This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Would it it possible to get a "DAT" or BETA copy of this show.
Our local Cable Co Has 2 channels for "local Broadcast", I am a contractor for the Company.
When in doubt, look it up on snopes: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
Here's your fireball: http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/03/07/gen.pentagon.pictures/
Gotta go, but I'll return for more of this entertainment later today.
Where there's smoke, there's fire.
Here's an eyewitness account from someone who saw the plane crash: http://www.naualumni.com/News/News.cfm?ID=613&c=4. Or is she a part of the conspiracy too?
I too was surprised when I saw the two planes crash into the WTC. I would have thought that planes would drop to the ground after crashing into buildings. Maybe that is true for small, light planes. But as we all saw, when a large Boeing slams into a building, it buries itself into the building, explodes, and disintegrates.
I'm glad I could clear this up for you guys.
I think it is a valid question to ask where the debris from the plane might be. For something that large it simply doesn't disintegrate and vaporize. We have all seen coverage of numerous plane crashes over the years and I have yet to see one where there is not a shred of evidence like a piece of the tail or fuselage or something. Even when planes go down into water and sink there is still debris floating on the surface. It seems very very suspicious that there was no debris to be seen.
Quote from: "Masterpiece"Are you honestly going to tell me, that these damages are consitent with the results of a plane loaded with 8600 gallons of fuel crashing into the Pentagon?
Apparently -- yes.QuoteHow can a book lie around undamaged then? Or how can the computer monitor look like new? And where is the plane for that matter? Well it COULD have been removed but that doesn't quite answer the lack of damages from a HUGE fire?
So now you are denying that there was a huge fire? WE ALL SAW THE HUGE FIRE BURNING, ON TV!
Quote from: "Masterpiece"I have just watched this documentary; "911 in plane site".
This is probably nr. 20 I've watched or something to that extend - and this one ALSO has footage of the attacks on both the Pentagon and WTC in best possible quality from both handheld and broadcast cameras. I will cut frames out of it and post them on a homepage of my own, to prove my case, by myself, if necessary.
This documentary CLEARLY confirms both these homepages claims:
You've (all of us really) been dubed America. By whom I don't know - but we've been suckered!
You need to stop believing everything you see and read. Surely you are not this gullible?
These 9/11 fantasies were already debunked earlier in this thread while you were sleeping.
I repeat my question: Where are the people who were aboard the plane that we were all told crashed into the Pentagon?
Hey guys, stop jumping all over Masterpiece.
Maybe this device for tapping into the claimed zero-point energy field is valid. And maybe it isn't. But theres a bigger picture here that Masterpiece was, I beleive, trying to get at.
And that is that it is worth considering the sociological implications of promoting non-traditional energy sources.
Think of the power that terrorists derive from their potential ability to disrupt the oil supply. Think of the potential danger of a terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant.
MrNiceGuy, I am starting to think that maybe I can teach you more than you can teach me. Any man who spends time with lots of women know of the basic contradictions there are. Women do love to be put on pedestals. When you ignore them, they respond very favorably because their self-esteem takes a hit. So there is no paradox and nothing flawed in my logic and statements, even though you try hard to insult me whenever you can. I said that a) women love to be put on pedestals and I also said b) that if you don't put them on a pedestal they will respond favorably. The contradiction is not within me but within the particular women I refer to, which is the majority. That is why they claim to want love and nice guys but dump you for the hippie who rebels against society. That is surely a contradiction. So, let's break it down for you, Mr.NiceGuy. Anytime I go too fast for you, let me know. Women do want you to put them on a pedestal. They want things their way and they want lots of attention. However, they also like challenges more than they like the pedestal treatment. So, when you don't put them on a pedestal they go crazy wanting you, wanting you to put them back on the pedestal. If you still don't understand, ask yourself because I am now somewhat sure you are a woman masquerading as a man on this site, or a girly-man.
MasterpieceQuoteGood point AH. But also a point that makes me incredibly fuc**** tired just thinking about - because it seems impossible to resolve. Is this where jiggering the gender ratio becomes a solution?
First, we need to grow the organism of the Men's Movement and do as much as we can to ensure that the spread of information continues.
Eventually, the minds of men-who-sit-at-screens will dominate the planet.
Let me put this another way.
If there were 10 million men floating aroung forums such as this, the war against feminism would very quickly be over.
The rest is just a question of filling in the details.
And if we do not grow the men's movement quickly enough, I reckon that we are all pretty much doomed.
And as more and more people begin to realise this, both men and women will rush to support us.
Imagine, for example, if F4J had access to viruses!
Imagine if LST8000 had access to viruses!!!!!!!
There is no happy future for any of us without the support of 'men'.
FeminismQuoteIt's nothing but a Rockerfeller creation
No. Feminism is much more than that.
For example, let me quote from one of my pieces ...
The Beatles pop group took the world by storm in the early 1960s. They produced a kind of music that many people wanted to hear. And their 'enterprise' - their music - would have had no influence at all if people had not responded so positively toward it.
The Beatles - the 'leaders' - did not 'inflict' their music upon a reluctant world and force their musical enterprise into becoming the global phenomenon that it turned out to be. Their enterprise mushroomed because a positive feedback loop was generated.
This involved ordinary people responding to their music in such a way (buying their records, attending their concerts etc) that the Beatles themselves were further empowered with the wherewithal to create even more music, and to spread it around even further.
The point is that their music - their enterprise - did not invade the western world so pervasively simply because of the activities of the Beatles themselves. The activities of millions of others gave rise to the prominence of their music.
Without these millions of others, hardly anyone would ever have heard of the Beatles or their music.
And, clearly, the same can be said with regard to big ideologies and big movements.
For example, there is no way that somebody like Hitler - on his own - could have forced millions of Germans to do what they did in the 1930s. The huge influence that he and his cronies exerted stemmed not only from their own actions but from the feedback mechanisms in which millions of others took part.
For example, German women positively adored Hitler. They can be seen in the mass rallies behaving in exactly the same manner toward him as did young western girls who attended Beatles' concerts.
They screamed. They cried. They called out his name. They begged to touch him. And so when Hitler and his cronies - and, indeed, everybody else - saw this unbridled adulation being inspired by him, both he and his ideology spread like wildfire.
And, unsurprisingly, millions of German men wanted to be like him!
Indeed, if women had not found Hitler to be so deliciously attractive then his influence upon men would have been curtailed quite considerably - if not completely.