9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom :: View topic

FAQ

Memberlist

Chat

Usergroups

Calendar

Profile

Time to settle the Pentagon debate
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> General

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill

Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 1:03 am Post subject:

chek wrote:

And that, my dear fellow, is exactly the kind of blatant sophistry that illustrates your underlying agenda perfectly. It's from a tape transcript (notice the '(inaudible)' inserts?), and equating a transcription spelling mistake (a representational error) with the words used (the purveyors of meaning) is pure shysterism.
Nothing to see here, move on.
Yeah, we know.

Don't be quite so silly. It is only your assumption and yours alone, made for your own purposes, that the two errors are of those different types. It is just as likely that "and" was typed in mistake for "as" as that "filing" was typed in mistake for "filling". Reading the transcript literally makes a meaningless construction, a fact you consistantly ignore.

I joined this site hoping to find people looking for the truth, instead I find that it filled with people prepared to twist anything, ignore facts and stand logic on its head to suit their preconceived theories.

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 1:10 am Post subject:

Bushwacker wrote:

chek wrote:

The only 'twisting to fit preconceived theories' going on here that I'm aware of is your insistence that Rumsfeld didn't mean what he said despite his recorded words.
Are you calling our Rummy a liar?

Me
Moderate Poster

Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431

Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 2:48 am Post subject:

Quote:

Rumsfeld may have "mispoke" in the same way that the idiot Bush does all the time, and John Prescott has made into an art form, or more simply the transcript may simply have another typo as well as "filed" for filled", either way it makes no sense as written, and he clearly said, or meant to say, "Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, as the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center."

Quote:

You don't know what he said, you only know what's on the transcript. If you think the transcript is gospel, explain why he said the plane was "filed with our citizens" Perhaps you think this is what happened to the real plane, it and the passengers have been concealed in some filing cabinet?

If Rumsfeld misspoke about the missile comment or his words were somehow misattributed to him by the transcriber then why is it displayed on the 'official Department of Defense' website in its entirety with no disclaimer or correction provided whatsoever?

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2001/t11182001_t1012pm.html

Quote:

...They [find a lot] and any number of terrorist efforts have been dissuaded, deterred or stopped by good intelligence gathering and good preventive work. It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them...

blackcat
Validated Poster

Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376

Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 6:09 am Post subject:

Quote:

If you can post a photo that shows them up against your house, without faking the photos, then I'd say it either hit your house or people planted the debris.
Your call blackcat - were the photos faked or was the debris planted? An answer without verbal abuse would be welcome, if you're capable of that.

If I had the powers that a government has I could very easily place them up against my house and take a photo which would not need faking. Like you say - it could be that the debris was planted. But could people who commit mass murder be so devious as to fake evidence? That's a hard one!

As for verbal abuse - stay in the troll's den or better still avoid this site altogether. Supporters of the lies that prevent justice for the victims of 9/11, especially the blatant lie that a 757 hit the Pentagon, are an insult to them and to the purpose of this site. Why are you here? If you were not here there would be no verbal abuse. F*uck off moron.

telecasterisation
Banned
Banned

Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 8:57 am Post subject:

Quote:

House? Surely you mean caravan?
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC

Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill

Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 12:32 am Post subject:

Me wrote:

Because the transcript was not checked properly before being posted. That does happen unless you really believe that Rumsfeld said and intended to say that the plane was "filed with our citizens"

Do you think that the fact that no disclaimer or correction has been posted in five years on a 'official Department of Defense' website under his control makes it more likely or less likely that Donny inadvertently blurted out the truth that a missile hit the Pentagon?

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 12:38 am Post subject:

Bushwacker wrote:

Me wrote:

So just to get this straight - you're saying you prefer your version of what you think he meant - as should the rest of us - rather than the adult and fully responsible Defence Secretary of the United States exact words?
What an interesting (and insane) concept!

Me
Moderate Poster

Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431

Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:08 am Post subject:

Quote:

To begin with, the theory of a Freudian slip is in not in anyway contradictory to your claim that he might‘ve “misspoke” first of all. Of course he wouldn’t have wanted to intentionally reveal anything that may later appear self-incriminating.

This was a major interview and it couldn’t just be ignored. That’s why even the DOD web-site picked up on it. Secondly, there may have been witnesses present at the time who could've easily verified that Rumsfeld indeed said what he did so that denying it wouldn’t do him any good. The most logical conclusion to me is that the only reason they didn’t bother to correct it or offer a disclaimer is because they’d rather not bring more attention to it. That makes perfect sense to me. That's the same reason why the government wouldn't put a hit on someone like Alex Jones as many coincidence theorists often say would’ve happened if he was really correct about 9/11. Besides, at the time the statement was allegedly made no one was circulating theories about a missile having struck the Pentagon so it may not have seemed like such a big deal anyway. It’s not until later that pieces of the puzzle started to fit and it also ties in to his statement about flight 93 being shot down. Did he just misspeak again? How many times are we going to afford these pathological criminals such convenient excuses? Should we also give Rumsfeld the benefit of the doubt that he benignly misspoke when falsely claiming that he knew exactly where the WMD's in Iraq were near Tikrit?

Quote:

MCGOVERN: --you said you knew where there were, near Tikrit, near Baghdad, and northeast, south, and west of there. Those are your words.

RUMSFELD: My words, my words were that-- No, no, no, wait a minute, wait a minute. Let him stay one second. Just a second.

His exact words….

Quote:

RUMSFELD: We know where [the WMD] are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. [ABC This Week, 3/30/03]

Isn’t about time we began holding them accountable for their own words?

The notion that Rumsfeld conjured up such a specific word with such a specific meaning like “missile” out of thin air is far-fetched. It’s much like the recent George Allen incident where he tried to claim that he had no idea what the racist word “macaka” meant when he said it to a dark-skinned man at one of his campaign rallies. He said that he just made it up on the spot. That was after he first claimed that he really meant to say “mohawk” so his story kept changing. Then we find out that the word is readily used as a racially disparaging remark in his own mother’s country of origin. Just a big coincidence right? Add that to the claims that he just made it up and he just so happened to direct it to the one dark-skinned man in the crowd is hard to swallow. I also find it hard to believe that Rumsfeld just sporadically and accidentally said the word “missile” and in the specific context of the Pentagon for no apparent reason.

I think you also know full well that there's a big difference between the minor misspelling of a word like "filed" when it might've been "filled". Just one letter shy and it translates as a completely different word. That’s a far cry from conspicuously placing a highly specific word like “missile” in to the text out of nowhere. What other word that’s close in spelling do you think the transcriber might’ve meant to type if it’s simply a “typo”? I find that idea quite hard to believe.

blackcat
Validated Poster

Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376

Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 9:11 am Post subject:

Quote:

House? Surely you mean caravan?

Ooooh! Such hurtful wit from the sesquipedalian specious intellectual troll.

Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill

Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:39 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

Bushwacker wrote:

Me wrote:

There you go again - the insanity lies in your assumption that these are indeed the exact words. You appear to accept that they are not when it comes to "filing" but you insist that they are when it comes to "and". There is no logic there, only a totally blinkered view, adopted to suit your argument. The idea of selective infallibility in the US DoD transcription services is not one that will ever be widely shared, I fear.

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:46 pm Post subject:

Bushwacker wrote:

chek wrote:

Bushwacker wrote:

Me wrote:

Look Bub, it's from a tape transcript. I accept that over your increasingly
desperate obfuscations anyday. Is that clear enough?

Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill

Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 4:12 pm Post subject:

Me wrote:

Quote:

His exact words….

Quote:

RUMSFELD: We know where [the WMD] are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. [ABC This Week, 3/30/03]

If you look back you will see that I never suggested he said "missile" by mistake. What I suggested was that he did not say "......using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building" which you have to admit makes no sense, unless you think he meant the AA flight and the missile damaged the building. I suggested that he actually said "......using an American Airlines flight, filled with our citizens, as the missile to damage this building" which makes perfect sense and requires a change of one letter in "filed" and two letters in "and", typos easily made, especially considering that "s" is next to "d" on the keyboard.

Flight 93 is an entirely different matter, I see no explanation for what he said about it being shot down by terrorists. There is certainly a case for that being a Freudian slip.

Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill

Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 4:16 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

Look Bub, it's from a tape transcript. I accept that over your increasingly
desperate obfuscations anyday. Is that clear enough?

You obviously have no experience of looking at tape transcripts, which are notoriously full of errors, being done by bored typists listening through headphones to poor recordings.
Believe in their infallibility you like.

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 4:21 pm Post subject:

Uh huh. I should point out that I'm an undecided on the Pentagon strike, being one of those who think that whatever the vehicle was that hit the building is relatively unimportant compared to NORAD's failure to intercept. That failure can be traced by line of command logs and testimony from hundreds of 'other ranks' without slips from Rumsfeld or whoever mattering a damn.

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 4:23 pm Post subject:

Bushwacker wrote:

chek wrote:

Look Bub, it's from a tape transcript. I accept that over your increasingly
desperate obfuscations anyday. Is that clear enough?

I am old enough to remember when we used audio typists in the civil service, and not once did I get as gross an error as you insist on suggesting.

Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill

Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 4:49 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

Bushwacker wrote:

chek wrote:

Look Bub, it's from a tape transcript. I accept that over your increasingly
desperate obfuscations anyday. Is that clear enough?

I am old enough to remember when we used audio typists in the civil service, and not once did I get as gross an error as you insist on suggesting.

The paragons you remember from those days appear to be quite extinct in modern times, when transcripts containing as few errors as I suggest would be quite exceptionally well done.

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 5:10 pm Post subject:

Bushwacker wrote:

chek wrote:

Bushwacker wrote:

chek wrote:

Look Bub, it's from a tape transcript. I accept that over your increasingly
desperate obfuscations anyday. Is that clear enough?

I am old enough to remember when we used audio typists in the civil service, and not once did I get as gross an error as you insist on suggesting.

The paragons you remember from those days appear to be quite extinct in modern times, when transcripts containing as few errors as I suggest would be quite exceptionally well done.

You know, you guys really need some new approaches.

You might think because it was on a course sometime, that your mantra like insistences have an effect - witnesses aren't to be trusted, your own experience counts for nothing, all reducing down to we know best, trust us, this is how it really is.

Maybe it works on some demographics - but others aren't so easily swayed.

Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill

Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 5:14 pm Post subject:

I suppose you know what you mean, and presumably your quasi-religious approach suits you. I prefer to stick to facts and logic.

Me
Moderate Poster

Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 2:23 am Post subject:

I think I see what you’re saying now. You believe that he was speaking metaphorically when describing the plane as a “missile” and it either came out wrong or was written down wrong. That’s a reasonable possibility.

Ironically I’m having this same exact discussion at another forum only about Silverstein’s “pull it” comments. When it comes right down to it such discussions really become futile because there’s no real way to read someone’s mind and assess their true intentions.

I would argue that perhaps there’s a deeper reason that he chose to describe the plane as a “missile” but that would just be pure speculation on my part. I believe there was also a similar account from an eyewitness who said it looked like a “cruise missile with wings”.

I must say that this still doesn’t change my strongly held belief that it wasn’t a Beoing that hit the Pentagon. I do however believe that whatever it was had wings. I have no idea if a missile could be retrofitted with wings to appear as a plane? It may have just been a military plane painted to resemble a commercial airliner. Bush did speak once of painting a U2 spy plane with UN colors and use it to try to lure Saddam in to war so it’s not beyond the scope of reason . I also heard on the radio that a young student who allegedly saw the incident from a classroom described it as a “bullet“. Then of course others have said it was just an ordinary American Airlines plane.

There’s always going to be differing eyewitness accounts at any crime scene and that’s precisely why actual physical evidence always trumps individual testimony. In my personal opinion, the physical evidence does not support the official version of the story. I admit that I don’t know exactly what happened that day. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Quote:

"It was like a cruise missile with wings, went right there and slammed into the Pentagon," Mike Walter, an eyewitness, told CNN. "Huge explosion, great ball of fire, smoke started billowing out, and then it was just chaos on the highway as people either tried to move around the traffic and go down either forward or backwards."

http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage .jsp?id=1661

Quote:

President Bush said: "The US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."

He went on: "It was also possible that a defector could be brought out who would give a public presentation about Saddams WMD, and there was also a small possibility that Saddam would be assassinated."

Speaking to Channel 4 News, Mr Sands said:

"I think no one would be surprised at the idea that the use of spy-planes to review what is going on would be considered. What is surprising is the idea that they would be used painted in the colours of the United Nations in order to provoke an attack which could then be used to justify material breach. Now that plainly looks as if it is deception, and it raises some fundamental questions of legality, both in terms of domestic law and international law."

graphicequaliser
Moderate Poster

Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 111
Location: United Kingdom

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:49 am Post subject:

blackcat wrote:

Goodness haven't you done some trolling!!! Why it is almost as if you are saving up my insults against fuc*ing trolls like you. I have no reservation in using obscenities to respond to supporters of mass murderers like you. Especially devious c*nts like you who pretend to be soooooooooo reasonable and merely asking questions. Pi*s off arse*ole. You are obvious.

That pretty well sums up my take on Telecasterisation - a complete and utter fool, who contradicts what he says at every turn, and never has anything consistent to add to the arguments - just nit-picking as usual. What a twat! I would ignore all of his posts. He is definitely a UK govt. shill.

There's skeptical (or cynical) and there's inconsistent absurdity. He definitely falls into the latter camp.
_________________
Patriotism, religion, tradition and political/corporate alliance are the vehicles they use to fool us passive, peace-loving, family-orientated apes into fighting each other.

Graphic Smile

graphicequaliser
Moderate Poster

Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 111
Location: United Kingdom

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:01 pm Post subject:

Bushwacker wrote:

Justin in the exchanges above moves from referring to "the automatic Air Defence System that protects the Pentagon" as though it were an established fact through comparisons with his UK experience to "I am also 100% certain that there would have been (and are) surface to air anti-aircraft missiles to be used as a last resort to cover Capitol Hill, the White House and the Pentagon."

I have previously looked at this issue, and can find absolutely no evidence or implication that missile defences existed prior to 9/11. To suggest that some kind of automatic system would be installed is impossibly unlikely, given the close proximity to Reagan National Airport and the risk of accidental firing. There are no signs of missile batteries on aerial photographs, and the Secret Service has in the past been in view with shoulder launched SAMs to protect the White House, implying there is no permanent installation. I would welcome any evidence, rather than assumption, that any kind of defensive missile system existed.

Let's say that the Pentagon has an early warning radar detection system for objects that may be flying into the building. If there was no missile defence system in place at the time of 911, why didn't some SS employees bring out shoulder-mounted SAM launchers onto the Pentagon lawn, and blast the aircraft out of the sky? Are you implying that they don't do their job properly.

Telecasterisation wrote:

... odds of 7 to 1 ...

Sorry, Tele, but if you look at the flight path taken, the Pentagon plane has to do an incredibly difficult manoeuvre as it arrives at its destination, in order to hit the only largely unoccupied part of the building. If it had continued on a straight flight path, it would have gone into the Rumsfeld-occupied bit! Doing the manoeuvre at 500 mph is almost impossible. That drastically reduces those odds to about once in a blue moon, or when hell freezes over! :rofl:

When Public Enemy sang "911 is a joke..." they meant the US phone service, but it now equally applies to 9-11! Have fun peeps!
_________________
Patriotism, religion, tradition and political/corporate alliance are the vehicles they use to fool us passive, peace-loving, family-orientated apes into fighting each other.

Graphic Smile

graphicequaliser
Moderate Poster

Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 111
Location: United Kingdom

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:44 pm Post subject:

Me wrote:

When it comes right down to it such discussions really become futile because there’s no real way to read someone’s mind and assess their true intentions.

Where've you been for the past 4 thousand million years of evolution? Intention detection in all verterbrates is built in, and works really well, even in humans. Knowing what's on a predator's mind is a very useful survival tool. The problem is that humans have had a brutal society foisted on them which definitively precludes and suppresses the notion of intention detection as "crackpot", using the threat of force or ostracisation. Animals other than humans know and use this skill everyday, and it's got them this far! Humans have to wake up from the scientific grey reality which denies the existence of anything we cannot directly perceive and control.

9-11 is a wonderful oppportunity to shake people up from believing what they are told at school, at work and in the mass media. You have to think for yourselves (at last!) - see http://www.jacobsm.com/index.htm#rethink
_________________
Patriotism, religion, tradition and political/corporate alliance are the vehicles they use to fool us passive, peace-loving, family-orientated apes into fighting each other.

Graphic Smile

Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill

Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:59 pm Post subject:

[quote="graphicequaliser Let's say that the Pentagon has an early warning radar detection system for objects that may be flying into the building. If there was no missile defence system in place at the time of 911, why didn't some SS employees bring out shoulder-mounted SAM launchers onto the Pentagon lawn, and blast the aircraft out of the sky? Are you implying that they don't do their job properly. [/quote] I did say I was looking for evidence rather than assumptions, and had not found any, but your post contains another assumption! As far as I know, the Secret Service protects the White House, but not the Pentagon.

Me
Moderate Poster

Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:59 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Where've you been for the past 4 thousand million years of evolution?

I wasn’t alive for most of it. I’m not even thirty years old. How about you?

Animals are as ‘unpredictable’ as you can get and any expert in the field would tell you that. Have you not seen the television show When Animals Attack? Do people not get mauled by wild animals all of the time and never see it coming? This wouldn’t happen if people could actually read their minds. You can’t and that’s why they’re so dangerous. Yes animals have distinctive trademark characteristics and instinctive behavioral patterns that can be recognized but that’s not the same as reading minds.

As far as determining a person’s true motives by reading his/her mind. It should be obvious that it’s also impossible. If it were then there’d be no purpose for having a judicial system would there? Rather than having long drawn out and expensive trials and juries we’d simply have a mind reader present to determine one’s thoughts and conclude the case with either a guilty or not guilty verdict instantly. If this were possible, this very discussion about Rumsfeld wouldn’t have lasted longer than one post.

Of course you could get in to quantum physics, the universal consciousness and “we’re all connected in the ether” new age type arguments but as far as I can tell telepathic communication isn't exactly mainstream and certainly not permissible in a court of law.

I’m not at all saying that we shouldn’t be discussing Rumsfeld’s comments. I’m just saying that we’ll never be able to prove one way or the other with absolute certainty exactly what he meant when saying it.

If you are aware of a secret method to employ for doing this by all means please share it with us all. Help us end this discourse right now with conclusive proof of the true meaning of his thoughts.

I’m not trying to be an ass-hole but it did seems as if you were looking to instigate me with your comments for some reason? As I’ve said before, I believe that 9/11 was an inside job and I’m not the enemy. I believe that Silverstein slipped up when saying "pull it", meaning a demolition term. I'm just saying that unfortunately we can't prove it unless he admits to it and I assure you that will never happen. If you’re looking for a confrontation with coincidence theorists please visit the critic’s corner. In fighting within the truth community will do us no good. Divisiveness will only serve to bring us down.

We’re not all going to agree about everything. We’ll also be wrong many times along the way. But the government’s track record isn’t any better when you look at it. How many times have they changed their story about the collapse of the towers? As Kevin Ryan said, what collapsed was their own pancake theory. Then there’s the 9/11 Commission’s ever-changing timelines as David Griffin has dutifully pointed out.

Coincidence theorists have the unreasonably high expectations of wanting us truthers to explain every single element of the story and to the highest degree with no errors while they never seem to judge the government despite its blatant inability to get the most minor of details correct. The government is the giant bureaucracy with all of the relevant videos, documents, transcripts regarding 9/11 that they won’t divulge to the public and committees/finances for holding investigations, not us. It is they who should be held to the higher standard. They of course appear to be the ones with something to hide, not us.

Take that one to heart official story junkies. You have been had and you don't even know it.

Last edited by Me on Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:25 am; edited 1 time in total

Me
Moderate Poster

Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431

Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:23 am Post subject:

Quote:

Consider all of the foregoing information now in relation to the 9/11 attacks and the fact that so many Americans find it almost impossible to believe that their government officials would wantonly sacrifice the lives of its citizens to further their personal agendas. More importantly, consider the fact that your government knows how you think only too well. In fact, they have CREATED your thinking processes!

Link

Political Ponerology: The Scientific Study of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes

Quote:

The first manuscript of this book went into the fire five minutes before the arrival of the secret police in Communist Poland. The second copy, reassembled painfully by scientists working under impossible conditions of repression, was sent via a courier to the Vatican. Its receipt was never acknowledged, no word was ever heard from the courier - the manuscript and all the valuable data was lost. The third copy was produced after one of the scientists working on the project escaped to America in the 1980s. Zbigniew Brzezinski suppressed it.

Political Ponerology: The scientific study of Evil adjusted for Political Purposes was forged in the crucible of the very subject it studies. Scientists living under an oppressive regime decide to study it clinically, to study the founders and supporters of an evil regime to determine what common factor is at play in the rise and propagation of man's inhumanity to man.

Shocking in its clinically spare descriptions of the true nature of evil, poignant in the more literary passages where the author reveals the suffering experienced by the researchers who were contaminated or destroyed by the disease they were studying, this is a book that should be required reading by every citizen of every country that claims a moral or humanistic foundation. For it is a certainty that morality and humanism cannot long withstand the predations of Evil. Knowledge of its nature, how it creates its networks and spreads, how insidious is its guileful approach, is the only antidote.

Blog

Article

Quote:

This article is a two-parter. I should notify the reader that the really good stuff is in the second part, so don't skip it!

graphicequaliser
Moderate Poster

Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 111
Location: United Kingdom

Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 1:13 am Post subject:

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/pentalawn.html How do you explain no lawn damage? _________________ Patriotism, religion, tradition and political/corporate alliance are the vehicles they use to fool us passive, peace-loving, family-orientated apes into fighting each other. Graphic

Me
Moderate Poster

Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431

Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 4:34 am Post subject:

Quote:

How do you explain no lawn damage?

Is this question to me?

That was one of the government’s first lies about the story. When people first began asking how it was that the damage on the facade of the Pentagon didn’t match up with the wing span of a Boeing they said that it’s because it crashed in to the ground first and folded inward. Then of course the photos of the perfectly pristine lawn came out and they were forced to invent a new argument.

Even if you’re looking at the ninety foot hole 'after' the collapse, the wing span of a Boeing is well over a hundred feet wide.

Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill

Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:55 am Post subject:

Me wrote:

Yes indeed, sorry not to have made that clear earlier. The reported comments describing it as "a cruise missile with wings" and "like a bullet" I would suggest are also metaphorical, referring to the way it went into the Pentagon as a target. A cruise missile of course actually has wings anyway and a bullet cannot be seen. Most eye witnesses who actually describe the object refer to it as a big plane in one way or another, although one or two call it a commuter jet or something smaller.

I do agree that physical evidence that can be examined at leisure is more compelling than eye witnesses to an event which was over in seconds. What physical evidence is available in the form of debris appears to support the Boeing explanation, and nothing has been demonstrated to be the remains of any other type of aircraft or missile. The spacing of the lamp posts struck suggests a considerable wingspan and the damage to the generator shows that a substantial part, such as an engine, was offset from the centre line. The light alloy wings could not be expected to penetrate the walls of the building, but there is damage to the facade consistant with impact from them. My conclusion is therefore that the Pentagon was indeed hit by a large Boeing.

Display posts from previous:

	9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> General	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 4 of 5

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum