View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Pikey Banned
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 1491 Location: North Lancashire
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
iro Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Apr 2006 Posts: 376
|
Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 8:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
he's saying that terrorists shot down the plane ........weird. listen to the sentence.
he's mad or * with heads |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Roger the Horse Moderate Poster
Joined: 02 Jun 2006 Posts: 159
|
Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
GREAT clip. Never seen that one before. I think what is particularly revealing about it is the reaction of the 2 people behind as soon as he says 'shot down'. _________________ Only sheep need a leader. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
chek Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Roger the Horse wrote: | GREAT clip. Never seen that one before. I think what is particularly revealing about it is the reaction of the 2 people behind as soon as he says 'shot down'. |
His statement didn't make sense to me at all when I saw it a few weeks ago, until I read Webster Tarpley's Synthetic Terror which explains about the coup. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
HERA Validated Poster
Joined: 17 Feb 2006 Posts: 141
|
Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 8:31 am Post subject: New authorised version |
|
|
At first I thought Rums had slipped up but, of course, he had not.
As the fact that no wreckage or bodies were found at Shanksville Pa., has sunk into too many American brains, the new version is to cover up the fact that UA93 landed at Hopkins, Cleveland, and the passengers were disembarked.
The relatives might start asking awkward questions about what happened to them.
Rums may have some problems with the shoot down being by "terrorists". Will he come up with Ossie stealing an F-16? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
chek Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 12:02 pm Post subject: Re: New authorised version |
|
|
HERA wrote: | At first I thought Rums had slipped up but, of course, he had not.
As the fact that no wreckage or bodies were found at Shanksville Pa., has sunk into too many American brains, the new version is to cover up the fact that UA93 landed at Hopkins, Cleveland, and the passengers were disembarked.
The relatives might start asking awkward questions about what happened to them.
Rums may have some problems with the shoot down being by "terrorists". Will he come up with Ossie stealing an F-16? |
Welcome to Speculation City!
I believe a more correct analysis is that while the Bush admin are generally seen to be the ones behind the big show, they aren't - the 'terrorists' Rumsfeld refers to are the ones who threatened 'Angel One is next', and we aren't talking about Arabs or any other foreigners here.
It was after Bush accepted the conspirators terms that UA93 was shot down, as the demonstration it was to provide (the White House) was no longer required.
Bush then had to personally go to Offut AFB and Barksdale AFB to secure nuclear forces and tell them in person to ignore any launch codes they received.
The Global Guardian exercise already had USAF bombers with live nukes in the air since before any hijackings happened on 911 (remember the fighters sent away from the Washington area out to Iceland?), and with the launch codes compromised, was the leverage the coup plotters had over Bush to force him to essentially abdicate, though still remain as a visible figurehead.
He should, of course, have told them to go f*ck themselves, but history shows that didn't happen. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Skeptic Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Mar 2006 Posts: 485
|
Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 12:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
^ very interesting chek
is this all in the Tarpley book? I've been a bit slow reading it
what evidence is there for these ideas?
makes sense though |
|
Back to top |
|
|
chek Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 12:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Skeptic wrote: | ^ very interesting chek
is this all in the Tarpley book? I've been a bit slow reading it
what evidence is there for these ideas?
makes sense though |
Yes it is from there Skeptic, chapter 9 if I recall correctly.
As far as I can tell the only external confirmation is from two interviews with Rice, where she semi-confirms earlier in the day and totally denies later on.
I'll be the first to acknowledge that evidence from the shadow world that Tarpley takes us into isn't verifiable in the press or 3rd party internet sites, but more from other spooks from other agencies and countries.
While I have a lot of repect for his reasoning and the connections he reveals, I've noticed that he tends to give the pro-Israeli agenda an easy ride, so whether he's telling us something to protect another thing I'm not in a position to say.
But the man makes a telling case. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Skeptic Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Mar 2006 Posts: 485
|
Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 1:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
^ Thanks
I'll have to read that asap
Yes I've heard that verification is a bit of a problem with Tarpley's work but based on his radio shows, false flag news and lectures I still think he's excellent at putting it all in context |
|
Back to top |
|
|
utopiated Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 645 Location: UK Midlands
|
Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 4:13 pm Post subject: Angel was next and 911 'truth' |
|
|
The more astute people have for a while realised that Tarpley is actually closer to the mark that many others and Angel is Next [together with a pre-9/11 assasination attempt on Bush Jr] is a good model for this whole situation.
If we, as a community, spent more time looking at this kind of thing and LESS thinking we know it all after 5 mins internet searching then maybe we'd be making more progress. I'm saying this in the context of the futile "debate" that has gone on on this site and others regarding:
"LJ Chavez is a disinfo agent"
...this scene is going up it's own ass. The guy broke nothing much new and yet within 24hrs he's attacked from all sides with amateur takes on his motives as if these people know him personally.
Would you come out as a whistleblower in this climate?? Didn't think so.
Note that this has been about for a while... the link to the transcript is here:
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2001/t11182001_t1012pm.html _________________ http://exopolitics.org.uk
http://chemtrailsUK.net
http://alienfalseflagagenda.net
-- |
|
Back to top |
|
|
chek Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 7:23 pm Post subject: Re: Angel was next and 911 'truth' |
|
|
utopiated wrote: | The more astute people have for a while realised that Tarpley is actually closer to the mark that many others and Angel is Next [together with a pre-9/11 assasination attempt on Bush Jr] is a good model for this whole situation.
If we, as a community, spent more time looking at this kind of thing and LESS thinking we know it all after 5 mins internet searching then maybe we'd be making more progress. I'm saying this in the context of the futile "debate" that has gone on on this site and others regarding:
"LJ Chavez is a disinfo agent"
...this scene is going up it's own ass. The guy broke nothing much new and yet within 24hrs he's attacked from all sides with amateur takes on his motives as if these people know him personally.
Would you come out as a whistleblower in this climate?? Didn't think so.
Note that this has been about for a while... the link to the transcript is here:
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2001/t11182001_t1012pm.html |
To an extent I'd agree with you Utopiated, except we mere mortals on boards such as these are really out of our depth trying to evaluate and discuss up to, let alone beyond, that which people like Tarpley can tell us.
I'd be interested in hearing David S's opinions of Tarpley's findings, but again - and with absolutely no disrespect to David S. who has 10 times more insight and guts than I ever will - some of the machinations are well above his old pay-grade. Maybe it would be a good subject to include in his next radio show.
I do agree however that it does get us out of cartoon land of the
special-effects-for-the-punters, and closer to the heart of events.
I'm not sure what to make of the Sgt. Chavez case yet, but as I pointed out in another post recently a 'stand down order' isn't necessary to make non-interference by air defences possible. East coast interceptors were sent to Alaska and Iceland, and what was left (8 I think) had a couple of dozen radar blips to follow. Onboard data linking also meant they can be re-directed anywhere by the AWACS that were orbiting NYC and Florida (in it's 3rd day of martial law and where Bush was reading about pet goats.) .
Also - good link. I guess that reporter was so busy mugging to Rummy they didn't even hear the bit about missiles hitting the Pentagon and WTC. in paragraph 12. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
utopiated Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 645 Location: UK Midlands
|
Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:34 pm Post subject: Re: Angel was next and 911 'truth' |
|
|
Quote: | To an extent I'd agree with you Utopiated, except we mere mortals on boards such as these are really out of our depth trying to evaluate and discuss up to, let alone beyond, that which people like Tarpley can tell us. |
Hi Chek - at this risk of being contradictory I think we can all get a take on things in the age of the net [and not forgetting the ancient art of reading a book from cover to cover - heheh] as it's not all about hierarchy but more about organically making links and joining data dots. I know what you mean though - some of this has to do with 'contacts' and gaining an info edge which longer term researchers in this area [like WGT] have on us.
Quote: |
I'd be interested in hearing David S's opinions of Tarpley's findings, but again - and with absolutely no disrespect to David S. who has 10 times more insight and guts than I ever will - some of the machinations are well above his old pay-grade. Maybe it would be a good subject to include in his next radio show. |
I've said similar on other forums and this takes nothing away from what DS and AM have done in promoting the issue and indeed having their life turned upside down by exposing state terror... but the more I learn about this area the more I firmly believe that anyone allowed before the media has little to do with the real systems at work. This includes in my mind the likes of our current PrimeMinister who is neither
- A high ranking mason
- involved in illuminoid magick
- pulling any strings but a few in the Labour party
..he's just been duped by the neo con madmen Washington administrators. I do agree with David Shayers's view that Blair may have been covertly 'warned' by elements of the M.I.C. to make him pull the line though. This is by no means out of the realms of possibility - given their current desperation. _________________ http://exopolitics.org.uk
http://chemtrailsUK.net
http://alienfalseflagagenda.net
-- |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tuntang New Poster
Joined: 02 Oct 2006 Posts: 4
|
Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 5:24 pm Post subject: RE: 'SHOT DOWN' QUOTE |
|
|
you don't need a degree in psychology to work out that that was a freudian slip. nothing more on that quote needs to be said.
I couldn't agree more than utopiated comments about blair, not being an illuminoid magik whatever- (the sort of stuff Icke is talking about). Basically theories about lizards and shapshifters are almost soley responsible for devaluing the opinion of 'so called conspiracy theorists' such as our selves. Its about time that we distanced ourselves from those sort of views and commentators because they dso nothing but make us all look like a bunch of paraniod, delusional freaks.
You don't need a illumintae, shadow cult running a state disinformation programme when you have the likes of Icke knocking around. Because whilst elements of the truth movement are linking in with BS like zionist conspiracy nutters and lizard hunters, no-one will ever take us seriously. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
utopiated Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 645 Location: UK Midlands
|
Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sure... but I posted something on this exact issue on this forum or another a few weeks back basically making the point that we need to regularly check just what consesus reality "on the street" is with re to 9/11 or 7/7 etc.
The thing is most of us in this field accept the fact that cover/state operators will stage events and
- kill 'their own'
- distort history
for their own games, finances, power or mostly because this is just 'what they do'. This has been my point about peak oil argument. It's irrelevant on one level because the secret govt. and MIC will wage war and terror *anyway* - they do not need a reason.
We tend to forget that most of the population don't think along the lines of the false flag agenda and in fact for many moving to this POV really takes a huge reversal in worldview. So my point is that it really isn't a vast leap to think there are "elite" or illuminati control groups pulling strings on this once you've made the initial move.
In fact, when you look at history and the evidence - that is exactly what's going on. _________________ http://exopolitics.org.uk
http://chemtrailsUK.net
http://alienfalseflagagenda.net
-- |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|