LinuxQuestions.org
Visit Jeremy's Blog.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


Closed Thread
  Search this Thread
Old 06-15-2005, 07:17 AM   #166
DaBlade
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2004
Distribution: Debian Sid
Posts: 381

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 30

Here is George H.W. Bush's speech announcing the NWO

Even CBS has reported on Skull and Bones. Only Fox hasn't, of the major news companies. No doubt you watch Fox (or Fux as I like to call it) a lot.
George W. Bush has indirectly admitted to being a skull and bones member on TV. The Washington Post is writing about it.
John Kerry has also.

Neither man responded to repeated requests for interviews for this article. But when Tim Russert asked Bush about Skull and Bones in February on "Meet the Press," the president said: "It's so secret we can't talk about it." When Russert asked Kerry last August what it meant that both he and Bush are Bonesmen, the Massachusetts senator replied: "Not much because it's a secret."

Do you believe it now?
Or how about listening to this MP3? This is a BBC report on Skull and Bones:
Click

What more do you need? You can hear it right from bush and kerry's mouth
look at part two of Martial Law. You can see the interviews where they're asked about it. Bush replies: "It's so secret we can't talk about it", and kerry replies "Not much cause it's a secret"

You have the membership confessions from two top bonesmen, on major news. You still don't believe?

Wake the fsck up people! :P
 
Old 06-15-2005, 07:27 AM   #167
DaBlade
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2004
Distribution: Debian Sid
Posts: 381

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 30
Regarding the Pentagon (which BTW is the middle of a pentagram. What's mark was the pentagram again?), I believe one of the following is probably the case:
He didn't see the actual plane. (as in see it when it flew over him)
He didn't see it very well, maybe just a glimpse of it. It's a very high speed remote control plane, it's designed to go past mach 1.
He's a liar.
 
Old 06-15-2005, 07:36 AM   #168
DJOldskool
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Wow gbhill, you were there when the plane hit. What was it like? how did it feel?

You say it was 40ft or 12m that is extremely low, what effect did the turbo engines have?
Did the plane have a vapour trail?

I saw you mentioned in an earlier post the plane 'bellyfloped' into the pentagon, this I have heard from other witness statements. This seems strange as the grass infront of the impact is flawless! planes make a big mess when they hit the ground but there isn't even an indent in front of the impact site.
As an eye witness I thought you could help clear up this one.

Engines?
The official story is that the wings folded as the plane entered the building, thats why it made such a small hole. Kinda makes sense except for the engines!

Two nine foot cast iron jet engines would not under any circumstances have 'folded' into the plane, also where on earth did they end up? These items DO NOT DISINTEGRATE under any explosive situation (but amazingly this is the official story), there are no pictures of them at the scene ( This would be standard practice in ANY crime scene and imperative in a major incident such as this ) there isnt even a report stating where they were found. In fact the only jet engine in photos from the scene is a 3ft one that did not come from a jumbo! Maybe one vaporised and one shrunk

How about the wheel hubs found. Experts have been able to rule them out as passenger jet hubs from the height to width ratios alone!

Then there is the fact that the man who runs the flight school the supposed pilot trained at, said he was a terrible pilot and could barely fly. The manouvre the plane took was amazing, expert pilots have said they could not be sure they could pull it off.

WTC7
However this is not the area to start in because WTC7 is so glaringly obvious. A building that received minimal if any damage from debri ( the hotel opposite WTC1 and 2 had chunks of the the towers fall on them and had major fires it is still there now! ) There were reports of two small isolated fires on the 12th and 5th? floors. then the building collasped. Doesnt something seem wrong here?

So many experts and reporters kept on about building 7 that Mr Silverstein eventually gave an interview about the events of that day he stated the firefighters told me that the build had sustained massive damage and Mr silverstein said he told them to pull it (pull it - is the term always given to demolishing a building).

If they had decided to demolish a 50 storey building, how long would it have taken to plant the explosives and wiring needed - I'm no expert but even I know it takes more than a couple of hours. The list of what was in that building is amazing no wonder it had to come down look it up if you wish.

Please feel free to post replies I am always open minded I love good arguements against these facts. Investigating these helps me greatly.
 
Old 06-15-2005, 10:12 AM   #169
Padma
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2003
Location: Omaha, NE, USA
Distribution: PCLinuxOS 2007
Posts: 808

Rep: Reputation: 30
Just a reply to one piece of your above post: Engines.

Almost 20 years before 9/11 I was part of the cleanup crew at my base, where we had a B52 bomber crash immediately after takeoff. As I recall, of the eight engines, we only recovered three "intact". The rest were scattered in bits and pieces across the debris field, and/or "vaporized".

Oh, and at the time, the investigators said there was no way any pilot could have avoided the elementary school that was directly in his path as he came down, yet, somehow, he managed to. So I have no problem accepting that even a poor pilot can pull off something like the Pentagon strike.
 
Old 06-15-2005, 12:44 PM   #171
gbhil
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: /dev/input/chair0
Distribution: Slackware, Gentoo, Vector, Roll-your-own-with-GNU binutils
Posts: 174

Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally posted by DJOldskool
Wow gbhill, you were there when the plane hit. What was it like? how did it feel?
It was frightening and confusing. I had no idea what was going on, I was just sitting in traffic. The Arlington area is very busy with plane traffic, but it was easy to see something was wrong. Personally I thought it was a crash landing or something similiar.

Quote:
Originally posted by DJOldskool

You say it was 40ft or 12m that is extremely low, what effect did the turbo engines have?
I'm sure the noise was terrible, yet I don't remember hearing anything. I do however remember "feeling" the effects of the noise, the vibration of my car and in my body. Others interviewed with me say it sounded like a fast moving train, but under heavy stress. When the plane made impact with the building, everything shook.

Quote:
Originally posted by DJOldskool

Did the plane have a vapour trail?
No, at least I do not recall seeing one.

Quote:
Originally posted by DJOldskool

I saw you mentioned in an earlier post the plane 'bellyfloped' into the pentagon, this I have heard from other witness statements. This seems strange as the grass infront of the impact is flawless! planes make a big mess when they hit the ground but there isn't even an indent in front of the impact site.
As an eye witness I thought you could help clear up this one.
The grass/ground where the plane first hit was a mess. That you could easily see from the road. The actual impact site with the building was not visible from my position.

Quote:
Originally posted by DJOldskool

Engines?
The official story is that the wings folded as the plane entered the building, thats why it made such a small hole. Kinda makes sense except for the engines!

Two nine foot cast iron jet engines would not under any circumstances have 'folded' into the plane, also where on earth did they end up? These items DO NOT DISINTEGRATE under any explosive situation (but amazingly this is the official story), there are no pictures of them at the scene ( This would be standard practice in ANY crime scene and imperative in a major incident such as this ) there isnt even a report stating where they were found. In fact the only jet engine in photos from the scene is a 3ft one that did not come from a jumbo! Maybe one vaporised and one shrunk
Photo of engine remains.
http://www.rense.com/general32/Damage9.jpg

As a U.S. Army press release noted back on 26 September 2001, one engine of the aircraft punched a 12-foot hole through the wall of the second ring:

" On the inside wall of the second ring of the Pentagon, a nearly circular hole, about 12-feet wide, allows light to pour into the building from an internal service alley. An aircraft engine punched the hole out on its last flight after being broken loose from its moorings on the plane. The result became a huge vent for the subsequent explosion and fire. Signs of fire and black smoke now ring the outside of the jagged-edged hole. "


Quote:
Originally posted by DJOldskool

How about the wheel hubs found. Experts have been able to rule them out as passenger jet hubs from the height to width ratios alone!
Most "experts" (Including those from Messier-Dowty, a French company that manufactures landing gear assemblies for the aerospace industry) say the wheel hubs, landing gear struts and pieces of tire recovered did match those of a passneger jet.

Quote:
Originally posted by DJOldskool

Then there is the fact that the man who runs the flight school the supposed pilot trained at, said he was a terrible pilot and could barely fly. The manouvre the plane took was amazing, expert pilots have said they could not be sure they could pull it off.
Luck? I have nothing to add here that could help or detract.
 
Old 06-15-2005, 03:52 PM   #172
Crashed_Again
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2002
Location: Atlantic City, NJ
Distribution: Ubuntu & Arch
Posts: 3,503

Rep: Reputation: 57
Add another user(DJOldskool) to this thread with 0 posts and a June 2005 sign up. I'm guessing that DaBlade told other conspiracy nuts on another forum to come joing him here so he doesn't look like such an idiot after we completly debunked all the nonsense he has thrown at us. Perhaps if a lot of people keep linking us to half assed video's and documents we will start believing. You guys are nuts. Somebody told you they saw a passenger jet hit the pentagon and you say he is wrong. He didn't see that? More proof that your brain does not function correctly.

EVERYBODY RUN AND GET YOUR TIN FOIL HATS NOW!!! SAVE YOURSELF! YOU ARE ALL SHEEP!

hahahaa...pathetic
 
Old 06-15-2005, 04:44 PM   #173
readsomestuff
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jun 2005
Location: sometimes here, sometimes there
Distribution: MDK, CentOS, Red Hat, WinXP
Posts: 1

Rep: Reputation: 0
Quote:
Fifteen Techniques for Truth Suppression
by David Martin


1. Dummy up. If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen.

2. Wax indignant. This is also known as the "How dare you?" gambit.

3. Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better yet, "wild rumors." If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through "rumors." (If they tend to believe the "rumors" it must be because they are simply "paranoid" or "hysterical.")

4. Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspects of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors (or plant false stories) and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike.

5. Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist," "nutcase," "ranter," "kook," "crackpot," and, of course, "rumor monger." Be sure, too, to use heavily loaded verbs and adjectives when characterizing their charges and defending the "more reasonable" government and its defenders. You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned. For insurance, set up your own "skeptics" to shoot down.

6. Impugn motives. Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money (compared to over-compensated adherents to the government line who, presumably, are not).

7. Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.

8. Dismiss the charges as "old news."

9. Come half-clean. This is also known as "confession and avoidance" or "taking the limited hangout route." This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal "mistakes." This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken. With effective damage control, the fall-back position need only be peddled by stooge skeptics to carefully limited markets.

10. Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.

11. Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. E.g. We have a completely free press. If evidence exists that the Vince Foster "suicide" note was forged, they would have reported it. They haven't reported it so there is no such evidence. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press who would report the leak.

12. Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely. E.g. If Foster was murdered, who did it and why?

13. Change the subject. This technique includes creating and/or publicizing distractions.

14. Scantly report incriminating facts, and then make nothing of them. This is sometimes referred to as "bump and run" reporting.

15. Baldly and brazenly lie. A favorite way of doing this is to attribute the "facts" furnished the public to a plausible-sounding, but anonymous, source.
 
Old 06-15-2005, 05:06 PM   #174
williamwbishop
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Location: god's judge
Posts: 376

Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally posted by Crashed_Again
Add another user(DJOldskool) to this thread with 0 posts and a June 2005 sign up. I'm guessing that DaBlade told other conspiracy nuts on another forum to come joing him here so he doesn't look like such an idiot after we completly debunked all the nonsense he has thrown at us. Perhaps if a lot of people keep linking us to half assed video's and documents we will start believing. You guys are nuts. Somebody told you they saw a passenger jet hit the pentagon and you say he is wrong. He didn't see that? More proof that your brain does not function correctly.

EVERYBODY RUN AND GET YOUR TIN FOIL HATS NOW!!! SAVE YOURSELF! YOU ARE ALL SHEEP!

hahahaa...pathetic
technically, nothing has been debunked, it's been a bunch of people(including me) just calling them nuts. We have one avowed "eyewitness", but no research disputing any of it. A shame really, since so much of it is obvious garbage. But let's not go mistaking disbelief as debunking. You need a little shermer in your life. Now THAT's debunking.
 
Old 06-15-2005, 05:18 PM   #175
WhatRUThinking
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
This thread is astounding, unwarranted and has been off topic since the 1st post strayed from the initital subject heading. My question to those who claim a plane didn't hit the pentagon is: where did it go? What is the point of making a plane disappear and wasting a missle or some other smaller plane, as has been suggested, when you could just crash the bigger plane and do more damage? Why did hijackers hijack and crash other planes at the same time and yet this plane "vanished" and isn't allowed to enter your playing field? What is the group conclusion as to where the missing plane that disappeared from radar really went? As far as pushing an agenda, why does it matter if ANYTHING hit the pentagon? We would have still gone to war over the other 3 planes... so why "fake" that one crash? It was unnecessary. A total waste of effort, time and resources. No one needs to fake an attack when any attack can be considered necessary to boost security and has been. I won't make personal attacks, but this arguement is lame. Perhaps you believe gbhill is a CIA insider and wasn't really there.
 
Old 06-15-2005, 05:50 PM   #176
Crashed_Again
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2002
Location: Atlantic City, NJ
Distribution: Ubuntu & Arch
Posts: 3,503

Rep: Reputation: 57
What is going on here? This is a straight propoganda thread now. Readsomestuff just cuts and pasted things in here that have nothing to do with this discussion. What the hell does Techniques for Truth Supression have to do with any of this and why are you cutting and pasting this in here?
 
Old 06-15-2005, 05:52 PM   #177
Crashed_Again
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2002
Location: Atlantic City, NJ
Distribution: Ubuntu & Arch
Posts: 3,503

Rep: Reputation: 57
Quote:
Originally posted by williamwbishop
technically, nothing has been debunked, it's been a bunch of people(including me) just calling them nuts. We have one avowed "eyewitness", but no research disputing any of it. A shame really, since so much of it is obvious garbage. But let's not go mistaking disbelief as debunking. You need a little shermer in your life. Now THAT's debunking.
I don't think its feasible to respond to every single allegation made by these nut jobs. Do you?
 
Old 06-15-2005, 06:17 PM   #178
Cnb
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
So I have no problem accepting that even a poor pilot can pull off something like the Pentagon strike.
Oh Yeah ??

---
At 9:34, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport advised the Secret Service of an unknown aircraft heading in the direction of the White House. American 77 was then 5 miles west-southwest of the Pentagon and began a 330-degree turn. At the end of the turn, it was descending through 2, 200 feet, pointed toward the Pentagon and downtown Washington. The hijacker pilot then advanced the throttles to maximum power and dove toward the Pentagon.
source : 9/11 Commission Final Report (Chapter 1, Page 9)
---

They didn't even circle the pentagon, they just did a NICE LOOP BEFORE CRASHING.


Sure there was a plane that struck the Pentagon! But who really was in this plane ?
Two weeks after, 4 hijackers were found alive and well. Today we know there is at least 7 alive.

So, who was flying this plane, knowing that they couldn't have the experience to do
this acrobatic maneuver the first time they flew a Boing 747 ?

Use your common sense.

The identities of the hijackers were stolen. Why nothing is said in the commission's report ?




It is time to fire the liars.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"

Last edited by Cnb; 06-15-2005 at 07:04 PM.
 
Old 06-15-2005, 06:18 PM   #179
DaBlade
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2004
Distribution: Debian Sid
Posts: 381

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 30
First of all, obviously you guys ignored this post:
Quote:
Originally posted by DaBlade
Here is George H.W. Bush's speech announcing the NWO

Even CBS has reported on Skull and Bones. Only Fox hasn't, of the major news companies. No doubt you watch Fox (or Fux as I like to call it) a lot.
George W. Bush has indirectly admitted to being a skull and bones member on TV. The Washington Post is writing about it.
John Kerry has also.

Neither man responded to repeated requests for interviews for this article. But when Tim Russert asked Bush about Skull and Bones in February on "Meet the Press," the president said: "It's so secret we can't talk about it." When Russert asked Kerry last August what it meant that both he and Bush are Bonesmen, the Massachusetts senator replied: "Not much because it's a secret."

Do you believe it now?
Or how about listening to this MP3? This is a BBC report on Skull and Bones:
Click

What more do you need? You can hear it right from bush and kerry's mouth
look at part two of Martial Law. You can see the interviews where they're asked about it. Bush replies: "It's so secret we can't talk about it", and kerry replies "Not much cause it's a secret"

You have the membership confessions from two top bonesmen, on major news. You still don't believe?

Wake the fsck up people! :P
Second: I did NOT ask ANYONE on any other forums to help me. LQ is a massive site, hundreds of people online at the same time. You can expect at least some intelligent people who know what's really going on to stumble across this.
 
Old 06-15-2005, 06:40 PM   #180
Cnb
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally posted by DaBlade
First of all, obviously you guys ignored this post: [...]
Stop repeating things. It's just annoying.

Like George W. Bush said : "See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda"

link to audio
 
  


Closed Thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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

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



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Well, great. skipr Linux - Security 1 10-19-2005 07:09 AM
codename:linux documentary djabbot General 3 03-21-2005 06:00 PM
this great! halo14 General 6 11-24-2004 08:34 AM
Missing documentary for Mandrake linux 9.1 (starter.html folder) FutureEX Mandriva 1 10-15-2003 09:21 AM
This is great yogotie LQ Suggestions & Feedback 2 03-31-2001 11:33 AM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:13 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration