the lawn, and as footage on this video shows a few minutes in the lawn aint as pretty as you try and lead people to believe, enjoy the sound of yet another witness who saw a passenger jet hit as you see the damage done...and the nice "pretty lawn...... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISwWfCGyjzQhole caused by plane at WTC...  Hole you want people to believe was at the pentagon....  But that's a picture of the water covering the hole, these deceitful tactics are old and boring.....remove the water spray and .... Hole caused by plane at pentagon....  6) Physical impossibilities don't happen. If your beliefs rely on a physical impossibility, then either they are wrong, or one must infer some sort of supernatural involvement i.e. a "miracle". maybe you don't know what you're talking about? 6) A news reporter witnessing the scene on the day said that there was no sign of any plane crashing at the Pentagon, only to change his mind later on. Yup, proof that you don't know what you are talking about as will be exposed. 7) The first news reports after a major event like that tend to reveal pieces of the story that are subsequently dropped and never mentioned again e.g. bombs inside the building in Oklahoma. Jeff Goldbloom is not dead. It was reported that he was dead a few years ago. He is still not dead. And your point...oh there was no point. 8 ) It doesn't matter how many people believe something that is wrong, they can never make it right because that's impossible. Maybe you should proclaim that at your next no plane meeting 9) The idea that the government could not capture clear video footage of a plane crashing the Pentagon, or that this footage must be kept secret for purposes of "national security" is ridiculous. Believing they have a clear video of the plane crashing into the building doesn't make it true. How about you find me someone who was there that claims they saw something other than a plane fly into the building. Give it a try. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C02dE5VKeckJamie McIntyre: "from my close-up inspection there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon ... the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you could pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, a fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon." Why don't you no plane liars get some new material, you've been relying on your edited clips and they have been exposed, this is only about the 15th time I've done this, but since you want to show your edited clip, how about we take a look at the unedited clip? But first, I wonder what your star witness Jamie McIntyre has to say about this?..... MCINTYRE: The Web sites often take statements out of context, such as this exchange from CNN in which I -- myself -- appear to be questioning whether a plane really hit the building: From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. In fact, I was answering a question based on a eyewitness account who thought the American Airlines plane landed short of the Pentagon. I was indicated there was no crash site near the pentagon only at the PentagonMCINTYRE: In fact there were thousands of tiny pieces of the plane, and I personally photographed a piece of the fuselage and what appeared to be part of the cockpit.http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/05/16/transcript.wed/Now let's take a look at the unedited clip, and we can all see that you are just a no plane liar who is still using edited clips to try and deceive people......... unedited clip of Jamie Mcintyre......... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjlBpChvzD8Where did all this stuff come from? http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/index.htmlhttp://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/compressor.htmlhttp://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/hulldebris.htmlhttp://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/hullpiece.htmlhttp://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/gearshaft.htmlhttp://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/wheelhub.htmlLet me guess......it was all planted by um....somebody, to keep your stupid no plane theory alive.....saying it don't make a true. This guy is "in on it" too right? Riskus, Steve
I took these pictures less then 1 minutes after I watched the american
airlines 757 airplane crash into the pentagon on september 11 2001. I left
shortly after the picture were taken in fear of further attacks.
Feel free to contact me anytime if you have questions about my
pictures.
I did acctually see the plane impact the building. Steve Riskus
steveriskus@aol.com http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/F77penta13.htmlOn 9-11 planes flew into buildings sherlock, it's been almost a decade now, and the world knows it, about time you caught up dontcha think? Now go find a witness who saw something other than a plane fly into the building. Here's the deal,..... For every witness that you find who saw the plane fly over the building or saw a missile hit or a giant pink bunny...whatever...for every witness you put up I will put up two that watched a plane fly into the building. I'll go first here's my first two... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H8CinIWltY&feature=PlayList&p=6FA2A860385F97EC&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=1http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1ihc1_pentagon-eyewitness-isabel-james_newsNow put up or STFU |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
shure
|
|
« Reply #1053 on: June 30, 2010, 09:30:33 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
matrixcutter
|
|
« Reply #1055 on: July 01, 2010, 05:16:01 AM » |
|
And you no plane assholes keep the lies going.
Actually the so called truth movement is full of liars, you being the perfect example.
I like peppering my insults with facts, you no planers deserve no respect.
And dealing with no plane fruitloops is the nature of being a mod on the board.
Why don't you no plane liars get some new material,
Now put up or STFU 3) talking about 9/11 brings out the worst in certain people, who behave like they are not nice people and seem to think that they can just insult others into submission (and with some people, they can.)
4) even people that obnoxious can have "fans", such is the nature of the human race. Yes, I had someone specific in mind. What a nasty piece of work. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
matrixcutter
|
|
« Reply #1056 on: July 01, 2010, 05:41:41 AM » |
|
I believed in the pentagon no plane theories at first, as did alot of the prominent people who now don't, like Wolsey and Hoffman. But when we dug deeper and actually did research beyond what's in loose change second edition we realized, using science and ockham's razor, a plane probably did hit. It's obvious that the plane they told us hit the Pentagon did not and could not have hit the Pentagon, due to various factors which do include physical impossibilites. Maybe some people have convinced you otherwise through repetition and/or by asserting things confidently (or angrily). Incidentally, the idea that a plane that big would actually have to fly into the lawn in order to cause any damage to the lawn is wrong, and ignores the downward forces of a plane that massive, as one would expect someone like that to do. But the thing that bothers me is that there is undoubtedly perception management going on. It has been going on since 9/11/01 itself and it continues to this day. Yet people haven't learned that the truth movement was set up for that purpose, citing people like Steven Jones as credible individuals. When there is another false-flag event, and we all know it's a matter of when and not if, there will be perception management. So everybody should learn about how it works, learn to read between the lines, learn to use logic and learn to see through idiotic attempts to insult you into submission through angry repetition, or through ridicule, or through a variety of other methods. They pulled off 9/11, and instead of concentrating on finding who was responsible and putting them to justice, the 9/11 truth movement has made sure that we are all arguing over details and fighting each other. Some of the details have been supplied to us specifically to prevent us from looking at the more important aspects of what was done that day e.g. Steven Jones and his thermite to take attention away from the use of directed energy weaponry, but generally the details are about creating different tribes and dividing people up. People really need to think about the mechanisms at work because understanding them is vital before the next false flag attack. I'm not talking about identifying people you disagree with and repeatedly calling them liars, and pretending that they are accusing "heroes and patriots" of being murderers. That's just pathetic and dishonest behaviour. I'm talking about understanding perception management, which happens every day in the mainstream media, and it happens in the alternative media too. Why wouldn't it? This is a war, and we're dealing with people who use the tactics of war against millions of people who don't know that they are in a war. But we are. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
DAVIDE MTL
|
|
« Reply #1057 on: July 01, 2010, 11:00:14 AM » |
|
just curious matrix, do you believe energy weapons took down the towers and not explosives..or both?
do you think Gage in ingenuous?
also someone mentioned Gage and Jones spoke against no plane theories of the pentagon..I would like a source..I heard him in Montreal and he stays away from what hit the pentagon as he says he doesn't know
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
matrixcutter
|
|
« Reply #1058 on: July 01, 2010, 11:26:18 AM » |
|
just curious matrix, do you believe energy weapons took down the towers and not explosives..or both? The evidence shows that directed energy weaponry made the towers go away. There was no collapse. Explosives may or may not have been used for a variety of purposes, but explosives could not have turned thousands of tonnes of steel to dust in the way that directed energy weaponry did. The other thread has more information. If this is completely new to you, or even if it isn't, I recommend you watch the following presentation: 9/11-The New Hiroshima-Pt 1 (Re-edit) - Dr Judy Wood, Madison, Aug 2007 (50mins) http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-7892004186194307613#9/11 - The New Hiroshima - Part 2 - Dr Judy Wood, Madison, Aug 2007 (Re-Edit) (1hr 33mins) http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=6714196008143117547#do you think Gage in ingenuous? No, but it is possible that he is simply ignorant of the available evidence, although at this point that is unlikely. ----- I thought the name Craige Ranke was familiar. Here are a couple of interviews he did with Vyzygoth: Think or Be Eaten #25 7-25-09 Deconstructing the 9/11 Pentagon Attack - mp3Think or Be Eaten #15 7-3-09 Magical, Mystery Flight 77: What, if anything, hit the Pentagon? Because it wasn’t AA 77. Interview with Craig Ranke - mp3http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.comhttp://www.thepentacon.comAnd here's another one with Domenick DiMaggio, for those who are (allowed to be) interested: Think or Be Eaten #2 5-14-09 Magical Mystery Flight 93 Interview with Domenick DiMaggio - mp3 |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dig
|
|
« Reply #1059 on: July 01, 2010, 02:55:25 PM » |
|
It's obvious that the plane they told us hit the Pentagon did not and could not have hit the Pentagon, due to various factors which do include physical impossibilites. Maybe some people have convinced you otherwise through repetition and/or by asserting things confidently (or angrily). Incidentally, the idea that a plane that big would actually have to fly into the lawn in order to cause any damage to the lawn is wrong, and ignores the downward forces of a plane that massive, as one would expect someone like that to do. But the thing that bothers me is that there is undoubtedly perception management going on. It has been going on since 9/11/01 itself and it continues to this day. Yet people haven't learned that the truth movement was set up for that purpose, citing people like Steven Jones as credible individuals. When there is another false-flag event, and we all know it's a matter of when and not if, there will be perception management. So everybody should learn about how it works, learn to read between the lines, learn to use logic and learn to see through idiotic attempts to insult you into submission through angry repetition, or through ridicule, or through a variety of other methods. They pulled off 9/11, and instead of concentrating on finding who was responsible and putting them to justice, the 9/11 truth movement has made sure that we are all arguing over details and fighting each other. Some of the details have been supplied to us specifically to prevent us from looking at the more important aspects of what was done that day e.g. Steven Jones and his thermite to take attention away from the use of directed energy weaponry, but generally the details are about creating different tribes and dividing people up. People really need to think about the mechanisms at work because understanding them is vital before the next false flag attack. I'm not talking about identifying people you disagree with and repeatedly calling them liars, and pretending that they are accusing "heroes and patriots" of being murderers. That's just pathetic and dishonest behaviour. I'm talking about understanding perception management, which happens every day in the mainstream media, and it happens in the alternative media too. Why wouldn't it? This is a war, and we're dealing with people who use the tactics of war against millions of people who don't know that they are in a war. But we are. there was another false flag, we are already on top of it. Is it possible that you might be engaging in perception management of some sort despite the plethora of evidence presented to you? CIT is obvious disinfo. if your opinion is that the "exact plane they say did it is suspect", well that seems to not conflict with the arguments. The issue is using CIT's disinfo to support a fallacy exposed for over 4 years by just the evidence within this thread. BTW, here is the other false flag that is being used on the level of 9/11 right now...
Here is all you need to know: Let's make it real simple...
9/11 False Flag Terror Attacks
 Spark: Planes blowing up in buildings in fire balls. Damage: Caused by thermite charges imploding the buildings, not possible with the planes alone. Media: 24/7 Fear without any actual investigation, story continually changing, anyone trying to speak the truth is silenced. Purpose: Pretext for pre-emptive wars and new central government powers through bombardment of apathy creating narratives to leave the American people with a feeling of hopelessness. Insider Trading: CIA head and illuminated banksters engaged in exponential short selling days before the false flag attack. Wargames: Record Wargames before and during this false flag including "planes in building", "hijacking", and control over FAA systems by Ptech. Much of the first response personnel are located elsewhere in other drills. First responders: Being purposefully exterminated by the EPA's lies about the asbestos, thermite residue, computer hard drives, and other toxins everywhere. The firefighters were blown up first and then the post-collapse first responders were given long term slow kill death toxins. Investigation: None, obstruction of justice from all levels, people silenced. Profitability: The companies in control of the towers made record profits from the false flag...Larry Siverstein.
Gulf Oil False Flag
 Spark: Oil rig is purposefully blown up in fire ball. Damage: Caused by the chemtrailing mix from Evergreen/CIA/Nalco mixing with the crude oil, not possible with crude oil alone. Media: 24/7 Fear without any actual investigation, story continually changing, anyone trying to speak the truth is silenced or their message is manipulated. Purpose: Pretext for carbon taxing and new central government powers through bombardment of apathy creating narratives to leave the American people with a feeling of hopelessness. Insider Trading: Goldman, Vantage (President's investment bank), BP CEO all engaged in dumping their BP holdings weeks before the false flag explosion. Wargames: Wargames before and during this false flag including "defending gulf coast from invading armies", "disaster drill", and control over Gulf surveillance systems by NLE10, DHS, USAF. Much of the first response personnel are located elsewhere in other drills like Boston's fake plane blowing up near the airport for a sea rescue involving over 50 agencies and thousands of personnel (some of the top in Coast Guard disaster relief). First responders: Being purposefully exterminated by the EPA's lies about the toxic soup killing the whales, dolphins, causing brain lesions in red fish, etc. The roughnecks were blown up first and then the humanitarian first responders and private oil clean-up contractors are given long term slow kill death toxins without their knowing it. Investigation: None, obstruction of justice from all levels, people silenced. Profitability: The companies in control of the oil rig will make record profits from the false flag...BP is giving $20 Biillion (they could never get control of this much money from their stockholders) and paying their cleanup subsidiaries, Haliburton, Nalco, Evergreen, etc. Battelle, who controls much of the envionmental terrorist industrial complex and their job is to prevent such things is set to make $Billions off of this. This is a classic mobster swindle fraud on its surface. COREXIT>NALCO>Blackstone Group>Lord Jacob Rothschild
NALCO manufactures COREXIT. Owned by Blackstone Group. Lord Jacob Rothschild is an advising member of the board.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
|
|
|
|
Dig
|
|
« Reply #1060 on: July 01, 2010, 02:58:45 PM » |
|
The evidence shows that directed energy weaponry made the towers go away. There was no collapse. Explosives may or may not have been used for a variety of purposes, but explosives could not have turned thousands of tonnes of steel to dust in the way that directed energy weaponry did. The other thread has more information. If this is completely new to you, or even if it isn't, I recommend you watch the following presentation: 9/11-The New Hiroshima-Pt 1 (Re-edit) - Dr Judy Wood, Madison, Aug 2007 (50mins) http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-7892004186194307613#9/11 - The New Hiroshima - Part 2 - Dr Judy Wood, Madison, Aug 2007 (Re-Edit) (1hr 33mins) http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=6714196008143117547#No, but it is possible that he is simply ignorant of the available evidence, although at this point that is unlikely. ----- I thought the name Craige Ranke was familiar. Here are a couple of interviews he did with Vyzygoth: Think or Be Eaten #25 7-25-09 Deconstructing the 9/11 Pentagon Attack - mp3Think or Be Eaten #15 7-3-09 Magical, Mystery Flight 77: What, if anything, hit the Pentagon? Because it wasn’t AA 77. Interview with Craig Ranke - mp3http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.comhttp://www.thepentacon.comAnd here's another one with Domenick DiMaggio, for those who are (allowed to be) interested: Think or Be Eaten #2 5-14-09 Magical Mystery Flight 93 Interview with Domenick DiMaggio - mp3Well the CIT crapola has already been explained. the Judy Wood stuff is also disinfo. just the presentations themselves are so full of BS it is not even funny especially when there is complete exposure of actual thermite both exploded and not exploded on the steel. but go ahead and watch them to see how far the NWO is going to spread disinfo. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
|
|
|
|
Scootle
|
|
« Reply #1061 on: July 01, 2010, 03:00:17 PM » |
|
I stopped watching at two seconds when I saw fetzer.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jimd3100
|
|
« Reply #1062 on: July 01, 2010, 03:38:15 PM » |
|
Yes, I had someone specific in mind.
What a nasty piece of work.
That's it huh? That's your rebuttel to this..... And dealing with no plane fruitloops is the nature of being a mod on the board. still telling the same lies after 9 years...it wasn't a small hole as you keep lieing about and as for the lawn, the plane flew into the building not the lawn, and as footage on this video shows a few minutes in the lawn ain't as pretty as you try and lead people to believe, enjoy the sound of yet another witness who saw a passenger jet hit as you see the damage done...and the nice "pretty lawn...... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISwWfCGyjzQhole caused by plane at WTC... Hole you want people to believe was at the pentagon.... But that's a picture of the water covering the hole, these deceitful tactics are old and boring.....remove the water spray and .... Hole caused by plane at pentagon.... How about you find me someone who was there that claims they saw something other than a plane fly into the building. Give it a try. Why don't you no plane liars get some new material, you've been relying on your edited clips and they have been exposed, this is only about the 15th time I've done this, but since you want to show your edited clip, how about we take a look at the unedited clip? But first, I wonder what your star witness Jamie McIntyre has to say about this?..... MCINTYRE: The Web sites often take statements out of context, such as this exchange from CNN in which I -- myself -- appear to be questioning whether a plane really hit the building: From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. In fact, I was answering a question based on a eyewitness account who thought the American Airlines plane landed short of the Pentagon. I was indicated there was no crash site near the pentagon only at the PentagonMCINTYRE: In fact there were thousands of tiny pieces of the plane, and I personally photographed a piece of the fuselage and what appeared to be part of the cockpit.http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/05/16/transcript.wed/Now let's take a look at the unedited clip, and we can all see that you are just a no plane liar who is still using edited clips to try and deceive people......... unedited clip of Jamie Mcintyre......... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjlBpChvzD8Where did all this stuff come from? http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/index.htmlhttp://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/compressor.htmlhttp://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/hulldebris.htmlhttp://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/hullpiece.htmlhttp://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/gearshaft.htmlhttp://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/wheelhub.htmlLet me guess......it was all planted by um....somebody, to keep your stupid no plane theory alive.....saying it don't make a true. This guy is "in on it" too right? Riskus, Steve
I took these pictures less then 1 minutes after I watched the american
airlines 757 airplane crash into the pentagon on september 11 2001. I left
shortly after the picture were taken in fear of further attacks.
Feel free to contact me anytime if you have questions about my
pictures.
I did acctually see the plane impact the building. Steve Riskus
steveriskus@aol.com http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/F77penta13.htmlOn 9-11 planes flew into buildings sherlock, it's been almost a decade now, and the world knows it, about time you caught up dontcha think? Now go find a witness who saw something other than a plane fly into the building. Here's the deal,..... For every witness that you find who saw the plane fly over the building or saw a missile hit or a giant pink bunny...whatever...for every witness you put up I will put up two that watched a plane fly into the building. I'll go first here's my first two... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H8CinIWltY&feature=PlayList&p=6FA2A860385F97EC&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=1http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1ihc1_pentagon-eyewitness-isabel-james_newsNow put up or STFU In other words you respond with ....  Mattrixblubber the no plane wonder boy..... Whether or not planes crashed into the Twin Towers isn't something that is worth debating with closed-minded stubborn people, so I won't.
A full fledged no plane nut. A pusher of every piece of disinfo nonsense out there that's what mattrixblubber does....which brings up a philosophical question.... Who is more of a loon, Matrixblubber.....or These hero's of his.....  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-558096240694803017#Or these hero's of his...  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DqDBPmV5qcMy money is on you matrixblubber since even the CIT loons know planes flew into the WTC. Congratulations....in my book you're the winner of this competition.. On 9-11 planes flew into buildings sherlock, it's been almost a decade now, and the world knows it, about time you caught up dontcha think? Now go find a witness who saw something other than a plane fly into the building. Here's the deal,..... For every witness that you find who saw the plane fly over the building or saw a missile hit or a giant pink bunny...whatever...for every witness you put up I will put up two that watched a plane fly into the building. I'll go first here's my first two... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H8CinIWltY&feature=PlayList&p=6FA2A860385F97EC&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=1http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1ihc1_pentagon-eyewitness-isabel-james_newsNow put up or STFU Still waiting...... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
matrixcutter
|
|
« Reply #1063 on: July 01, 2010, 06:59:23 PM » |
|
there was another false flag, we are already on top of it. I was talking about a "terrorist" attack in which thousands of people are killed, but the point does apply to other major events. CIT is obvious disinfo. Is it? I haven't really studied it so I don't know. What do you know that proves to you that it is disinfo? if your opinion is that the "exact plane they say did it is suspect", well that seems to not conflict with the arguments. Physically impossible, not merely "suspect". The issue is using CIT's disinfo to support a fallacy exposed for over 4 years by just the evidence within this thread. What are you talking about? Are you accusing me of something here? Is it something to do with the mp3s I posted? Does that make me a counter-intelligence operative now, or is the investigative process more sophisticated than that? the Judy Wood stuff is also disinfo. No it isn't. just the presentations themselves are so full of BS So that's well over two hours full of BS then. In that case, can you list say 10 things that Dr Wood says that are false, and explain the contradictory evidence you can use to prove that they are false. If 10 is too many to find in just 143 minutes of BS, 5 will do for starters. BTW, I'm not talking about things that Dr Wood doesn't say, I'm specifically talking about things that she does say, things which you have identified as BS and can now justify it. 9/11-The New Hiroshima-Pt 1 (Re-edit) - Dr Judy Wood, Madison, Aug 2007 (50mins) http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-7892004186194307613#9/11 - The New Hiroshima - Part 2 - Dr Judy Wood, Madison, Aug 2007 (Re-Edit) (1hr 33mins) http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=6714196008143117547#If you're referring to different presentations, that's fine, as long as you identify what Dr Wood says, when, and still give the contradictory evidence that proves each point wrong. but go ahead and watch them to see how far the NWO is going to spread disinfo. As strange as it sounds, around here, you deserve credit for that. I stopped watching at two seconds when I saw fetzer. Well at least you gave it your best. No-one can ask any more from you than that. Incidentally, Fetzer is not someone who would be considered an ally by Dr Wood, due to his behaviour in various radio interviews after the above presentation took place. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Scootle
|
|
« Reply #1064 on: July 02, 2010, 03:59:48 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dig
|
|
« Reply #1065 on: July 02, 2010, 06:11:30 AM » |
|
I was talking about a "terrorist" attack in which thousands of people are killed, but the point does apply to other major events.
Environmental terrorists are still terrorists and with the conexit toxic sludge, thousands are slated to die at least. But if we are just talking Al-CIA-duh, I think they tried with the christmas bomber and the times square fizzle, saw that no one believes it and are moving on with enviro crap, or just more pre-emptive wars/genocide. Also they are still threatening pandemics. [quote[Is it? I haven't really studied it so I don't know. What do you know that proves to you that it is disinfo?[/quote] Yes, they interview average American citizens and then manufacture innuendo and scenarios with no evidence as to why those people they interviewed are government agents in on the 9/11 conspiracy. Because they call themselves "Citizen Investigation", it leaves a stigma in the psyche of those willing to be interviewed that, if interviewed by independent journos about 9/11, their interview will be used to slander them. This has an overall chilling affect on others who wish to come forward to give a statement to others like AJ, Bermas, Luke, etc. They are basically obstructing the possibility of many witnesses to feel safe in telling their stories about 9/11. I would recommend before pushing their stuff as "logical investigative material" you should investigate further. It gets pretty obvious the deeper you research it. Physically impossible, not merely "suspect". Barring a full investigation, why make absolute statements. There is overwhelming evidence supporting an investigation and there is absolute factual evidence that Hani Handor could not have flown a plane with that precision. What are you talking about? The fallacy of saying "there was no plane that hit the pentagon" as an absolute has been disproven for over 4 years. CIT's lies to not make this fallacy all of a sudden true. Are you accusing me of something here? Is it something to do with the mp3s I posted? Does that make me a counter-intelligence operative now, or is the investigative process more sophisticated than that? I am accusing you of pushing info that has been exposed as disinfo without taking the proper time to investigate it. By your own admission, you support this accusation. No it isn't. I wholeheartedly disagree and again research it deeper and it will be apparent. So that's well over two hours full of BS then. Yup In that case, can you list say 10 things that Dr Wood says that are false, and explain the contradictory evidence you can use to prove that they are false. If 10 is too many to find in just 143 minutes of BS, 5 will do for starters. BTW, I'm not talking about things that Dr Wood doesn't say, I'm specifically talking about things that she does say, things which you have identified as BS and can now justify it. 9/11-The New Hiroshima-Pt 1 (Re-edit) - Dr Judy Wood, Madison, Aug 2007 (50mins) http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-7892004186194307613#9/11 - The New Hiroshima - Part 2 - Dr Judy Wood, Madison, Aug 2007 (Re-Edit) (1hr 33mins) http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=6714196008143117547#If you're referring to different presentations, that's fine, as long as you identify what Dr Wood says, when, and still give the contradictory evidence that proves each point wrong. 1. she denies thermite as the method for exploding the buildings. 2. She thinks that thermite cannot cause the damage to the cars. 3. She fails to recognize the fact that multiple car bombs were going off al over the place. 4. She fails to recognize that over 200 witnesses heard the bombs and gave expert testimony of bomb blasts. 5. She fails to recognize the prep work done to get the tons of thermite into the buildings and the people involved with that project. 6. Kroll 7. John O'Neill 6. Neil Bush 7. Dick Cheney 8. Ptech 9. NRO's "plane in buildings exercise" 10. Able Danger Items 6-10 (and over 1,000) others are factual issues diffused via this disinfo campaign. As strange as it sounds, around here, you deserve credit for that. Not sure what that means, are you accusing me of something?  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
|
|
|
|
matrixcutter
|
|
« Reply #1066 on: July 02, 2010, 07:42:41 AM » |
|
I realise that "you scientific people" merely need other people to tell you that something is disinfo in order to classify it as disinfo, but there are people who are capable of thinking for themselves, and can spend longer than 2 seconds looking at the evidence. It isn't disinfo, even if a moderator of the disinfo subforum says it is. What the hell has happened to you matrixcutter? I don't remember you always promoting blatant disinfo and divide-and-conquer BS like this. Well thanks for joining in. However, people who can't think for themselves and can't help using soundbites that they don't really understand are not going to influence me. Your opinion about me matters about as much to me as your opinion of anything else. When the crowd lets you down, be sure to remember that at any time you could have used your own mind to think for yourself, had you chosen to do so. You are a human being after all. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
matrixcutter
|
|
« Reply #1067 on: July 02, 2010, 08:56:22 AM » |
|
Physically impossible, not merely "suspect". Barring a full investigation, why make absolute statements. Physical impossibilities are not possible, by definition. We don't need a full investigation to tell us that you can't roll a 7 with one standard 6-sided dice, or that you can't run 100 metres in 2 seconds flat (although you can classify something as disinfo in that time, apparently.) It was not physically possible for Flight 77 to have caused that damage. That's a fact. And there are more massive holes in the official story that the children are expected to believe, and you know it. There is overwhelming evidence supporting an investigation and there is absolute factual evidence that Hani Handor could not have flown a plane with that precision. Why would you say something about the "pilot" without waiting for an investigation to tell you that it's OK to say that? And who are you expecting to do this investigation? Do you genuinely expect any new investigation to be honest and thorough, and not to omit important details? I am accusing you of pushing info that has been exposed as disinfo without taking the proper time to investigate it. By your own admission, you support this accusation. Where have I pushed CIT (dis)info, and where have I admitted to supporting the accusation that I have? I hope this isn't another one of your periods of unnecessary intellectual dishonesty. In that case, can you list say 10 things that Dr Wood says that are false, and explain the contradictory evidence you can use to prove that they are false. If 10 is too many to find in just 143 minutes of BS, 5 will do for starters. BTW, I'm not talking about things that Dr Wood doesn't say, I'm specifically talking about things that she does say, things which you have identified as BS and can now justify it. 9/11-The New Hiroshima-Pt 1 (Re-edit) - Dr Judy Wood, Madison, Aug 2007 (50mins) http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-7892004186194307613#9/11 - The New Hiroshima - Part 2 - Dr Judy Wood, Madison, Aug 2007 (Re-Edit) (1hr 33mins) http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=6714196008143117547#If you're referring to different presentations, that's fine, as long as you identify what Dr Wood says, when, and still give the contradictory evidence that proves each point wrong. 1. she denies thermite as the method for exploding the buildings. 2. She thinks that thermite cannot cause the damage to the cars. 3. She fails to recognize the fact that multiple car bombs were going off al over the place. 4. She fails to recognize that over 200 witnesses heard the bombs and gave expert testimony of bomb blasts. 5. She fails to recognize the prep work done to get the tons of thermite into the buildings and the people involved with that project. 6. Kroll 7. John O'Neill 6. Neil Bush 7. Dick Cheney 8. Ptech 9. NRO's "plane in buildings exercise" 10. Able Danger I specifically and explicitly said that I was referring not to things that Dr Wood doesn't say, but to things that she does say. And you have simply pretended not to have understood that, as you usually do when I ask you an unambiguous question, which is designed to cut out all irrelevance and which requires an honest answer. 1. she denies thermite as the method for exploding the buildings. Can you identify what Dr Wood actually says, the reasoning she uses, and then prove her wrong. I didn't merely ask you to give an example of something you don't agree with. There would be no point in doing that, which is why that isn't what I did. 2. She thinks that thermite cannot cause the damage to the cars. Again, what does Dr Wood actually say and what are the reasons given? Can you prove them wrong? 3. She fails to recognize the fact that multiple car bombs were going off al over the place. Again, you identified Dr Wood's presentation as full of BS. I asked you to identify things that she said which were false, and I made it unambiguously clear that I was asking you about things that Dr Wood does say, not about things that she does not say. It was you who said that her presentations were full of BS, and yet you have chosen to concentrate on what she does not say. 4. She fails to recognize that over 200 witnesses heard the bombs and gave expert testimony of bomb blasts. Again, this is about what Dr Wood does say. I went out of my way to make that perfectly clear, and it was. 5. She fails to recognize the prep work done to get the tons of thermite into the buildings and the people involved with that project. Again, you are pretending not to understand what was asked. What proof do you think you have of people going into the buildings with tonnes of thermite? Is it actually proof, or he said, she said? As strange as it sounds, around here, you deserve credit for that. Not sure what that means, are you accusing me of something? I meant that you are not being pathetic enough to forbid even the acknowledgement of the existence of things you disagree with. And that's something. You don't behave like a drunken tramp when you disagree with something, throwing excrement at anyone who happens to have the misfortune of sharing the same space as you, but you do tend to accuse people of things they haven't done, and you do play dumb, and you are often incapable of preventing your own intellectual dishonesty, so you actually make reasonable and rational debate virtually impossible anyway, which suggests that this is your intention. I'll have a look later to see whether you have attempted to justify your assertion that I am supporting CIT disinfo. I hope you're not referring to either a) posting on this thread without agreeing with everything the mob says, or b) posting 3 old interviews that I didn't even comment on. And I'll give you one last chance to justify your assertion that Dr Wood's presentations are full of BS. As I've explained, you will need to identify several things that Dr Wood actually says, and then disprove them. N.B. Again, this is not a request for you to point out some things that Dr Wood doesn't say, or claims that she doesn't make. This is specifically about justifying your assertion that Dr Wood's presentations are full of BS, by disproving things that she does say. Also, things that Dr Wood does say are not necessarily the same as things that Dr Wood is accused of saying, so be sure to identify exactly what was said and when, and then give your contradictory evidence which proves Dr Wood wrong. Obviously I have already asked you to do this, and you chose to pretend not to understand what was asked and to talk about things that Dr Wood didn't say. If you don't even attempt to answer the question properly again, then it will be obvious that you are not going to, presumably because you are unable to do so. I wonder whether that would stop you from claiming that Dr Wood's presentations are full of BS in the future, without being able to justify it when asked. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dig
|
|
« Reply #1068 on: July 02, 2010, 09:37:00 AM » |
|
Barring a full investigation, why make absolute statements.
Physical impossibilities are not possible, by definition. We don't need a full investigation to tell us that you can't roll a 7 with one standard 6-sided dice, or that you can't run 100 metres in 2 seconds flat (although you can classify something as disinfo in that time, apparently.)
It was not physically possible for Flight 77 to have caused that damage. That's a fact.
And there are more massive holes in the official story that the children are expected to believe, and you know it.
Why would you say something about the "pilot" without waiting for an investigation to tell you that it's OK to say that?
And who are you expecting to do this investigation? Do you genuinely expect any new investigation to be honest and thorough, and not to omit important details?
Where have I pushed CIT (dis)info, and where have I admitted to supporting the accusation that I have?
I hope this isn't another one of your periods of unnecessary intellectual dishonesty.
1. she denies thermite as the method for exploding the buildings.
2. She thinks that thermite cannot cause the damage to the cars.
3. She fails to recognize the fact that multiple car bombs were going off al over the place.
4. She fails to recognize that over 200 witnesses heard the bombs and gave expert testimony of bomb blasts.
5. She fails to recognize the prep work done to get the tons of thermite into the buildings and the people involved with that project.
6. Kroll
7. John O'Neill
6. Neil Bush
7. Dick Cheney
8. Ptech
9. NRO's "plane in buildings exercise"
10. Able Danger
I specifically and explicitly said that I was referring not to things that Dr Wood doesn't say, but to things that she does say. And you have simply pretended not to have understood that, as you usually do when I ask you an unambiguous question, which is designed to cut out all irrelevance and which requires an honest answer.
Can you identify what Dr Wood actually says, the reasoning she uses, and then prove her wrong. I didn't merely ask you to give an example of something you don't agree with. There would be no point in doing that, which is why that isn't what I did.
Again, what does Dr Wood actually say and what are the reasons given? Can you prove them wrong?
Again, you identified Dr Wood's presentation as full of BS. I asked you to identify things that she said which were false, and I made it unambiguously clear that I was asking you about things that Dr Wood does say, not about things that she does not say.
It was you who said that her presentations were full of BS, and yet you have chosen to concentrate on what she does not say.
Again, this is about what Dr Wood does say. I went out of my way to make that perfectly clear, and it was.
Again, you are pretending not to understand what was asked.
What proof do you think you have of people going into the buildings with tonnes of thermite? Is it actually proof, or he said, she said?
Not sure what that means, are you accusing me of something?
I meant that you are not being pathetic enough to forbid even the acknowledgement of the existence of things you disagree with. And that's something.
You don't behave like a drunken tramp when you disagree with something, throwing excrement at anyone who happens to have the misfortune of sharing the same space as you, but you do tend to accuse people of things they haven't done, and you do play dumb, and you are often incapable of preventing your own intellectual dishonesty, so you actually make reasonable and rational debate virtually impossible anyway, which suggests that this is your intention.
I'll have a look later to see whether you have attempted to justify your assertion that I am supporting CIT disinfo. I hope you're not referring to either a) posting on this thread without agreeing with everything the mob says, or b) posting 3 old interviews that I didn't even comment on.
And I'll give you one last chance to justify your assertion that Dr Wood's presentations are full of BS. As I've explained, you will need to identify several things that Dr Wood actually says, and then disprove them.
N.B. Again, this is not a request for you to point out some things that Dr Wood doesn't say, or claims that she doesn't make. This is specifically about justifying your assertion that Dr Wood's presentations are full of BS, by disproving things that she does say. Also, things that Dr Wood does say are not necessarily the same as things that Dr Wood is accused of saying, so be sure to identify exactly what was said and when, and then give your contradictory evidence which proves Dr Wood wrong.
Obviously I have already asked you to do this, and you chose to pretend not to understand what was asked and to talk about things that Dr Wood didn't say.
If you don't even attempt to answer the question properly again, then it will be obvious that you are not going to, presumably because you are unable to do so. I wonder whether that would stop you from claiming that Dr Wood's presentations are full of BS in the future, without being able to justify it when asked.
Dude, if you want to keep going down the Socratic dialogue with this, that is fine, but all I am going to do is use the same exact tactics and arguments you use to show the futility of it. This sophomoric argumentative style is based on refuting the negativity and is nice to get people to awaken to aspects of the NWO that control them, but useless when dealing with such details of factual issues with people who are highly awakened to wtf the NWO is. By your own admission, you have not studied CIT and Judy in depth. You simply saw a video and are pushing it. People who have studied these theories for years are exposing the disinfo to you. You are not taking the time to investigate it for yourself. You are not respecting the time and energy which has gone into exposing these grifters and instead are just using basic elenchus patterns that cause frustration more than anything else because no new information is brought forth. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
|
|
|
|
matrixcutter
|
|
« Reply #1069 on: July 05, 2010, 01:04:54 PM » |
|
Dude, if you want to keep going down the Socratic dialogue with this, that is fine, but all I am going to do is use the same exact tactics and arguments you use to show the futility of it. This sophomoric argumentative style is based on refuting the negativity and is nice to get people to awaken to aspects of the NWO that control them, but useless when dealing with such details of factual issues with people who are highly awakened to wtf the NWO is. What has actually happened is that you asserted that Dr Judy Wood's presentations are "full of BS". I have only asked you to justify your assertion by finding things that Dr Wood has said which are false, and proving them wrong. This is what someone ought to do before they assert that Mr X or Dr Y is disinfo, or full of BS. You avoided doing it the first time by pretending not to understand what was asked, and you avoided doing it the second time by distorting what has actually happened. I'm so bored of your intellectual dishonesty. It was about you justifying what you said, nothing more, nothing less. And obviously you can't. By your own admission, you have not studied CIT and Judy in depth. This is wrong. What you have said is not true, yet again. I said that I have not studied CIT properly, and you've simply taken that information and added something false onto the end of it, again. I have studied Dr Wood's work in detail. Whenever I disagree with you about something, you totally misrepresent what I say and even state things that you know not to be true. You make it necessary for me to spend time pointing out the half-truths and misleading statements you make, and worse. Your behaviour is not that of an honest person. You simply saw a video and are pushing it. No, that isn't true. And I would be surprised if you were not fully aware of that. People who have studied these theories for years are exposing the disinfo to you. What's happening here is that you are calling it disinfo, and you are completely incapable of justifying your assertion. You are not taking the time to investigate it for yourself. Again, that's simply not true. I've studied it quite thoroughly going back more than two years. What I said is that I haven't studied CIT properly. That has nothing to do with Dr Wood's work, except that you have classified them both as disinfo. Unfortunately, your assertions have become meaningless thanks to your repeated intellectual dishonesty and your unwillingness to justify your own comments. When people maintain this sort of behaviour, in the long term their statements will generally not be believed, even when they are true. You are not respecting the time and energy which has gone into exposing these grifters and instead are just using basic elenchus patterns that cause frustration more than anything else because no new information is brought forth. I care about whether something makes sense or not, not how long it took someone to be able to say it. And again, all I did was to ask you to justify your comments. You have failed to do so, and then effectively blamed it on me. Your intellectual dishonesty is not even surprising any more. Something you said here is probably the most honest thing that's ever come out of your e-mouth: no one should ever, ever, ever believe anything i post without verifying it for themselves. I am wrong often, use Berneys methods often, troll this forum more than anyone else, engage in spam, get reactionary for no reason, etc. etc. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dig
|
|
« Reply #1070 on: July 05, 2010, 10:45:38 PM » |
|
What has actually happened is that you asserted that Dr Judy Wood's presentations are "full of BS". I have only asked you to justify your assertion by finding things that Dr Wood has said which are false, and proving them wrong. This is what someone ought to do before they assert that Mr X or Dr Y is disinfo, or full of BS. You avoided doing it the first time by pretending not to understand what was asked, and you avoided doing it the second time by distorting what has actually happened. I'm so bored of your intellectual dishonesty. It was about you justifying what you said, nothing more, nothing less. And obviously you can't. This is wrong. What you have said is not true, yet again. I said that I have not studied CIT properly, and you've simply taken that information and added something false onto the end of it, again. I have studied Dr Wood's work in detail. Whenever I disagree with you about something, you totally misrepresent what I say and even state things that you know not to be true. You make it necessary for me to spend time pointing out the half-truths and misleading statements you make, and worse. Your behaviour is not that of an honest person. No, that isn't true. And I would be surprised if you were not fully aware of that. What's happening here is that you are calling it disinfo, and you are completely incapable of justifying your assertion. Again, that's simply not true. I've studied it quite thoroughly going back more than two years. What I said is that I haven't studied CIT properly. That has nothing to do with Dr Wood's work, except that you have classified them both as disinfo. Unfortunately, your assertions have become meaningless thanks to your repeated intellectual dishonesty and your unwillingness to justify your own comments. When people maintain this sort of behaviour, in the long term their statements will generally not be believed, even when they are true. I care about whether something makes sense or not, not how long it took someone to be able to say it. And again, all I did was to ask you to justify your comments. You have failed to do so, and then effectively blamed it on me. Your intellectual dishonesty is not even surprising any more. Something you said here is probably the most honest thing that's ever come out of your e-mouth: So everything I said is true concerning CIT... ok, on to Dr. Wood. I have given you 10 examples of what is wrong. You have not countered one of them. By your own admission, I am intellectually honest with my intellect. So simply counter any of the 10 poins I made. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
|
|
|
|
matrixcutter
|
|
« Reply #1071 on: July 06, 2010, 07:31:58 AM » |
|
So everything I said is true concerning CIT... If you're talking about your reasoning for classifying CIT as disinfo, then probably not, but I won't know until I study it properly. If you're talking about the fact that I said I hadn't studied CIT properly, then yes, you got that bit right. But you managed to turn it into another one of your pieces of intellectual dishonesty by pretending that this admission also means that I haven't studied Dr. Wood's work properly. Maybe you just have a problem with reading comprehension, but I doubt it. What you actually display is selective understanding. ok, on to Dr. Wood. I have given you 10 examples of what is wrong. And back you go to tactic #1, pretending not to understand what was asked. This doesn't need pointing out again, but I'll do it anyway because you insist on pretending not to understand it. You said that Dr. Judy Wood's presentations are "full of BS". You said it. You made that statement. You. I asked you to justify that by pointing out several things that she says which are wrong, and proving them wrong by giving contradictory evidence that does actually prove Dr. Wood's statements wrong. And you pretended not to understand that, and gave a list of things that Dr. Wood didn't say, which does not do anything at all to justify your assertion (your assertion) that Dr. Wood's presentations are "full of BS". If they are full of BS, as you asserted (you), then you would be able to find things that are actually in those presentations that are BS, as opposed to what you are doing, which is going for things that Dr. Wood doesn't say. No-one can be expected to believe that you don't fully understand that. And yet here you are continuing to play dumb and being intellectually dishonest. You have not countered one of them. They are completely irrelevant in terms of justifying your assertion (made by you) that Dr. Wood's presentations are "full of BS". A list of things that Dr. Wood doesn't say has no place in an honest analysis of whether Dr. Wood's presentations are "full of BS", which is the assertion that you made and have gone out of your way not to justify ever since. The list of things that Dr. Wood doesn't say is infinite. The list of things that she does say is finite, and that is what's relevant, obviously. (Do I need to write this in bold and make the letters much bigger before you'll stop pretending not to understand it?) It's not even surprising any more that you would play dumb and pretend that you don't understand what has already been given an idiot-proof explanation several times. By your own admission, I am intellectually honest with my intellect. Oh look, you've said the exact opposite of what we both know to be true. What a shocker. It's as if you believe the phrase "by your own admission" to be capable of some sort of Jedi mind trick. So simply counter any of the 10 poins I made. If you justify your assertion that Dr Wood's presentations are "full of BS" first, by finding things that Dr Wood has said which are false, and proving them wrong with contradictory evidence, then I might play your game. But of course I won't be holding my breath because you have already made it perfectly clear that you are not going to. N.B. you did not say that Dr Wood's presentations were missing important information, you said they were "full of BS" i.e. nonsense; the claims that she does make are nonsensical and thus wrong. Your assertion was about what Dr. Wood does say, not about what she does not say. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dig
|
|
« Reply #1072 on: July 06, 2010, 12:37:22 PM » |
|
If you're talking about your reasoning for classifying CIT as disinfo, then probably not, but I won't know until I study it properly.
If you're talking about the fact that I said I hadn't studied CIT properly, then yes, you got that bit right. But you managed to turn it into another one of your pieces of intellectual dishonesty by pretending that this admission also means that I haven't studied Dr. Wood's work properly.
Maybe you just have a problem with reading comprehension, but I doubt it. What you actually display is selective understanding.
And back you go to tactic #1, pretending not to understand what was asked.
This doesn't need pointing out again, but I'll do it anyway because you insist on pretending not to understand it. You said that Dr. Judy Wood's presentations are "full of BS". You said it. You made that statement. You.
I asked you to justify that by pointing out several things that she says which are wrong, and proving them wrong by giving contradictory evidence that does actually prove Dr. Wood's statements wrong. And you pretended not to understand that, and gave a list of things that Dr. Wood didn't say, which does not do anything at all to justify your assertion (your assertion) that Dr. Wood's presentations are "full of BS".
If they are full of BS, as you asserted (you), then you would be able to find things that are actually in those presentations that are BS, as opposed to what you are doing, which is going for things that Dr. Wood doesn't say. No-one can be expected to believe that you don't fully understand that. And yet here you are continuing to play dumb and being intellectually dishonest.
They are completely irrelevant in terms of justifying your assertion (made by you) that Dr. Wood's presentations are "full of BS". A list of things that Dr. Wood doesn't say has no place in an honest analysis of whether Dr. Wood's presentations are "full of BS", which is the assertion that you made and have gone out of your way not to justify ever since.
The list of things that Dr. Wood doesn't say is infinite. The list of things that she does say is finite, and that is what's relevant, obviously. (Do I need to write this in bold and make the letters much bigger before you'll stop pretending not to understand it?)
It's not even surprising any more that you would play dumb and pretend that you don't understand what has already been given an idiot-proof explanation several times.
Oh look, you've said the exact opposite of what we both know to be true. What a shocker.
It's as if you believe the phrase "by your own admission" to be capable of some sort of Jedi mind trick.
If you justify your assertion that Dr Wood's presentations are "full of BS" first, by finding things that Dr Wood has said which are false, and proving them wrong with contradictory evidence, then I might play your game. But of course I won't be holding my breath because you have already made it perfectly clear that you are not going to.
N.B. you did not say that Dr Wood's presentations were missing important information, you said they were "full of BS" i.e. nonsense; the claims that she does make are nonsensical and thus wrong. Your assertion was about what Dr. Wood does say, not about what she does not say.
I have thought that you have studied Judy as much as CIT (which was not at all really). You have clarified it and we might be able to move forward with the discussion to Judy. We have studied CIT for years and they are a group of con guys that are blocking true investigations. 911blogger knows this and so do we. Now on to Judge Judy... I have said she is full of shit, it is an expression and by my own admission which you have quoted it is common from me. am a passionate guy as far as voicing my opinions. I am often proven wrong, but instead of going into the gradient of the expression why not simply take one of the 10 points I presented which exposes clear and present weaknesses to her argument and debunk it. Is that so difficult? Or whatever, analyze this post word for word in a Socratic method, fine by me. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
|
|
|
|
jimd3100
|
|
« Reply #1073 on: July 06, 2010, 02:01:00 PM » |
|
Big plane, small hole. Impossible.
Liar. Just saying it doesn't make it true, no matter how many times you say it.
Well said matrixblubber. Way to expose yourself. I care about the evidence.
Liar. Evidence..... Where did all this stuff come from? http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/index.htmlhttp://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/compressor.htmlhttp://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/hulldebris.htmlhttp://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/hullpiece.htmlhttp://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/gearshaft.htmlhttp://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/wheelhub.html  Still waiting.... Now go find a witness who saw something other than a plane fly into the building. Here's the deal,..... For every witness that you find who saw the plane fly over the building or saw a missile hit or a giant pink bunny...whatever...for every witness you put up I will put up two that watched a plane fly into the building. I'll go first here's my first two...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H8CinIWltY&feature=PlayList&p=6FA2A860385F97EC&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=1http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1ihc1_pentagon-eyewitness-isabel-james_newsStill waiting.Matrixblubber's hero Judy Wood....... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-558096240694803017&hl=en#Judy wood's response to her looking like a fool in that video? It's what matrixblubber parrots in the pp forum, it was a psyop! He's "in on it" LOL!!!..... The Greg Jenkins video (a highly-funded psyops) couldn't have done a better job to convince us just how important my message is. After all, what motivated Greg Jenkins to produce such a hit piece? This video was expensive to produce. It was filmed by a professional camera crew, with professional equipment, and then carefully edited and manipulated, with carefully inserted images and sound into the final production.http://drjudywood.com/articles/cc/Jenkinspanic.htmlLOL!!!! edited and "manipulated"? LOL!!!! Matrixblubber the no plane wonder boy...
It may be uneditted but it wasn't honest, and it wasn't about discussing her evidence. It was about trying to ridicule her by concentrating on what the interviewer wanted to talk about and ignoring what the interviewee wanted to talk about i.e. her research.
It was the justified response to an obvious ambush interview.
LOL!! Ambush interview! matrixblubber the no plane wonder boy.... An important question is, is it possible that people believe they saw planes but actually didn't see planes?
And if you are honest, the answer to that question is yes, it is possible.
Pure genius LOL!!!! It's tough admitting you're an idiot isn't it? Wow, that's a lot of posts. Some people would hate to have to change their minds about something they have put that much time and energy into
Project much? Once again...Well said matrixblubber. Good job exposing yourself. BTW....Still waiting....... Go hog wild. Expose Pfieffer and his fraud firefighter buddies. Show the "truth" of how he's a murderer. Actually an important question would be why are so many people reporting that they saw planes fly into the buildings? Is it because planes being tracked by the ATC are heading towards NY and into the skyscrapers? You have to admit it's possible. That might explain all the airplane parts. You have to admit, it's possible. This is an insane debate as usual. I've already shown you that not only did firefighters call in watching with their own eyes a commercial airliner fly into the building before ANY media anywhere said a word about planes, and shown you the parts that came from the plane, one of these days you might actually comment on the evidence Now I'm going to show it to you as it happened. If this is true, your no planes "theory" is a fraud. It really is that simple. This from a no planer site.... "The point of the exercise is to establish that the Naudet film must have been staged by people who knew about the attacks in advance: who those people might be is a different subject. I have my own ideas on that, but they have little or nothing to do with the Naudet film, other than observing that it seems rather unlikely that two French infidels would be working for a Muslim fundamentalist group -or that that group could penetrate and subvert the Fire Department of New York, which at some level seems to have been involved in the planning of 9/11 — and the Naudet film."http://serendipity.li/wot/naudet/raphael.htmDo you agree with that? The Naudet Brothers film. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2457244225269763926&hl=en#Explain to the forum how this documentary film is fake, a complete fraud and how those in it are participating in this fraud. Because in this incredibly important and fascinating movie, Documentary film makers are actually in the WTC Tower as the other tower comes down. So if someone is interested in researching 9/11 how can they possibly not want to experience actually being there as it happens? That's how important a film it is. In this documentary movie you see the planes hit the buildings and you're with Chief Pfieffer as he calls the first one in. Explain to the forum how Pfieffer is a fraud when even though this incredibly catastrophic event has happened he allows the film maker to go along and film, and made himself responsible for the safety of the filmmaker. Tell us how "fake" it is when it shows how the filmmaker looses the Chief in the chaos and takes off running as the other tower comes down debris reining down on him some stranger covers him with their body to protect him as they're pelted and waiting to die. Turns out it wasn't a stranger but Chief Pfieffer. He was responsible for this person and risked his own life to protect someone he hardly knew. As he was doing that his own brother's life was ending. Tell us what a fraud all that is. Explain to the forum how Pfieffer never had a brother who gave his life at the WTC that nearly killed himself, and did kill 343 of his firefighter brothers. Or is his brother still alive? Did he even have a brother? Tell us, prove to me the movie is a fake, and tell how Pfieffer is "in on it". Want to get a glimpse of what it was like to be a firefighter on 9/11?http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2457244225269763926&hl=en#I'm sorry I can only try and appeal to peoples sympathies and emotions instead of presenting real facts and evidence like a recording of the event as it happened. I don't know what is better evidence than an actual recording of the event, but you go ahead and tell us. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2457244225269763926&hl=en#Now tell us how fake it is. It's such a shame it's all a fraud, because so many "truthers" have used this movie to point out things, things like building sevens' collapse at the 1:28:28 mark.http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2457244225269763926&hl=en#At the 1:22:45 mark is another famous scene, is it fake, or are the only parts of the movie,.... the parts that ruin your "theory",... fake? How many have bothered to even watch the full movie? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2457244225269763926&hl=en#And why would the "U.S." attack itself or allow itself to be attacked? One of several motives shows itself at the 1:52:00 mark. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2457244225269763926&hl=en#But you go ahead and show us how that's a fake actor. Explain to us all how I got duped and fell for this charade of a movie. I was dumb enough to fall for it, and then had the nerve to berate no planers for trying to expose the "truth", when I can't refute any of the evidence that hasn't been shown and everything I post is "fake". I'm quite an ass, not a gentleman such as yourself. So explain how Pfieffer was "in on" murdering his co workers and own brother. I realize what an ass I've been to consider that to be disgusting and discrediting to the forum and a slander against 9/11 truth itself. So set me straight on what frauds these firefighters are, show the world that the prisonplanet forum will expose these frauds, to prove how "truthfull" we are. Tell us how it's fake, an elaborate acting job. Some people will probably believe it. I'll even help, Joe Pesci makes an appearance at the 1:15:43 mark. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2457244225269763926&hl=en#or are the only fake parts of the movie,.... the parts that ruin your "theory"? LOL No planers..... "I believe — for the reasons in this essay — that those who had both the motive and the effrontery to carry out these attacks also had the motive and the effrontery to film the first one for propaganda purposes, passing it off as the product of luck, complete with a contrived cover story, the one told in the Naudet film." the Fire Department of New York, which at some level seems to have been involved in the planning of 9/11 — and the Naudet film.http://serendipity.li/wot/naudet/raphael.htm343 Members of the Fire Department of New York were murdered on 9/11. You go ahead and defend this shit, and then feel free to mention what an asshole I am for resenting, that it's insisted, we associate ourselves with this disgusting, discrediting, garbage. And maybe just maybe I'll post some evidence myself someday, indicating planes flew into buildings on 9/11. Since all this doesn't seem to count. After all, this is a recording of what happened, not nearly as important as your no plane theory. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2457244225269763926&hl=en#No one needs to play your stupid and tired game of "endless debate" to pretend to keep you no plane retards relevant........ http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-Directed-Energy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pdfMatrixblubber pushes some of the dumbest no plane BS I've ever seen on this forum..... http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=945.msg965367#msg965367And even tries to get money for no plane retarded projects... http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=945.msg967347#msg967347Why would I allow a disinfo retard who pushes the BS of people who had their idiot lawyer "warn" AJ and P Watson in a letter in which it is admitted they are no planers and proud of it? In fact they and their disinfo lawyer file idiot no plane lawsuits in the name of "911 truth" to destroy any credibility the movement builds. Why do I allow you to post? To let you show what an idiot you are..... Dear Alex Jones, Paul Joseph Watson and Prison Planet:
This letter has as its frame of reference the above referenced Prison Planet article that appeared on April 22, 2008.I am the attorney for Drs. Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds. Collectively, we are a group of people who are taking formal legal steps in furtherance of proving the "no plane" theory and the "directed energy weapons" (DEW) causal theory in connection with the events of 9/11/01, in federal court. Thus we are "no planers" and we are "exotic weapons" adherents in the formal sense of putting our proofs of claim forward in legally permissible ways; namely federal lawsuits.
We hasten to acknowledge that we are not saying you accused Drs. Wood and/or Reynolds of such behavior, however we do say that they are known as "no planers" by some and we also know how guilt by association and categorization works, and we know that you know that too.http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/short/nonviolence.htmlThat was sent as a response to this article written by this forums site Admin..... Prominent 9/11 Truth organization being harassed, physically attacked by "no-planers" who tried to link group with Times Square bombing
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, April 22, 2008http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2008/042208_assault_videos.htmSo matrixblubber the no plane wonderboy comes onto a forum where the site admin of the forum has written articles such as We too have witnessed the "no-plane" fringe group transform from an idle nuisance into a hostile danger. The group's self-proclaimed "research" is so lacking in credibility that it has been seized upon by debunkers and used as a tar baby to smear the truth movement as a whole. The refusal to allow such kookery a foothold in the mainstream truth movement has resulted in threats and hatred being hurled towards prominent 9/11 truth researchers such as Steven Jones.http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2008/042208_assault_videos.htm
Yes, I had someone specific in mind.
What a nasty piece of work.
LOL...You know who you remind me of? The guy AJ talks to in this video....."You're not very gentlemanly"...LOL! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32z6Cw21OAkSo if you're bored matrixblubber why not just go on a stormfront forum advocating race mixing and the superiority of blacks, and then cry and moan about how unfair they are, when they make fun of you. That's about as bright as coming on this forum with your disinfo retarded sh*t. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dig
|
|
« Reply #1074 on: July 06, 2010, 04:06:16 PM » |
|
Why would I allow a disinfo retard who pushes the BS of people who had their idiot lawyer "warn" AJ and P Watkins in a letter in which it is admitted they are no planers and proud of it? In fact they and their disinfo lawyer file idiot no plane lawsuits in the name of "911 truth" to destroy any credibility the movement builds. Why do I allow you to post? To let you show what an idiot you are..... Dear Alex Jones, Paul Joseph Watson and Prison Planet:
This letter has as its frame of reference the above referenced Prison Planet article that appeared on April 22, 2008.I am the attorney for Drs. Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds. Collectively, we are a group of people who are taking formal legal steps in furtherance of proving the "no plane" theory and the "directed energy weapons" (DEW) causal theory in connection with the events of 9/11/01, in federal court. Thus we are "no planers" and we are "exotic weapons" adherents in the formal sense of putting our proofs of claim forward in legally permissible ways; namely federal lawsuits.
We hasten to acknowledge that we are not saying you accused Drs. Wood and/or Reynolds of such behavior, however we do say that they are known as "no planers" by some and we also know how guilt by association and categorization works, and we know that you know that too.http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/short/nonviolence.htmlthat is unfrickingbelievable! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
|
|
|
|
matrixcutter
|
|
« Reply #1075 on: July 06, 2010, 06:18:19 PM » |
|
I have thought that you have studied Judy as much as CIT (which was not at all really). Actually, that's not true either, but who even cares any more? All I said is that I haven't studied it properly. I didn't say that I haven't studied it at all. You have clarified it and we might be able to move forward with the discussion to Judy. I'm not willing to engage in a pretend debate with someone who "misinterprets" simple facts and needs to have unambiguous simple things "clarified", multiple times. Now on to Judge Judy... Dr. Wood, Judge Judy is somebody else, somebody ridiculous. But you probably don't need me to clarify that for you. I have said she is full of shit, it is an expression It's a statement with a meaning. You have pretended not to have understood the meaning, or the fact that you said it, or the fact that you still haven't even attempted to justify it. And then you somehow blame it on me. It's pretty disturbing behaviour really, but then you know you can get away with it so what does it matter? and by my own admission which you have quoted it is common from me. am a passionate guy as far as voicing my opinions. I am often proven wrong, Yes, you are often wrong. That isn't the problem though. The problem is that you are very dishonest, consistently, and you also pretend not to understand things when you know you are wrong - things that you understand perfectly well in any other circumstance. but instead of going into the gradient of the expression Actually, what I was doing was trying to get you to justify your assertion, as you are fully aware. You haven't, you can't, and you seem to be half-heartedly admitting that you are in the wrong, as if it hasn't been obvious to anyone with half a brain all along. why not simply take one of the 10 points I presented which exposes clear and present weaknesses to her argument and debunk it. It's pretty amazing that even now you would say something so ludicrously dishonest, but not surprising. Firstly, you don't really debate things. What you do is obfuscate. You states things as fact, and then when someone who knows that what you've said is false challenges your statements, you insist on making them waste time and energy "clarifying" the obvious, over and over and over again. You just keep going out of your way to avoid specific things and you continually pretend that it's because you don't really understand what's being said. Then when you fail to answer the questions that are asked, you expect others to respond to your irrelevances as though you don't understand that they're irrelevant, even after it has been "clarified" to you multiple times. Secondly, what you said did not come close to presenting "clear and present weaknesses" to Dr Wood's argument. As has been said ad nauseam, you haven't proved wrong anything that Dr. Wood says. Instead you pointed out some things that Dr. Wood doesn't say, which is pointless, unhelpful and irrelevant. Thirdly, most of the "points" that you made didn't even have verbs in them, let alone any sort of explanation of how they in any way debunked any part of Dr. Wood's work. Forthly, I did actually ask you about "list of things not said by Dr. Wood" #5, but you simply pretended that you didn't see and/or understand it: What proof do you think you have of people going into the buildings with tonnes of thermite? Is it actually proof, or he said, she said? Is that so difficult? Or whatever, analyze this post word for word in a Socratic method, fine by me. Yeah, you tell a load of lies, obfuscate, distort what I say, pretend not to understand simple things, and then blame it all on me. What a joke you become when you know you are in the wrong. Still, at least you're not the other fella, the nasty one with the anger issues. You have already admitted a lot. Whether you understand what you admit by behaving the way you do is a different matter. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jimd3100
|
|
« Reply #1076 on: July 06, 2010, 06:43:11 PM » |
|
Actually, that's not true either, but who even cares any more?
Yes, you are often wrong.
But no one has ever been as wrong as you. I was wrong too. Not about the retarded sh*t you post, but when I said this.....
They're just not informed and fell for BS, and Disinfo. They just need educated on real facts. That's why I try and give them information.....i.e...it's not a 16 foot hole...it didn't go through 6 walls....the witnesses....the parts found.....common sense....radar tracks.....that stuff...there is still hope for them...they've just been conned....but for WTC no planers....I wont waste my time. I have no hope for them.
Shure proved me wrong. I had no hope for WTC no planers, but shure proved me wrong, he came around...... Hello,
After being caught up in NPT for a while I have learned alot and not so easily fooled as I was before.
scootle admitting he's been wrong.... Dude your the one who refuses to be proven wrong... I believed in the pentagon no plane theories at first, as did alot of the prominent people who now don't, like Wolsey and Hoffman.
My arguments are often debunked when I debate people
myself, scootle, shure, digler all admitting on this very thread that we've been wrong before. How about you matrixblubber? The one guy that has never posted anything right that I can see, you are the one here that still can't do that can you? LOL! You are a pathetic joke. Yea, I don't like it when you no plane liars try pinning 9-11 on cab drivers, and firefighters, while the rest of us are exposing Saudi and U.S. intelligence, and the whitehouse. Go f**k yourself.
Still, at least you're not the other fella, the nasty one with the anger issues.
Awwwwww.... Still crying? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
matrixcutter
|
|
« Reply #1077 on: July 06, 2010, 07:24:19 PM » |
|
myself, scootle, shure, digler all admitting on this very thread that we've been wrong before. Well, I don't know anything about shure, but the rest of you have excelled at being wrong. You especially. You do it in such an unnecessarily rabid way too. It might even be impressive if it wasn't so tragic to witness. You are a pathetic joke. ... Go f**k yourself. ... Awwwwww.... Still crying? Yeah, thanks for demonstrating why I don't bother with people like you. Please don't expect me to reply to any of the anger that escapes from your darkened e-soul from now on, or even to read it. Have a nice life, if at all possible for someone with such immense and hopelessly misdirected anger. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jimd3100
|
|
« Reply #1078 on: July 06, 2010, 07:35:31 PM » |
|
Well, I don't know anything about shure, but the rest of you have excelled at being wrong. You especially. You do it in such an unnecessarily rabid way too. It might even be impressive if it wasn't so tragic to witness.
Of course. LOL Your non existant rebuttels certainly have shown that no planes were used on 9-11. You can't refute a thing, so you cry like a little girl and say "gosh I could respond, but I won't except to say you aren't very gentlemanly"...ala David Gergen. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32z6Cw21OAkYeah, thanks for demonstrating why I don't bother with people like you. You're just a no plane nut hiding behind, the "I could, but wont refute you 'cause you're not nice to no plane retards like me." It's not hard to see. Please don't expect me to reply to any of the anger that escapes from your darkened e-soul from now on, or even to read it. LOL, like you could Have a nice life, if at all possible for someone with such immense and hopelessly misdirected anger. Awww still crying? Maybe instead of cabbies, and firefighters you no plane retards could find a 9-11 widow to blame 9-11 on....oh wait...there are no 9-11 widows according to you sick fruitloops..... from the maker of september clues..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aPvJSQtmoENow you sit and watch... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aPvJSQtmoEAnd then scratch your head and ponder why I treat you no plane liars like the pieces of sh*t that you are. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dig
|
|
« Reply #1079 on: July 07, 2010, 05:25:13 AM » |
|
Well, I don't know anything about shure, but the rest of you have excelled at being wrong. You especially. You do it in such an unnecessarily rabid way too. It might even be impressive if it wasn't so tragic to witness.
Yeah, thanks for demonstrating why I don't bother with people like you.
Please don't expect me to reply to any of the anger that escapes from your darkened e-soul from now on, or even to read it.
Have a nice life, if at all possible for someone with such immense and hopelessly misdirected anger.
wtf? CIT and Judge Judy are totally full of shit, it has been proven here over and over and over and over and over and and over and over and over and over and over again. You have offered nothing but (as you put it): "Firstly, you don't really debate things. What you do is obfuscate. You states things as fact, and then when someone who knows that what you've said is false challenges your statements, you insist on making them waste time and energy "clarifying" the obvious, over and over and over again. You just keep going out of your way to avoid specific things and you continually pretend that it's because you don't really understand what's being said. Then when you fail to answer the questions that are asked, you expect others to respond to your irrelevances as though you don't understand that they're irrelevant, even after it has been "clarified" to you multiple times." Dude, talk about projecting. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
|
|
|
|
