FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Pentagon - Overview
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Hombre



Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 967

PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 6:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh I don't think that's the question that really matters, whether this board or any board ever cracks 9-11 simply because 9-11 has been cracked to death already. I mean it's been cracked so much that it's cracks have cracks.

The problem with all of this, and it's a simple problem AT THAT, it the fact that NOBODY who is anybody really gives a damn. Oh sure you can spout off about being someone but in reality you're not. You're just a screen name in a world of make believe, like it or not that's the truth, that's why I made the Joke.

Moylan isn't stupid he/she knows what happened at the Pentagon, Nobody can be dumb enough as to NOT have questions. It's just an act they play so getting caught up in it from any angle is really silly.

Grumpy, lol, If he's a retired Teacher/Professor/ Academic of any order than Pigs really do fly, or hell I may even be the real " BLACK POPE " as an example.

I caught about 15 minutes of that ridiculous History channel thing on Flight 93, you know the one that was mainly " conspiracy " vs " EXPERT " Only the people in the Conspiracy corner were three " Alex Jones " " Avery " and " Barmes " (sic ) Each of the so called " Truthers " made my skin crawl. There presence alone was enough to make me vomit but it paled in comparison to the so called " EXPERT " Now if you want to talk about something that can really really piss me off enough to have me become violent it's to tell me that that ( IMHO ) PUNK KID the History channel used was expert at anything other than what the hell he was told to say. The only thing he was expert at in my opinion might be peter pulling, but sadly the majority of people who tune in to watch this stuff are gullible enough to be manipulated by it. THAT'S THE INTENT of the program, those that be know how really dumb most people actually are.

example: http://911review.com/denial/holocaust.html

What the hell does the above link have to do with cracking 9-11? Answer: NOTHING it's purpose is guilt by association and people blindly follow along.

example: http://culhavoc.blogsome.com/2006/05/30/911-whistleblower-andrew-grove-comes-forward/

What the hell does a guy who likes to sue people have to do with cracking 9-11? Nothing, he's just bashing your brains in with extreme detail as the weapon.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hombre



Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 967

PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 7:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

And this oh yeah this was the one that touched off a fire storm when I found out that it was all a test run looking for logger programs and keyword programs. LOL It took about 15 seconds for the trolls to start posting: JUST READ SOME OF THE COMMENTS IN THE LINK:

Guilt by association:
Quote:
Tie-dye shirts, creationism, Ouija boards — some things just refuse to die … Punch Buggies, Fidel Castro, the Halloween movie series … They linger long after their time has come and gone, somehow escaping their rightful place in history’s dustbin. And today — six years after the bloodiest terrorist attack ever — we can add yet another item to the list: 9/11 conspiracy theories.

By now, you’re probably aware that some Americans are convinced George Bush, not Osama bin Laden, was behind 9/11. The widely accepted account of that day’s events, according to countless books and the schlocky Internet flick Loose Change, is but a pack of lies our government and its media stooges have heaped upon an ignorant American public.

You thought those were passenger planes you saw hitting the World Trade Center? They were clearly military jets! The Twin Towers collapsed due to a manageable fire and a little structural damage? Nonsense — there had to have also been a controlled demolition! That plane that struck the Pentagon? It was a cruise missile, goddamnit! Those Flight 93 heroes who fought their hijacked plane to the ground? They were really landed in Cleveland and probably killed quietly. Oh, and the 19 alleged hijackers? Alive and well.

Delusions of this sort, while imaginative, are nothing new. Conspiracy theories are as old as paranoia itself. After every major historical event, there’s always a handful of nuts with a theory — usually involving the CIA and/or the Jews — about what really happened.

The “moon landing”: Staged inside a studio.

Lee Harvey Oswald: A pawn of the CIA, Lyndon Johnson, the KGB, the Mafia et al.

Princess Diana’s death: What do you expect from the MI5?

And the so-called “Holocaust”: The most elaborate hoax in history.



The above is a quote taken from the link below:

http://cornellsun.com/node/24309

It was a follow up to another also written ( imho ) to test the water. The person who wrote the original responded to an e-mail I sent only the e-mail has since been removed from my server by the sender. lol as if I can't track down the who's and how's of such. lol They're not real bright to drop their pants and then try to say they didn't. No worries because I know the drill, it's transparent as hell.

Like I said the cracks have cracks when it comes to all this 9-11 business.

I don't claim to know everything about 9-11 but I do know the simple facts and can easily connect the dots by simply keeping the landscape as simple and basic as possible given all the BULLSHIT being cast about.

What's in a name you ask? lol More than most can imagine!

Douglas Feith. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_J._Feith

Laughing Laughing Laughing

Hombre
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lord Carpainter



Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Posts: 268
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 11:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Come on, guys, any non-troll posts? If no one can counter the things I've posted here, then it conclusively proves no plane at the Pent. The evidence is clear.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hdog



Joined: 12 Dec 2006
Posts: 77

PostPosted: Mon Sep 15, 2008 8:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just so you no LC, my comment wasn't directed at you. You made valid posts and get nonsense in

I lean towards a flyover + explosives.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hdog



Joined: 12 Dec 2006
Posts: 77

PostPosted: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Of course, that's "know." Ugh.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
moylan



Joined: 07 Feb 2006
Posts: 104

PostPosted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 7:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hombre, thanks for that vote of confidence. I do know what happened at the Pentagon, as I know what happened at the WTC: in both cases, it is substantially as described. Hijacked planes crashing. What caused the WTC to collapse is another issue, and no, I don't buy the gravity-driven collapse hypothesis, nor did I on day one.

In the absence of evidence that a plane didn't crash into any of these structures, it's rational to accept that they did. And no, "evidence" doesn't mean speculation about what might or might not appear in grainy amateur video, or unsupported statements about what "would have" or "should have" happened.

It is also rational to believe that the cover story for the one of the biggest psychological operations in recorded history would need to appear plausible. Such a plot would not rely on bribing dozens of people to make witness statements about something they didn't see, somehow planting aircraft debris in strategic locations, and having government operatives somehow being able to seize and alter every extant scrap of video and photograph evidence.

It's no accident that the NPT and no-plane-hit-the-Pentagon memes have enjoyed a success so wildly out of proportion to the case that can be made for them. They're incredible claims, and perfect ammunition to destroy rational questioning of the official conspiracy theory. I know that's not a blinding insight, but since the same arguments keep coming up it's as well to recall it.

LC, the evidence isn't clear. If it were, there would be no controversy, and you wouldn't feel the need to cherry-pick apparent anomalies and witnesses.

Hdog, I would buy the "flyover and explosives" notion too, if there were anything to support it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hombre



Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 967

PostPosted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 8:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

In the absence of evidence that a plane didn't crash into any of these structures, it's rational to accept that they did. And no, "evidence" doesn't mean speculation about what might or might not appear in grainy amateur video, or unsupported statements about what "would have" or "should have" happened.

It is also rational to believe that the cover story for the one of the biggest psychological operations in recorded history would need to appear plausible. Such a plot would not rely on bribing dozens of people to make witness statements about something they didn't see, somehow planting aircraft debris in strategic locations, and having government operatives somehow being able to seize and alter every extant scrap of video and photograph evidence


Color me confused. Or is it kornfused? The above I can assume relates to the " CHERRY PICKING " theory of everything related to NTP in a nut shell. Or am I missing something? Why good for one and NOT the other? I'm speaking merely from the " PLAUSIBILITY ASPECT " of your thought and the application of such in the real world. IMHO~ IT HAS HUGE HOLES IN IT from top to bottom.

It's an assumption cleverly planted that " PEOPLE WERE BRIBED " Who are these people? Where are they? One I know of for 100% sure changed his story. Why did he do that? Were his eyes playing tricks on him that day or was he just Kornfused about what he actually saw after a sit down with the BOSS?

This whole thing is insane to even talk about because it's so bloody transparent, so obvious. They need planes, they want planes, they have to have planes. Planes are the basis of the conspiracy, the story, the game, lie, WTF ever one chooses to name it, or call it. THAT'S exactly why the mere thought of NPT or any who mention it get attacked and dismissed as a JFK/Grassy Knoll, Alien abducted moon walking LUNATIC.

I've found in life that it's always those who are not afraid who make the biggest impact and those too blind to see who always get swept out to sea, or trampled in the stampede. It's simply foolish to endorse large bodied planes without sufficient debris to back it all up without any consideration for anything else being " PLAUSIBLE ". JMHO

Hombre
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
moylan



Joined: 07 Feb 2006
Posts: 104

PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 6:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hombre, with your statement that there was insufficient debris to suggest civil airliners, you support my point. You have not advanced a single fact or real-world comparison to establish this supposed insufficiency. You simply assert it as though it were unarguable.

Contrary to what you claim, planes are not the element on which everything hangs. They're peripheral at best. What is central is the fact of the plot and what it was meant to accomplish. The use of airliners is merely one detail in a well-scripted terror campaign.

The obsessive focus on one aspect of the whole, and the tailoring of evidence to fit that picture, is another propaganda technique. It is not conducive to understanding the events. In the end all you get is a cult of believers who decry as apostate those who can't see the allegedly blindingly obvious truth. Another marginalised cult, who guarantee that they will be treated just as their behaviour seems to warrant.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lord Carpainter



Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Posts: 268
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

moylan wrote:
Hombre, thanks for that vote of confidence. I do know what happened at the Pentagon, as I know what happened at the WTC: in both cases, it is substantially as described. Hijacked planes crashing. What caused the WTC to collapse is another issue, and no, I don't buy the gravity-driven collapse hypothesis, nor did I on day one.

In the absence of evidence that a plane didn't crash into any of these structures, it's rational to accept that they did. And no, "evidence" doesn't mean speculation about what might or might not appear in grainy amateur video, or unsupported statements about what "would have" or "should have" happened.

It is also rational to believe that the cover story for the one of the biggest psychological operations in recorded history would need to appear plausible. Such a plot would not rely on bribing dozens of people to make witness statements about something they didn't see, somehow planting aircraft debris in strategic locations, and having government operatives somehow being able to seize and alter every extant scrap of video and photograph evidence.

It's no accident that the NPT and no-plane-hit-the-Pentagon memes have enjoyed a success so wildly out of proportion to the case that can be made for them. They're incredible claims, and perfect ammunition to destroy rational questioning of the official conspiracy theory. I know that's not a blinding insight, but since the same arguments keep coming up it's as well to recall it.

LC, the evidence isn't clear. If it were, there would be no controversy, and you wouldn't feel the need to cherry-pick apparent anomalies and witnesses.

Hdog, I would buy the "flyover and explosives" notion too, if there were anything to support it.


Ridiculous! You dismissed the anomalies I exposed as "cherry picked" and "apparent" without even addressing them!

The fact stands that you have not answered any of my evidence!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hdog



Joined: 12 Dec 2006
Posts: 77

PostPosted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 3:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Moylan, there are two problems with the Flight 77 theory: It's unproven ( the honey pot thing is not proof) and physically impossible. I don't care who was flying it, it couldn't have leveled out.

That explosives were planted in the building is proven by the fact that if something had the mass and energy to pierce through the last ring , it doesn't stop there. Dave McGowan pointed this obvious fact out very early on.

As far as the flyover theory, I still have to look more deeply into CIT's work but there apparently are eye witness accounts that support it. The flyover theory has not been successful. In fact it's been opposed by Loose Change, Alex Jones and 911blogger. The "movement" has generally argued that something other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon because it was obvious that Flight 77 didn't.

You're wrong that these alleged Hijacked Flights hit the Towers. You don't plant explosives in the Towers (apparently you at least get this one, whew)and and hope these guys hit the Towers. And it's quite a coincidence that these guys just happened to hit the exact locations as depicted in The Coup's album cover before the event happened.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Page 7 of 7

 
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


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.