The Pentagon attack - WingTV vs Alex Jones

A

Anders

Guest
Nando said:
The only person that benefits when we talk about this stuff is the people that did it! It gives them control over the movement, thats why they released the footage of the pentagon again and thats probably why they put alex jones on CNN, because they expected him to be a moron who would talk about the pentagon, they want to get people focused in on the pentagon stuff so they can pull the plug when shit hits the fan.
Your reasoning is as faulty as a leaking roof. In your first page you wrote
Nando said:
Alex Jones always avoids the pentagon theories in his quest for truth, he never put anything about the pentagon attack in his movies and he would never use it as evidence when being interviewed by the mainstream media.
So why would the CNN think that Jones would talk about the Pentagon???
The only reason he was on the show was because he was sure not to talk about the Pentagon as you stated yourself. From what has been exposed sofar on this Forum Jones is part of the DISINFO.

nando said:
TheGardener said:
About the whereabouts of the debriss of the plain, Rumsfield said: Well... it evidently evaporated!
...
TheGardener, I address all of those issues in my article. You havn't attempted to counter anything I've said so I will not respond.
The old tried technique of playing offended and thus avoiding the issue.

nando said:
Again, Ignoring the witness testimony. There were plenty of people who saw a plane.
The eyewitness reports have been dissected and analyzed on this forum. The results of which puts HUGE question marks to what the eyewitnesses said or were told to have said/seen/heard. This can be found here http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/forum/viewforum.php?id=35 . Read all the threads there analyzing the eyewittness accounts and you reach a similar conclusion. You can of course play offended or insulted for even suggesting this. The choice is yours.


nando said:
The rabbit said:
They would not only have to produce a special effects video,they would have to produce the wreckage and there isnt any.....And everything else.........
I'm not suggesting they would make a special effects video, that is the most bizarre thing I've ever heard.
What planet do you live on? :lol: You have obviously never heard anything coming out of the Oval Office.

nando said:
They can produce the wreckage because they carried it away before any photos were taken, ofcorse they missed a few pieces which were scattered on the lawn.
Photos were taken immidiately after. All this is old hat and discussed at lenght at the link provided above, if you are really interested in the Truth.

It is curious how so many people log on to this Forum for the 'first' time and then attack what we are doing here. If you think that you have it all figured out. Fine, but leave us alone to continue researching and analyzing the subjects that we find of interest and publish the findings!!!

Anders
 
A

Anders

Guest
Nando said:
Anart said:
How does one 'plant' a pristine green lawn where a 757 crash trench should be? (and no planting grass seed jokes allowed wink )
They didn't plant it, they simply flew over the top of it.
:lol:
Again. What planet do you live on?
nando said:
My theory is not based on "data" is based on the fact that the people who planned 911 were probably ...
Yes, we noticed that there is no data. only assumptions, speculations, wishful thinking etc
No signal only noise.
 
N

Nando

Guest
Anders said:
Nando said:
The only person that benefits when we talk about this stuff is the people that did it! It gives them control over the movement, thats why they released the footage of the pentagon again and thats probably why they put alex jones on CNN, because they expected him to be a moron who would talk about the pentagon, they want to get people focused in on the pentagon stuff so they can pull the plug when shit hits the fan.
Your reasoning is as faulty as a leaking roof. In your first page you wrote
Nando said:
Alex Jones always avoids the pentagon theories in his quest for truth, he never put anything about the pentagon attack in his movies and he would never use it as evidence when being interviewed by the mainstream media.
So why would the CNN think that Jones would talk about the Pentagon???
The only reason he was on the show was because he was sure not to talk about the Pentagon as you stated yourself. From what has been exposed sofar on this Forum Jones is part of the DISINFO.
My reasoning is trump tight, your just not ready to let go of your no-plane theory yet.

They invited Alex Jones on because he is the top dog, they THOUGHT he would talk about the pentagon, they probably thought everybody in the 911 movement talks about the pentagon... There is nothing on Alex's sites or videos that specifically states that he does not get into the Pentagon theory.


Anders said:
nando said:
TheGardener said:
About the whereabouts of the debriss of the plain, Rumsfield said: Well... it evidently evaporated!
...
TheGardener, I address all of those issues in my article. You havn't attempted to counter anything I've said so I will not respond.
The old tried technique of playing offended and thus avoiding the issue.
No its not a technique, my article directly addresses everything he said and so I would only be waisting my time if I responded. If he takes my points into consideration and then comes back I'll be happy to respond.

Anders said:
nando said:
Again, Ignoring the witness testimony. There were plenty of people who saw a plane.
The eyewitness reports have been dissected and analyzed on this forum. The results of which puts HUGE question marks to what the eyewitnesses said or were told to have said/seen/heard. This can be found here http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/forum/viewforum.php?id=35 . Read all the threads there analyzing the eyewittness accounts and you reach a similar conclusion. You can of course play offended or insulted for even suggesting this. The choice is yours.
I'm not only saying that the eyewitness testimony was reliable, which I'm sure it probably IS. I'm saying that they couldnt control who was within 500 metres of the pentagon on september 11th, they had to assume that somebody might see what they were doing - and thus, using anything other than a plane would be too dangerous


Anders said:
nando said:
The rabbit said:
They would not only have to produce a special effects video,they would have to produce the wreckage and there isnt any.....And everything else.........
I'm not suggesting they would make a special effects video, that is the most bizarre thing I've ever heard.
What planet do you live on? :lol: You have obviously never heard anything coming out of the Oval Office.
Nothing is more bizarre than the suggestion that the government would create a fake video when they could SIMPLY USE A REAL PLANE.

Anders said:
nando said:
They can produce the wreckage because they carried it away before any photos were taken, ofcorse they missed a few pieces which were scattered on the lawn.
Photos were taken immidiately after. All this is old hat and discussed at lenght at the link provided above, if you are really interested in the Truth.
I'm sure pictures were taken soon after it happened, but not before the car bombs went off and destroyed any large sections of the plane.. And not before any large remaining pieces of the plane were removed.

Anders said:
It is curious how so many people log on to this Forum for the 'first' time and then attack what we are doing here. If you think that you have it all figured out. Fine, but leave us alone to continue researching and analyzing the subjects that we find of interest and publish the findings!!!

Anders
I'm not attacking you, I'm responding to WingTV's criticisim's of Alex Jones, I have seen several articles regarding WingTV on this forum and I thought this would be a great place to start a discussion.
 
N

Nando

Guest
Anders said:
Nando said:
Anart said:
How does one 'plant' a pristine green lawn where a 757 crash trench should be? (and no planting grass seed jokes allowed wink )
They didn't plant it, they simply flew over the top of it.
:lol:
Again. What planet do you live on?
nando said:
My theory is not based on "data" is based on the fact that the people who planned 911 were probably ...
Yes, we noticed that there is no data. only assumptions, speculations, wishful thinking etc
No signal only noise.
I'm using logic to counter your point - you should try it some time instead of mocking me..

It is wishful thinking to assume that the people who carried out 911 were stupid enough to stand on there own foot. The only assumption I make is that these people were not stupid and that they were prepared.
 

vinny

The Living Force
There have been repeated attempts on this forum, to try to make us ignore the Pentagon strike, despite the fact that even a cursory search through the threads will show that this has been done to death. This has made us all re-examine even more closely why that is NOT a helpful approach.

It should now be obvious why that is the case, to anyone who has followed these various attempts! Give up already! We've covered this ground ad nauseam, and it is becoming more and more apparent that the Pentagon strike is CRITICAL.

I don't know for certain why nando is doing this. I can speculate, but I don't need to, because I do know:

sleepyvinny said:
The thread title is taken from a chapter in George K Simon Jr.'s book 'In Sheep's Clothing'

In light of various discussions and attempts at manipulations of them, and how things have hotted up a notch recently, I thought I would post some extracts from that book, from the chapter in which Simon is discussing how to defend oneself against predatory behaviour/manipulation.

George K Simon said:
Accept no excuses. Don't buy into any of the many reasons (rationalisations) someone may offer for aggressive, covertly aggressive behaviour, or any other inappropriate behaviour. If someone's behaviour is wrong or harmful, the rationale they offer is totally irrelevant. The ends never justify the means. So, no matter how much an "explanation" for a problem behaviour seems to make sense, don't accept it. Remember that the person offering an excuse is trying to maintain a position from which they should be backing away (...)

Judge actions not intentions. Never try to "mind-read" or second-guess why somebody is doing something, especially when they are doing something hurtful. There is no way for you to really know, and in the end, it's irrelelevant. Getting caught up in what might be going on in an aggressor's mind is a good way to get sidetracked from the really pertinent issue. Judge the behaviour itself. If what a person does is harmful in some way, pay attention to and deal with that issue. (...)
 

anart

A Disturbance in the Force
vin said:
There have been repeated attempts on this forum, to try to make us ignore the Pentagon strike, despite the fact that even a cursory search through the threads will show that this has been done to death. This has made us all re-examine even more closely why that is NOT a helpful approach.

It should now be obvious why that is the case, to anyone who has followed these various attempts! Give up already! We've covered this ground ad nauseam, and it is becoming more and more apparent that the Pentagon strike is CRITICAL.
 
A

Anders

Guest
nando said:
I'm not attacking you, I'm responding to WingTV's criticisim's of Alex Jones, I have seen several articles regarding WingTV on this forum and I thought this would be a great place to start a discussion.
If you were really interested you would read the thread on WINGTV, but I suspect you have and thus this attempt of damage control in a little innocent thread away from the main fire.

If you have something based on facts then by all means write, but sofar it is all based on a hunch that you have, which I responded to in the last post.

If you don't like it here. Go elsewhere. Publish your own site and THERE you can go on with all your hunches and ideas to your hearts content. There is no mockery of you since you are, as seen, totally capable of making a mockery of yourself.

Anders
 
A

Anders

Guest
Nando said:
Anders said:
Nando said:
The only person that benefits when we talk about this stuff is the people that did it! It gives them control over the movement, thats why they released the footage of the pentagon again and thats probably why they put alex jones on CNN, because they expected him to be a moron who would talk about the pentagon, they want to get people focused in on the pentagon stuff so they can pull the plug when shit hits the fan.
Your reasoning is as faulty as a leaking roof. In your first page you wrote
Nando said:
Alex Jones always avoids the pentagon theories in his quest for truth, he never put anything about the pentagon attack in his movies and he would never use it as evidence when being interviewed by the mainstream media.
So why would the CNN think that Jones would talk about the Pentagon???
The only reason he was on the show was because he was sure not to talk about the Pentagon as you stated yourself. From what has been exposed sofar on this Forum Jones is part of the DISINFO.
My reasoning is trump tight, your just not ready to let go of your no-plane theory yet.
Restating that white is black still does not make it so. Now where else do we often hear this time of reasoning.. . ( hint: someone who enjoys reading about my pet goat)

nando said:
Anders said:
nando said:
They can produce the wreckage because they carried it away before any photos were taken, ofcorse they missed a few pieces which were scattered on the lawn.
Photos were taken immidiately after. All this is old hat and discussed at lenght at the link provided above, if you are really interested in the Truth.
I'm sure pictures were taken soon after it happened, but not before the car bombs went off and destroyed any large sections of the plane.. And not before any large remaining pieces of the plane were removed.
What car bombs? Evidence, facts, photos, debris of cars...please.


vin said:
There have been repeated attempts on this forum, to try to make us ignore the Pentagon strike, despite the fact that even a cursory search through the threads will show that this has been done to death. This has made us all re-examine even more closely why that is NOT a helpful approach.

It should now be obvious why that is the case, to anyone who has followed these various attempts! Give up already! We've covered this ground ad nauseam, and it is becoming more and more apparent that the Pentagon strike is CRITICAL.
Anders
 
N

Nando

Guest
Anders said:
nando said:
I'm not attacking you, I'm responding to WingTV's criticisim's of Alex Jones, I have seen several articles regarding WingTV on this forum and I thought this would be a great place to start a discussion.
If you were really interested you would read the thread on WINGTV, but I suspect you have and thus this attempt of damage control in a little innocent thread away from the main fire.

If you have something based on facts then by all means write, but sofar it is all based on a hunch that you have, which I responded to in the last post.

If you don't like it here. Go elsewhere. Publish your own site and THERE you can go on with all your hunches and ideas to your hearts content. There is no mockery of you since you are, as seen, totally capable of making a mockery of yourself.

Anders
I'm responding to the WingTV articles and general complaints against Alex Jones, this isnt damage control, I wrote this article to express my opinions and to explain why Alex Jones avoided the pentagon argument completely and why WingTV are wrong about him only trying to make money.

Anders said:
Nando said:
Anders said:
Nando said:
The only person that benefits when we talk about this stuff is the people that did it! It gives them control over the movement, thats why they released the footage of the pentagon again and thats probably why they put alex jones on CNN, because they expected him to be a moron who would talk about the pentagon, they want to get people focused in on the pentagon stuff so they can pull the plug when shit hits the fan.
Your reasoning is as faulty as a leaking roof. In your first page you wrote
Nando said:
Alex Jones always avoids the pentagon theories in his quest for truth, he never put anything about the pentagon attack in his movies and he would never use it as evidence when being interviewed by the mainstream media.
So why would the CNN think that Jones would talk about the Pentagon???
The only reason he was on the show was because he was sure not to talk about the Pentagon as you stated yourself. From what has been exposed sofar on this Forum Jones is part of the DISINFO.
My reasoning is trump tight, your just not ready to let go of your no-plane theory yet.
Restating that white is black still does not make it so. Now where else do we often hear this time of reasoning.. . ( hint: someone who enjoys reading about my pet goat)
You believe they would risk everything by NOT using a plane when it would make more sense to USE a plane. You believe the people that planned 911 actually screwed up.. I don't know if you relise it, but your reasoning isnt that great either.. We saw the planes go into the towers, those were most likely remote controlled don't you agree? So why is it such a stretch to say that they did the same thing at the pentagon?

Anders said:
nando said:
Anders said:
Photos were taken immidiately after. All this is old hat and discussed at lenght at the link provided above, if you are really interested in the Truth.
I'm sure pictures were taken soon after it happened, but not before the car bombs went off and destroyed any large sections of the plane.. And not before any large remaining pieces of the plane were removed.
What car bombs? Evidence, facts, photos, debris of cars...please.
The associated press first reported an explosion coming from a truck outside the pentagon, infact, It was one of the first things I heard on September 11th in regard to the pentagon. I already posted a photo of a car burning in the wreckage

car-3.jpg




Anders said:
vin said:
There have been repeated attempts on this forum, to try to make us ignore the Pentagon strike, despite the fact that even a cursory search through the threads will show that this has been done to death. This has made us all re-examine even more closely why that is NOT a helpful approach.

It should now be obvious why that is the case, to anyone who has followed these various attempts! Give up already! We've covered this ground ad nauseam, and it is becoming more and more apparent that the Pentagon strike is CRITICAL.
Anders
It seems apparent because you've been sucked in, hook line and sinker. The pentagon attack was made to look very shady but you can be sure that if they say a plane hit it, a plane hit it.. It would be stupid to lie about something so critical.
 
A

Anders

Guest
The story regarding the explosion of a truck has already been lookedat and discussed. Do you have other evidence other than that article which we have also seen?. I am not saying that there were no other explosions, neither is anyone saying here that there was no plane. We are just saying that it was NO-757, which the official reports keep saying.

Enough said already.

Anders
 

domi

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Anders said:
Nando said:
Anart said:
How does one 'plant' a pristine green lawn where a 757 crash trench should be? (and no planting grass seed jokes allowed wink )
They didn't plant it, they simply flew over the top of it.
:lol:
Again. What planet do you live on?
Nibiru?

Anders said:
nando said:
My theory is not based on "data" is based on the fact that the people who planned 911 were probably ...
Yes, we noticed that there is no data. only assumptions, speculations, wishful thinking etc
No signal only noise.
Reminds me of Alvin Toffler: "the medium is the message". Only here with Nando, the noise is the signal...and our "reading instruments" are picking it up loud and clear.
 
T

The Gardener

Guest
Nando said:
You believe they would risk everything by NOT using a plane when it would make more sense to USE a plane. You believe the people that planned 911 actually screwed up.. I don't know if you relise it, but your reasoning isnt that great either.. We saw the planes go into the towers, those were most likely remote controlled don't you agree? So why is it such a stretch to say that they did the same thing at the pentagon?
Who send you here?
 

vinny

The Living Force
interestingly, the more vehemently nando defends his line of reasoning, the more it publicises the fact that it is a faulty reasoning, and the more it undermines it:

You can't pursue the truth by trying to persuade people to IGNORE a central issue!

sleepyvinny said:
There have been repeated attempts on this forum, to try to make us ignore the Pentagon strike, despite the fact that even a cursory search through the threads will show that this has been done to death. This has made us all re-examine even more closely why that is NOT a helpful approach.

It should now be obvious why that is the case, to anyone who has followed these various attempts! Give up already! We've covered this ground ad nauseam, and it is becoming more and more apparent that the Pentagon strike is CRITICAL.
I'd like to add something Henry said in another thread, because it fits here too:

henry said:
Being open-minded doesn't mean accepting anything and everything that comes across your path. It doesn't mean allowing any and every idea presented here to go unchallenged.

If the "new thing" is the same old, tired, subjective product that we've seen in other forms, we aren't interested. If it works for you, that's fine. Go start a forum about it and allow people to come and post there. Here, we have another way of working, and your sales job, masked as just wanting to talk, isn't wanted.

Before we assimilate something, we need to make certain that it isn't a Lie. Part of finding that out is putting the ideas and those who brandish them to the test.

So far, you're not doing very well.

If that isn't comfortable for you, too bad.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Nando said:
The idea that the government can control anybody within a 500 metre radius of the pentagon is absurd.
Again and again you say that you have your "witness testimony" and to heck with the evidence because the evidence was "cooked" in advance just to create this "trap." The main reason for this is quoted above.

Let's look at your assumption (which, by the way, reveals either your ignorance of mass mind control or your participation in same).

First, this statement is already disproven because the government did not control everybody within a 500 meter radius of the Pentagon as we have shown already in the thread discussing the witness testimonies.

Second, the very fact that there are not MORE witnesses for the Boeing story is quite telling. There must have been a LOT of people within a 500 radius of the Pentagon, so why aren't we hearing from them? We know that the FBI and other alphabet soup guys were Johnny on the spot interviewing hundreds of witnesses. Where are all these testimonies? Why is it that there is only a handful of testimonies that support the government story and not just literally hundreds? And out of this handful, all of them can be easily discredited by any forensic examination as we have clearly shown.

Third, coming back to the mass mind control issue, there is an entire arsenal of psyops weaponry available to the perpetrators of this event that guarantees that they can 1) manipulate their thinking so that they come to believe something that is not true 2) if they cannot manipulate their thinking, they can intimidate them. This is SOP for the PTB.

Fourth, considering the control the government has over the largely Jewish owned media via the Israeli lobby, there is no chance that anyone wanting to spill the beans is going to be able to get any kind of protective media coverage; all they will do is show their hand and then item #2 above is brought into play. What's more, people KNOW this. They haven't been showing all those intimidating spy thrillers for the past 20 years for nothing.

Now, let's go back to Mind Control technology for a few moments here. Richard Dolan documents:

Next to the bureau,[FBI] the military intelligence services became the most important component of the domestic intelligence scene. Army intelligence had nearly unlimited funds, extensive manpower, specialized personnel, deep planning and training resources, and the most sophisticated communications and data processing capability. [...]

The army's intelligence surveillance did not focus on tactical and reconnaissance data, but on political and ideological intelligence within the United States. (This was wholly illegal.) [...]

Then there was the CIA. By the late 1960s, there were more spies than diplomats in the State Department, or employees in the Department of Labor. [...] When the Weather Underground, a radical splinter of the SDS, had an "acid test" to detect agent's provocateurs, they had no idea that the CIA had been tripping on LSD throughout the 1950s, creating a special caste of "enlightened agents" for precisely these occasions.

The agency continued its work on mind control. Following the work of Dr. Jose Delgado [experiments in] Electrical Stimulation of the Brain [were conducted.] This involves implanting electrodes into the brain and body, with the result that the subject's memory, impulses, and feelings could all be controlled. Moreover, ESB could evoke hallucinations, as well as fear and pleasure. "It could literally manipulate the human will at will," [said Dr. Robert Keefe, a neurosurgeon at Tulane University.]

In 1968, George Estabrooks, another spook scientist, spoke indiscreetly to a reporter for the Providence Evening Bulletin. "The key to creating an effective spy or assassin, rests in creating a multiple personality with the aid of hypnosis," a procedure which he described as "child's play."

By early 1969, teams within the CIA were running a number of bizarre experiments in mind control under the name Operation Often. In addition to the normal assortment of chemists, biologists, and conventional scientists, the operation employed psychics and experts in demonology.

Over at the NSA, all one can say with certainty is that its budget dwarfed all others within the intelligence community. [
Dolan documents how the intelligence organizations of the United States - and very likely other countries who are working in concert with them, though outwardly they may pretend to be oppositional - have conducted terminal mind-control experiments, biological spraying of American cities, human plutonium and syphilis injections, illegal communications interception, and nationwide domestic surveillance of private citizens, political assassinations and coups, ongoing media manipulation and outright public lying on a continual basis... [...]

By the early 1970s, there were already means available to alter the moods of unsuspecting persons.

A pocket-sized transmitter generating electromagnetic energy at less than 100 milliwatts could do the job.

This is no pie-in-the-sky theory. In 1972, Dr. Gordon J.F. McDonald testified before the House Subcommittee on Oceans and International Environment on the issue of electromagnetic weapons used for mind control and mental disruption. He stated:

[T]he basic notion was to create, between the electrically charged ionosphere in the higher part of the atmosphere and conducting layers of the surface of the Earth, this neutral cavity, to create waves, electrical waves that would be tuned to the brain waves. ...About ten cycles per second. ...You can produce changes in behavioral patterns or in responses.
The following year, Dr. Joseph C. Sharp, at Walter Reed Hospital, while in a soundproof room, was able to hear spoken words broadcast by 'pulsed microwave audiogram.' These words were broadcast to him without any implanted electronic translation device. Rather, they reached him by direct transmission to the brain.
Now, certainly you are aware of those funny things people have been talking about for the past ten years or so: chemtrails?

And what about the excessive number of microwave towers?

Surely your neurons are firing sufficiently to put the creating of a neutral cavity between the electrically charged ionosphere in the higher part of the atmosphere and conducting layers of the surface of the Earth, with the use of ESB? If you then consider that the agents taking the witness testimonies at the scene could all have been equipped with the pocket sized transmitters designed to alter the emotional state and thus make the suggestions of the interviewer "take" in their minds. Add to that, the ability to transmit literal WORDS into the mind via 'pulsed microwave audiogram" and you can easily see that taking care of ALL the witnesses within a 500 meter radius of the Pentagon was actually a piece of cake.

Sure, there are going to be a small handfull of people - statistically negligent - that can resist even the electronic programming signals, but they are easily managed with item # 2 above, intimidation.

So, all of the above technology is available to be utilized over and above the human being's natural tendency to want to agree with the authorities, or to agree with the concensus of their peers. In any group that has witnessed an event, it has been proven that a person who is planted in the group and who insists authoritatively that something happened that did NOT happen, all (or nearly all) of the rest of the group will change their testimony to agree with the one who is so "certain." That's a simple fact of human nature that has been tested again and again.

Now, moving on to the subject of the Pentagon Strike movie we published back in 2004, the question we asked ourselves was WHY was this little video so wildly popular? Why was it being downloaded millions of times and why were the people downloading it sending it to their family and friends like mad?

The only answer I can come up with is because it spoke to a deep subconscious knowledge that the hundreds of millions of people carry inside them whether they are willing or able to admit it. These hundreds of millions of people KNOW that the Pentagon was not hit by Flight 77. They know it either because something inside them observed accurately that the evidence does not match the words, or they know it by some sort of mass consciousness connection at a deep level.

Finally, let me address your truly absurd claim that this was all "planned" and "planted" just to destroy the 911 Truth Movement at some point in the future.

Nice try, but like the fabled Boeing that is alleged to have hit the Pentagon, that critter don't fly.

Why?

First, there is absolutely nothing to confirm such an idea and second, everything, historically speaking, demonstrates such a tactic to be part and parcel of COINTELPRO maneuvers.
 

Ben

Jedi Council Member
Nando said:
Ben said:
Even if SotT is proven wrong by footage of a 757 hitting the Pentagon (which we've already established almost certainly doesn't exist because it almost certainly hasn't happened), does that mean that we should stop analysing the Pentagon strike? Isn't that the point of a working hypothesis? - something which takes into account all the available evidence and is subject to review upon the presentation of new evidence?

I suggest you inform yourself and then provide some new evidence to support your position, or stop suggesting that SotT continues down this road which seems to be so uncomfortable for the perpetrators of atrocities. It would benefit them quite nicely if we left it alone, and I'm reserving judgement on whether or not it would benefit you also - why are you here?
You havn't established anything other than theorys, all you know is that the official story is a lie. What im saying is that the official story is indeed a lie, but its not far from the truth, and this will be proven later. It would be foolish to commit such a disgraceful act and not cover your tracks.

Telling me to inform myself, wow, you are one arrogant son of a gun.
I didn't tell you to inform yourself, I suggested that you inform yourself. All the issues regarding the Pentagon Strike and Alex Jones have been dealt with by threads in this forum and SotT editorials, I suggest you read these before adding more noise.

So my suggestion remains the same. Also, can someone help me with this American term "son of a gun"?, I need to know whether to be offended or not ;)
 
Top Bottom