WARNING: Another Major Terror Attack is Imminent (3689 hits)
Category: PoliticsLabels: ets_sociopolitical_commentary
Rating: -0.41 on 239 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (View user info) at 2006-08-14 14:50:22 EDT
Since 9/11/2001, our governments have kept us on edge with a series of so-called "terrorist plots" that turned out to be nothing more than hyped-up government hoaxes. The L.A. attack, the Canadian terror cell, the Miami Sears Tower plotters, the botched London raid, have all been exposed for what they were - elaborate entrapment operations perpetrated by our own intelligence and investigative bodies. They were made-to-order by the FBI and other organizations to scare the population into accepting the radical neo-con policy of control and surveillance.
Even the recent 10-plane fireworks plot involving transatlantic flights from Britain to the U.S. are highly questionable. It seems likely that this so-called "plot" against the citizens of Great Britain and The United States is nothing more than another elaborate government hoax designed to bolster Republican support before the American midterm elections. In fact, Ramzi Yousef, the supposed ringleader of this most recent London operation was an American intelligence asset whose services go back to the early 1990s and the first WTC bombing.
Source: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-2132
Right now, we are being conditioned to accept another terrorist attack. Right now, our news media is preparing us to accept what our governments are about to dish out. Fox News, not surprisingly, is leading this charge.
Through a barrage of opinion-forming rhetoric, it is clear what the agenda of the neo-cons is: attack Iran and take control of the oil fields once and for all. What better way to secure a steady stream on military contracts than to build more bases in the middle east and station troops there to act as security forces indefinitely? The larger geopolitical strategists at work behind the scenes, the men that plan each move of our global chess pieces, will seek to make as many gains in the region as possible before another midterm election, after which another smokescreen will have to go into effect, an entirely different angle of targeted propaganda and political compromise will have to ensue. While it will not suddenly become impossible to carry out such plans, the logistics will be more complicated by a Democratic House, mainly because the Democrats will have to answer for suddenly becoming what they claimed to be against.
To this end, the British and American governments, media, and intelligence services are working in concert to prepare their people for another large scale terrorist attack that will justify a widespread open war in the middle east...what neo-cons see as a 'once and for all fix' for the region...an endless and total occupation. These people have been salivating at this prospect for the last 15 years at least, and they are not about to go down now without a fight, especially not after coing this far.
Could Aug. 22 Be the End of the World Thanks to Iran? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,207597,00.html
According to Fox News, a terrorist attack on the United States is not a question of 'if', but 'when', and it's likely, they say, that it will come in the form of a nuclear attack courtesy of Iran. Interesting. How this blatant fearmongering and proaganda passes off as news for ANYONE, I have no idea. But this article is interesting and potentially telling.
If you buy into the idea, as I do, that Fox News is nothing more than a neo-con barometer, signalling their strategy aims and riling their base with their outspoken, forceful rhetoric, then their obsessive focus on Iran (example: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,154407,00.html) is a tell-tale sign of things to come, that is, if the House can be kept under control. The problem is, as is evidenced by the recent loss of Joe Lieberman, the pro-war Democrat and stalwart incumbent, in the Connecticut primaries, this election year is promising to bring about a seachange in Washington the likes of which has been unseen in American politics since the 1994 Republican takeover. Herein lies the dilemma.
That is why it will be important now to have another terrorist attack or at least a major scare before the midterm elections. My guess is it will involve a thwarted nuclear attack allegedly sponsored by Iran, perhaps on Tel Aviv, Israel, perhaps with Hezollah being blamed. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2006/270706hezbollahnuke.htm
Imagine the level of focused media attention a thwarted attack involving an actual nuclear bomb on a major city would bring... The one issue where polls show Republicans have a slim lead is terrorism. Such a scare would serve some very distinct purposes...it would give them media leverage in the bogus "war on terror", it would provide a talking point of justification for an immediate attack on Iran, which, recent history shows, is all they really need anymore, and it would allow Israel to continue shelling not only Lebanon, but possibly Syria, Iran, and Palestine without mercy.
Fox News watchers agree, Iran should be wiped off the map, which leads to an interesting question... Who are the real terrorists here? Here are some comments from Fox's website sent in by readers and viewers of their mind-numbing programming:
"The best way to disarm Hezbollah is to nuke Iran." — Andy
"Get rid of the United Nations. Then, wipe Iran off the map, and later, Syria." — Bill
"The best way to disarm Hezbollah is to disarm Iran and Syria, or at least make it very costly for both of them to continue their support for terrorism." — Pete (Florida)
"There is little chance of ever completely disarming Hezbollah, unless Hezbollah's rationale changes drastically." — David (Fairfax, VA)
"The Hezbollah are not interested in any U.N. resolutions. They are not interested in any kind of world peace or human kindness. If the world really wants peace, then we have to get rid of all these criminals." — Sam (Memphis, TN)
I guess war really is peace.
User Reviews
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-24 00:56:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-08-23 20:21:01 (#)
Ranking: -2
Way to go ETS.
Keep making predictions.
Keep making outrageous claims.
I am sure one of them will happen, nevermind the dozens that have been wrong, you are a truth bringer.
How is that hurricane record going this year?
-----------------
Hey asshole, these aren't even necessarily MY claims! They are Fox News' claims. I'm just suggesting they're not going to be what we are TOLD they are.
By this time last year, Katrina hadn't even happened yet. And if you think activity is lite, take a look at China's season.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-23 20:01:50 (#)
Ranking: 0
Well the 22nd was pretty much a dud with the exception of the one plane crash, which remains unsolved pending investigation: http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-08-22-voa28.cfm
But the drama continues leading up the elections.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,209940,00.html
Keith Olberman did an excellent timeline last night detailing the so-called "terrorist threats" since 9/11 and how they always coincided with some opposition victory. Like a mantra, "terrorism" was pummeled into the minds of people.
This is going to continue an accelerate. When someone has everything to lose, they have nothing to lose.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-08-23 20:21:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Way to go ETS.
Keep making predictions.
Keep making outrageous claims.
I am sure one of them will happen, nevermind the dozens that have been wrong, you are a truth bringer.
How is that hurricane record going this year?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-23 20:01:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Well the 22nd was pretty much a dud with the exception of the one plane crash, which remains unsolved pending investigation: http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-08-22-voa28.cfm
But the drama continues leading up the elections.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,209940,00.html
Keith Olberman did an excellent timeline last night detailing the so-called "terrorist threats" since 9/11 and how they always coincided with some opposition victory. Like a mantra, "terrorism" was pummeled into the minds of people.
This is going to continue an accelerate. When someone has everything to lose, they have nothing to lose.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-20 21:48:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2006-08-20 15:46:29 (#)
Ranking: -2
You think 9/11 happened? Pft, fascist.
http://www.ubersite.com/m/92038
------------------
Amazing.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-20 21:47:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Wall Street Journal: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008768
Bunch of idiots who don't understand they're being played: http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2006/08/august_22_irans.html
UK Guardian: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/brian_whitaker/2006/08/world_to_end_on_august_22.html
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23533
Russian site: http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/conflicts/83898-0/
http://armageddoncocktailhour.wordpress.com/2006/08/14/transatlantic-plot-august-22-circled/
Reuters on Iranian bomb testing Saturday...another peice of the puzzle they'll use to say, "we know because of this": http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-08-20T064757Z_01_
BLA023816_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAN-MISSILE.xml&archived=False
Interesting note, August 22nd was the day the 6 day war broke out in 1967.
It's important to remember, this is not ETS saying this, this is newspapers from all over the world ramping this up for us, gearing us up for World War III, for all-out marital law, for suspension of elections in this country "if necessary", for "Armageddon".
We're about to be usurped, and Iran is their patsy...their Oswald.
And if it isn't this, it will be something else.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2006-08-20 16:44:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"According to Fox News, a terrorist attack on the United States is not a question of 'if', but 'when', and it's likely, they say, that it will come in the form of a nuclear attack courtesy of Iran. Interesting. How this blatant fearmongering and proaganda passes off as news for ANYONE, I have no idea. But this article is interesting and potentially telling."
OH MY GOD? THEY PREDICT A NUCLEAR ATTACK FROM AN ENEMY NATION THAT'S DEVELOPING NUCLEAR POWER? THOSE CRAZY RADICALS.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2006-08-20 15:46:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
You think 9/11 happened? Pft, fascist.
http://www.ubersite.com/m/92038
Submitted by burt_mianus (user info) at 2006-08-20 08:51:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
isnt it obvious the only way to sort out the problem of terrorism is to get rid of the root cause.... the USA, George W is evidently stupid enough to target all his countries nukes on his own country so why doesnt he just take one for the team and wipe out the problem?!
lol xxx hahahahahahahahahah
Submitted by nightshade (user info) at 2006-08-20 06:02:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
2 days away, Well at least by pointing out a conspiracy BEFORE it happens you've got some credibility
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2006-08-19 16:20:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-19 15:31:09 (#)
Ranking: 0
Apparently a federal judge agrees: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14417030/
________________________________________________
Agreed. Bush is a fuck-up.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-19 15:31:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Apparently a federal judge agrees: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14417030/
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-19 07:03:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2006-08-19 00:14:31 (#)
Ranking: 2
I guess war really is peace.
________________________________________
I read that guy's book. You know, Warren Peace.
Your facade will continue to piss people off for years to come, and they will never
see through it. . .
------------
Facade?
Dude....I swear to fucking god I am the real deal. If you want the truth thrust in your fucking face, you know where to find me... If you want Mary Poppins and a spoonful of sugar, talk to Walt Disney.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2006-08-19 00:14:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I guess war really is peace.
________________________________________
I read that guy's book. You know, Warren Peace.
Your facade will continue to piss people off for years to come, and they will never
see through it. . .
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2006-08-18 23:50:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
omfg stfu n00b
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2006-08-18 11:41:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-08-17 23:41:34 (#)
Ranking: -2
Did you know that Brad Linzy spelled backwards is "cock munching hermaphrodite"?
It's true.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Okay, I laughed like an idiot at this...
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-18 02:57:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Thanks Williamson.
These people are nothing but a decoy. They are ther to support a theory for something that hasn't happened yet.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-08-17 23:41:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Did you know that Brad Linzy spelled backwards is "cock munching hermaphrodite"?
It's true.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2006-08-17 23:31:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Mass murder in the skies: was the plot feasible?
By Thomas C Greene in Washington
Published Thursday 17th August 2006 09:42 GMT
Analysis The seventh angel poured out his bowl into the air;
And a loud voice came forth out of the temple of Heaven,
From the throne, saying, "It is done!"
--Revelation 16:17
Binary liquid explosives are a sexy staple of Hollywood thrillers. It would be tedious to enumerate the movie terrorists who've employed relatively harmless liquids that, when mixed, immediately rain destruction upon an innocent populace, like the seven angels of God's wrath pouring out their bowls full of pestilence and pain.
The funny thing about these movies is, we never learn just which two chemicals can be handled safely when separate, yet instantly blow us all to kingdom come when combined. Nevertheless, we maintain a great eagerness to believe in these substances, chiefly because action movies wouldn't be as much fun if we didn't.
Now we have news of the recent, supposedly real-world, terrorist plot to destroy commercial airplanes by smuggling onboard the benign precursors to a deadly explosive, and mixing up a batch of liquid death in the lavatories. So, The Register has got to ask, were these guys for real, or have they, and the counterterrorist officials supposedly protecting us, been watching too many action movies?
We're told that the suspects were planning to use TATP, or triacetone triperoxide, a high explosive that supposedly can be made from common household chemicals unlikely to be caught by airport screeners. A little hair dye, drain cleaner, and paint thinner - all easily concealed in drinks bottles - and the forces of evil have effectively smuggled a deadly bomb onboard your plane.
Or at least that's what we're hearing, and loudly, through the mainstream media and its legions of so-called "terrorism experts." But what do these experts know about chemistry? Less than they know about lobbying for Homeland Security pork, which is what most of them do for a living. But they've seen the same movies that you and I have seen, and so the myth of binary liquid explosives dies hard.
Better killing through chemistry
Making a quantity of TATP sufficient to bring down an airplane is not quite as simple as ducking into the toilet and mixing two harmless liquids together.
First, you've got to get adequately concentrated hydrogen peroxide. This is hard to come by, so a large quantity of the three per cent solution sold in pharmacies might have to be concentrated by boiling off the water. Only this is risky, and can lead to mission failure by means of burning down your makeshift lab before a single infidel has been harmed.
But let's assume that you can obtain it in the required concentration, or cook it from a dilute solution without ruining your operation. Fine. The remaining ingredients, acetone and sulfuric acid, are far easier to obtain, and we can assume that you've got them on hand.
Now for the fun part. Take your hydrogen peroxide, acetone, and sulfuric acid, measure them very carefully, and put them into drinks bottles for convenient smuggling onto a plane. It's all right to mix the peroxide and acetone in one container, so long as it remains cool. Don't forget to bring several frozen gel-packs (preferably in a Styrofoam chiller deceptively marked "perishable foods"), a thermometer, a large beaker, a stirring rod, and a medicine dropper. You're going to need them.
It's best to fly first class and order Champagne. The bucket full of ice water, which the airline ought to supply, might possibly be adequate - especially if you have those cold gel-packs handy to supplement the ice, and the Styrofoam chiller handy for insulation - to get you through the cookery without starting a fire in the lavvie.
Easy does it
Once the plane is over the ocean, very discreetly bring all of your gear into the toilet. You might need to make several trips to avoid drawing attention. Once your kit is in place, put a beaker containing the peroxide / acetone mixture into the ice water bath (Champagne bucket), and start adding the acid, drop by drop, while stirring constantly. Watch the reaction temperature carefully. The mixture will heat, and if it gets too hot, you'll end up with a weak explosive. In fact, if it gets really hot, you'll get a premature explosion possibly sufficient to kill you, but probably no one else.
After a few hours - assuming, by some miracle, that the fumes haven't overcome you or alerted passengers or the flight crew to your activities - you'll have a quantity of TATP with which to carry out your mission. Now all you need to do is dry it for an hour or two.
The genius of this scheme is that TATP is relatively easy to detonate. But you must make enough of it to crash the plane, and you must make it with care to assure potency. One needs quality stuff to commit "mass murder on an unimaginable scale," as Deputy Police Commissioner Paul Stephenson put it. While it's true that a slapdash concoction will explode, it's unlikely to do more than blow out a few windows. At best, an infidel or two might be killed by the blast, and one or two others by flying debris as the cabin suddenly depressurizes, but that's about all you're likely to manage under the most favorable conditions possible.
We believe this because a peer-reviewed 2004 study (http://www.technion.ac.il/~keinanj/pub/122.pdf) in the Journal of the American Chemical Society (JACS) entitled "Decomposition of Triacetone Triperoxide is an Entropic Explosion" tells us that the explosive force of TATP comes from the sudden decomposition of a solid into gasses. There's no rapid oxidizing of fuel, as there is with many other explosives: rather, the substance changes state suddenly through an entropic process, and quickly releases a respectable amount of energy when it does. (Thus the lack of ingredients typically associated with explosives makes TATP, a white crystalline powder resembling sugar, difficult to detect with conventional bomb sniffing gear.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2006-08-17 23:31:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Mrs. Satan
By now you'll be asking why these jihadist wannabes didn't conspire simply to bring TATP onto planes, colored with a bit of vegetable dye, and disguised as, say, a powdered fruit-flavored drink. The reason is that they would be afraid of failing: TATP is notoriously sensitive and unstable. Mainstream journalists like to tell us that terrorists like to call it "the mother of Satan." (Whether this reputation is deserved, or is a consequence of homebrewing by unqualified hacks, remains open to debate.)
It's been claimed that the 7/7 bombers used it, but this has not been positively confirmed. Some sources claim that they used C-4, and others that they used RDX. Nevertheless, the belief that they used TATP has stuck with the media, although going about in a crowded city at rush hour with an unstable homebrew explosive in a backpack is not the brightest of all possible moves. It's surprising that none of the attackers enjoyed an unscheduled launch into Paradise.
So, assuming that the homebrew variety of TATP is highly sensitive and unstable - or at least that our inept jihadists would believe that - to avoid getting blown up in the taxi on the way to the airport, one might, if one were educated in terror tactics primarily by hollywood movies, prefer simply to dump the precursors into an airplane toilet bowl and let the mother of Satan work her magic. Indeed, the mixture will heat rapidly as TATP begins to form, and it will soon explode. But this won't happen with much force, because little TATP will have formed by the time the explosion occurs.
We asked University of Rhode Island Chemistry Professor Jimmie C. Oxley, who has actual, practical experience with TATP, if this is a reasonable assumption, and she tolds us that merely dumping the precursors together would create "a violent reaction," but not a detonation.
To release the energy needed to bring down a plane (far more difficult to do than many imagine, as Aloha Airlines Flight 243 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Flight_243) neatly illustrates), it's necessary to synthesize a good amount of TATP with care.
Jack Bauer sense
So the fabled binary liquid explosive - that is, the sudden mixing of hydrogen peroxide and acetone with sulfuric acid to create a plane-killing explosion, is out of the question. Meanwhile, making TATP ahead of time carries a risk that the mission will fail due to premature detonation, although it is the only plausible approach.
Certainly, if we can imagine a group of jihadists smuggling the necessary chemicals and equipment on board, and cooking up TATP in the lavatory, then we've passed from the realm of action blockbusters to that of situation comedy.
It should be small comfort that the security establishments of the UK and the USA - and the "terrorism experts" who inform them and wheedle billions of dollars out of them for bomb puffers and face recognition gizmos and remote gait analyzers and similar hi-tech phrenology gear - have bought the Hollywood binary liquid explosive myth, and have even acted upon it.
We've given extraordinary credit to a collection of jihadist wannabes with an exceptionally poor grasp of the mechanics of attacking a plane, whose only hope of success would have been a pure accident. They would have had to succeed in spite of their own ignorance and incompetence, and in spite of being under police surveillance for a year.
But the Hollywood myth of binary liquid explosives now moves governments and drives public policy. We have reacted to a movie plot. Liquids are now banned in aircraft cabins (while crystalline white powders would be banned instead, if anyone in charge were serious about security). Nearly everything must now go into the hold, where adequate amounts of explosives can easily be detonated from the cabin with cell phones, which are generally not banned.
Action heroes
The al-Qaeda franchise will pour forth its bowl of pestilence and death. We know this because we've watched it countless times on TV and in the movies, just as our officials have done. Based on their behavior, it's reasonable to suspect that everything John Reid and Michael Chertoff know about counterterrorism, they learned watching the likes of Bruce Willis, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Vin Diesel, and The Rock (whose palpable homoerotic appeal it would be discourteous to emphasize).
It's a pity that our security rests in the hands of government officials who understand as little about terrorism as the Florida clowns who needed their informant to suggest attack scenarios, as the 21/7 London bombers who injured no one, as lunatic "shoe bomber" Richard Reid, as the Forest Gate nerve gas attackers who had no nerve gas, as the British nitwits who tried to acquire "red mercury," and as the recent binary liquid bomb attackers who had no binary liquid bombs.
For some real terror, picture twenty guys who understand op-sec, who are patient, realistic, clever, and willing to die, and who know what can be accomplished with a modest stash of dimethylmercury.
You won't hear about those fellows until it's too late. Our official protectors and deciders trumpet the fools they catch because they haven't got a handle on the people we should really be afraid of. They make policy based on foibles and follies, and Hollywood plots.
Meanwhile, the real thing draws ever closer. ®
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2006-08-17 16:01:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
http://www.ubersite.com/m/91892
HA! I knocked this piece of shit from the top of the hill...enjoy the descent back into the toilet.
Submitted by AsshOly (user info) at 2006-08-17 15:47:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Molari (user info) at 2006-08-17 11:26:54 (#)
Ranking: 2
Please, ubersite probably ends up with more truth than actual news networks who keep spewing out the same bullshit propaganda and catch phrases day after day.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I count a full zero people on this website with the credentials to offer any information at all.
And anyway, you think Ubersite isn't just a bunch of recycled catch phrases? You think this type of post isnt pure propaganda?
If you take every word you hear on CNN or Fox News as gospel, you're a fucking idiot. Use your own discrescion in figuring out the consistencies between stories and use common fucking sense to glue the big picture together. It's not that hard. If you really care about what goes on in the world, find a place other than Ubersite to catch up on current events. The Onion is a more trustworthy news outlet than this.
Submitted by Molari (user info) at 2006-08-17 11:26:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Please, ubersite probably ends up with more truth than actual news networks who keep spewing out the same bullshit propaganda and catch phrases day after day.
Submitted by AsshOly (user info) at 2006-08-17 05:43:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm glad Ubersite is such a dependable news outlet, especially in the area of international relations. Seriously.
By the way, shut the fuck up.
This place sucks so bad.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-08-16 20:32:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
ETS is batshit craaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaazy.
Brad Linzy don't like the laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaadies.
He'll spend his whole afterlife in Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaades.
I like my french fries with graaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaavy.
It's catchy, you should sing it.
Submitted by nrduncan (user info) at 2006-08-16 17:44:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
You Again?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-16 13:23:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I've already answered you, Wardy. Now shut it.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-16 13:21:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-08-16 12:04:59 (#)
Ranking: -2
You are a complete failure.
[You know what...that might be true. I might be a failure. But this isn't about me.]
You failed to come up with reasonable explinations for your half assed theories.
[So you say. I think I've done a fair job of explaining things and pointing people to the right information over the course of my debates here, including this post.]
You failed to join the peace corps.
[I never said I was going to join the peace corps. I said I'd thought about it, and I'm still thinking about it, but I never said I was going to do it for sure. Besides, I don't owe you any sort of expanation of my personal life.]
Yu failed to live off the grid.
[Again...I don't owe you an explanation of my life, BUT, suffice it to say, my life is just getting started. I may live "off the grid" one day yet. Give me time.]
You fail to be honest about any of this.
[All I ever am is honest with you people. I call it like I see it. This brutal honesty and need to cut the bullshit is what has created many of the false impressions you all have of me - that I'm just a hitwhoring asshole, etc. If I make a mistake, I'll admit it.]
And I would be willing to bet money you failed to "fight the govt" by not paying your taxes.
[Actually, I HAD refused to pay my taxes. Unfortunately, I ended up having to pay them anyway last month because it is required of me if FA is to immigrate to the US. I don't owe you these explanations, but I give them freely, because I care about the truth.]
Indo, you can keep trying to rationalize all this to yourself and your 'audience' all you want, but it's not going to change what happened.
It's not going to change what certain people in our own government did on 9/11 or at least that there are serious questions that need to be answered and never have because of a clear coverup of information.
It's not going to change the fact that we've launched 2 wars in the name of greed and lies.
Your credentials as an oil man do nothing but hurt your credibility, because you're seeing it all through blinders.
You see the world through a tunnel vision of the worst kind, and the sad thing is, you're trying to pass that tunnel vision on to others.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-08-16 13:01:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-08-12 04:29:17 (#)
Ranking: -2
i got owned on this one? okay, this has to be a joke. no way can you be this dumb. let's see what we've covered in this post:
1.) i said it was what the official story was, a 757 hit the pentagon. physical evidence proved this, you disagreed.
2.) you said that the 757 would have cut the light poles in half, not uprooted them.
3.) i asked you what it was, because it couldn't be a missile at this point (because of the light poles, and damage done to the building), and it couldn't be another plane because of... well, common sense.
4.)you said there was no way of knowing... except you said you knew it wasn't a 757... does this even make sense?
5.) then you said the government planted the light poles to make it look like a 757 had hit the pentagon to go with the already overly intricate conspiracy.
6.) i thought you'd feel stupid at this point, but you never retracted your statement.
are you seriously trying to tell me that the government planted uprooted light poles around the pentagon without anyone noticing and then rigged it up to make it look like it was hit by a 757??
is that what you're trying to tell me?
walk into this one, i dare you. of course, you can also tell me where i've gone wrong in my above statements about what has occurred in our conversations..
------------------------------------
are you not going to respond to any of this? no? well i just want to make sure everyone sees it and knows where you stand on the issue.
thanks for playing,
wardy.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-08-16 12:12:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
The only thing you don't fail at is getting most heated.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-08-16 12:04:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
ETS you are full of shit.
You implied that they were running around in the subway stations when this shit went down. The drills they were running were in some confrence room where they looked at powere point presentations and probably talked about phone trees.
http://wagnews.blogspot.com/2005/07/alex-jones-is-wrong-on-london-terror.html
"POWER: "At half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing up right now." [mp3 Audio]"
Clearly, the figure of 1,000 refers to the size of the company whose managers were being drilled - and not to the number of participants in the drill.
Furthermore, any savvy investigator knows that these types of private-sector "risk management" drills never use field staff. Neither do these low-level corporate drills have active involvement of police or other security forces.
Despite Jones and Watson's claims, this drill was in no way comparable to U.S. drills and wargames on 9/11 -which were being run by active-duty security forces in the U.S. military, federal agencies, the FAA and various emergency services.
The London corporate drill was just a glorified administration seminar where managers get to use security buzzwords --while seated around an office table guessing how they would respond to loss of available staff for call centers, power outages, or travel restrictions, etc..
----------------------------------------------
You are a complete failure.
You failed to come up with reasonable explinations for your half assed theories.
You failed to join the peace corps.
Yu failed to live off the grid.
You fail to be honest about any of this.
And I would be willing to bet money you failed to "fight the govt" by not paying your taxes.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-16 11:13:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-08-16 10:30:47 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-16 10:15:52 (#)
Ranking: 0
"The best place to hide something is sometimes in plain sight."
So you are trying to hide that you can't understand what is going on in the world and lack basic reasoning skills by putting it in plain sight? Guess what it isn't working, we know you make no sense.
"You keep on, though, Indo... You're doing your masters proud. Even though you're showing how far you are willing to go to fool yourself and others, you're doing your best to fool people and for that I commend you. Piece of shit government spook.
You need to ask for a reassignment."
It cracks me up that you think I am a govt spook. That you think you warrant that kind of attention. If you were a threat and there was a big conspiracy, don't you think you would be I jail for tax evasion?
Actually you probably lied about the tax evasion. Just like with joining the peace corp, living off the grid, leaving the Us, and leaving Ubersite.
My favorite lie you keep repeating is the one we are arguing about. There weren't even any drills in the subway. The drills you keep referencing involved a bunch of middle managers sitting around in an office watching a power point presentation about a supposed attack and what they would do, and you know it.
------------------------
You're lying. The guy in the interview admitted it. Anyone who bothers to listen will know who's telling the truth here.
You're a flat out liar and a fraud, and I wouldn't be surprised a single fucking bit if you weren't hired by our government propaganda machine and assigned specifically to this website.
The Bush administration has spent billions on propaganda to private firms: http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Bush_Admin._spent_over_1.6_Billion_0213.html
$1.6 billion, to be exact. They have been caught red-handed sending fake letters to the editor and, I have no doubt, there are people being paid to camp on forums like this one and obscure the truth. Why do I think that? The past evidence suggests it, and so do your persistent lies and obfuscations.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-16 10:55:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-08-15 20:58:26 (#)
Ranking: -2
There was no security drill in the sense fo people running around with waki taki's and clearing areas out.
------------------
Who ever qualified the nature of the drill? It wasn't me. And as far as I know it wasn't Alex Jones either. We just said they were running security drills mocking the same types of attacks on the exact same targets, which, admittedly, in both the cases of 9/11 AND 7/7, they were!
I have done plenty of checking up on Mr. Jones' claims, and they all seem to check out. I say "seem to", because some of the original articles have been removed from major websites like Yahoo.com and forbes.com, etc. even though they are only a year old.
Dear Indo's Boss,
You better get someone else on this one, Indoninja is out of his depth.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-08-16 10:30:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-16 10:15:52 (#)
Ranking: 0
"The best place to hide something is sometimes in plain sight."
So you are trying to hide that you can't understand what is going on in the world and lack basic reasoning skills by putting it in plain sight? Guess what it isn't working, we know you make no sense.
"You keep on, though, Indo... You're doing your masters proud. Even though you're showing how far you are willing to go to fool yourself and others, you're doing your best to fool people and for that I commend you. Piece of shit government spook.
You need to ask for a reassignment."
It cracks me up that you think I am a govt spook. That you think you warrant that kind of attention. If you were a threat and there was a big conspiracy, don't you think you would be I jail for tax evasion?
Actually you probably lied about the tax evasion. Just like with joining the peace corp, living off the grid, leaving the Us, and leaving Ubersite.
My favorite lie you keep repeating is the one we are arguing about. There weren't even any drills in the subway. The drills you keep referencing involved a bunch of middle managers sitting around in an office watching a power point presentation about a supposed attack and what they would do, and you know it.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-08-16 10:17:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-08-12 04:29:17 (#)
Ranking: -2
i got owned on this one? okay, this has to be a joke. no way can you be this dumb. let's see what we've covered in this post:
1.) i said it was what the official story was, a 757 hit the pentagon. physical evidence proved this, you disagreed.
2.) you said that the 757 would have cut the light poles in half, not uprooted them.
3.) i asked you what it was, because it couldn't be a missile at this point (because of the light poles, and damage done to the building), and it couldn't be another plane because of... well, common sense.
4.)you said there was no way of knowing... except you said you knew it wasn't a 757... does this even make sense?
5.) then you said the government planted the light poles to make it look like a 757 had hit the pentagon to go with the already overly intricate conspiracy.
6.) i thought you'd feel stupid at this point, but you never retracted your statement.
are you seriously trying to tell me that the government planted uprooted light poles around the pentagon without anyone noticing and then rigged it up to make it look like it was hit by a 757??
is that what you're trying to tell me?
walk into this one, i dare you. of course, you can also tell me where i've gone wrong in my above statements about what has occurred in our conversations..
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-16 10:15:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-08-15 20:58:26 (#)
Ranking: -2
It poses no advantages for a covert ops to plan out a drill in the same time and place they plan to blow up their own people. In what fantasy world would the govt hide their involvement by bieng right fucking there?
---------------------
The best place to hide something is sometimes in plain sight.
You keep on, though, Indo... You're doing your masters proud. Even though you're showing how far you are willing to go to fool yourself and others, you're doing your best to fool people and for that I commend you. Piece of shit government spook.
You need to ask for a reassignment.
Submitted by Kale (user info) at 2006-08-16 00:42:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Thanks for introducing me to Jeremy Enigk
Submitted by r0fl (user info) at 2006-08-15 23:14:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Plus 2 because Batman (albeit, Batman Returns) is on.
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-08-15 21:19:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by georgetakei (user info) at 2006-08-15 21:03:59 (#)
Ranking: 0
Damn ETS you really have a gift. Can anyone, I mean ANYONE, get heat like ETS?
Damn son. ""
i used to be able to.
at one point I had the top 5 heat places.
but then I got a life.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-08-15 21:17:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
And yes I just called, "walky talky's", waki taki's.
suck it.
Submitted by georgetakei (user info) at 2006-08-15 21:03:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Damn ETS you really have a gift. Can anyone, I mean ANYONE, get heat like ETS?
Damn son.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-08-15 20:58:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-08-15 14:50:50 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-08-12 05:15:00 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-08-12 04:29:17 (#)
Ranking: -2
i got owned on this one? okay, this has to be a joke. no way can you be this dumb. let's see what we've covered in this post:
1.) i said it was what the official story was, a 757 hit the pentagon. physical evidence proved this, you disagreed.
2.) you said that the 757 would have cut the light poles in half, not uprooted them.
3.) i asked you what it was, because it couldn't be a missile at this point (because of the light poles, and damage done to the building), and it couldn't be another plane because of... well, common sense.
4.)you said there was no way of knowing... except you said you knew it wasn't a 757... does this even make sense?
5.) then you said the government planted the light poles to make it look like a 757 had hit the pentagon to go with the already overly intricate conspiracy.
6.) i thought you'd feel stupid at this point, but you never retracted your statement.
are you seriously trying to tell me that the government planted uprooted light poles around the pentagon without anyone noticing and then rigged it up to make it look like it was hit by a 757??
is that what you're trying to tell me?
walk into this one, i dare you. of course, you can also tell me where i've gone wrong in my above statements about what has occurred in our conversations..
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-08-15 20:58:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-15 20:02:35 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-08-15 19:40:44 (#)
Ranking: -2
Once again your theory makes no sense. If you were to plan something like this you there is no concievable reason you would want to draw more attention to official involvement by staging a drill that day.
-----------------
I love how you're able to constantly fool yourself, or should I say ATTEMPT to fool others. Piece of shit fucking spook.
Other than the fact that your assumptions here render your assessment completely wrong, let me pose a question to you...
How would the terrorists know to attack the same places where the drills would be carried out? Why would they attack those same places? It poses them no conceivable advantage, yet, I've just given you SEVERAL advantages this would provide the state. Brush them aside all you like, a reasonable person will see them.
Like I've said before, you're losing. Reasonable people have the ability to see truth amidst a cloud of lies, and your cloud is growing more and more transparent.
Go tell your boss you're just gonna have to come and shoot me.
-----------------------------------------------
Hahaha!!!
It poses no advantages for a covert ops to plan out a drill in the same time and place they plan to blow up their own people. In what fantasy worl would the govt hide their involvement by bieng right fucking there?
Can you give me the link to a real article about the drills?
Oh that is right you are a lying sack of shit.
http://wagnews.blogspot.com/2005/07/alex-jones-is-wrong-on-london-terror.html
Five minutes of research outside of prison planet proves you are full of it.
There was no security drill in the sense fo people running around with waki taki's and clearing areas out.
"POWER: "At half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing up right now." [mp3 Audio]"
Clearly, the figure of 1,000 refers to the size of the company whose managers were being drilled - and not to the number of participants in the drill.
Furthermore, any savvy investigator knows that these types of private-sector "risk management" drills never use field staff. Neither do these low-level corporate drills have active involvement of police or other security forces.
Despite Jones and Watson's claims, this drill was in no way comparable to U.S. drills and wargames on 9/11 -which were being run by active-duty security forces in the U.S. military, federal agencies, the FAA and various emergency services.
The London corporate drill was just a glorified administration seminar where managers get to use security buzzwords --while seated around an office table guessing how they would respond to loss of available staff for call centers, power outages, or travel restrictions, etc..
I really don't know if you are blindly stupid, crazy or just going for heat. I pray it is the third because I find it a little disturbing that someone as out of touch with reality is walking around, if youw eren't such a huge pussy I would be a little worried.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-15 20:02:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-08-15 19:40:44 (#)
Ranking: -2
Once again your theory makes no sense. If you were to plan something like this you there is no concievable reason you would want to draw more attention to official involvement by staging a drill that day.
-----------------
I love how you're able to constantly fool yourself, or should I say ATTEMPT to fool others. Piece of shit fucking spook.
Other than the fact that your assumptions here render your assessment completely wrong, let me pose a question to you...
How would the terrorists know to attack the same places where the drills would be carried out? Why would they attack those same places? It poses them no conceivable advantage, yet, I've just given you SEVERAL advantages this would provide the state. Brush them aside all you like, a reasonable person will see them.
Like I've said before, you're losing. Reasonable people have the ability to see truth amidst a cloud of lies, and your cloud is growing more and more transparent.
Go tell your boss you're just gonna have to come and shoot me.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-08-15 19:40:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-15 18:51:14 (#)
Ranking: 0
No, it IS convenient for several reasons...
1: Anyone participating in the real deal in certain aspects of the operation would think it was a drill and therefore not question.
2: Any radio chatter picked up from the operation would be brushed off as part of a drill, thus providing cover.
3: Many things can be done under the guise of a drill that cannot be done otherwise, such as clearing a building, a subway station, etc.
4: First responders will be less likely to thwart the attack if they are a) participating the drill, or b) aware that a drill is taking place. It takes just one listen to the emergency calls to NORAD on 9/11 to see this principle in motion. The flight controllers thought the planes were part of the drills, and the guy from NORAD, when called, was like: "Is this real world or exercise?"
----------------------------------
1: What does that even mean? If they were participating in the real deal why would they ask questions? - Makes no sense.
2: I am sure a "black ops," "top secret" plan to bomb your own country could use cell phones, or other channels, or even talk in code. But by the same token if it was a drill there would be more people listening on the day of a drill. - Makes no sense.
3: What was cleared? If they were goint to set up a fake bomb and clear that your "theory" would make the tiniest bit of sense, but since people died and the point (if it was an inside plot) would be to kill the most people. - Makes no sense.
4: what the fuck does this have to do with NORAD? How are they going to stop guys with bombs on their backs, how would they even know they were going to strike? (NORAD is a whole other conversation when everything goes pretty much by the book for over ten years and something like 9/11 happens, you would ask if it was a drill too).
Once again your theory makes no sense. If you were to plan something like this you there is no concievable reason you would want to draw more attention to official involvement by staging a drill that day.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-08-15 19:18:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
blahlahblahconspiracyblahblahblahbushisevilblahblahblahilikecake
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-15 18:51:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by matnotharry (user info) at 2006-08-15 18:36:03 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-08-15 07:33:03 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by matnotharry (user info) at 2006-08-15 07:27:54 (#)
Ranking: 2
Those drills do seem mighty convenient, though I don't think they are quite as impossible as the second site calculates (however it would surely be highly unlikely).
--------------------------
ETs doesn't respond when he can't find a good answer, but why you don't try this one.
How are the drills convenient? If you were involved in a conspiracy would you plan it like this? How would it help you in any way? I know if I was doing it i would make sure absolutely nothing out of the ordinary was done by the govt that day.
-----------
Convenient was the wrong word. But it does seem to be a mighty coincidence
--------------------
No, it IS convenient for several reasons...
1: Anyone participating in the real deal in certain aspects of the operation would think it was a drill and therefore not question.
2: Any radio chatter picked up from the operation would be brushed off as part of a drill, thus providing cover.
3: Many things can be done under the guise of a drill that cannot be done otherwise, such as clearing a building, a subway station, etc.
4: First responders will be less likely to thwart the attack if they are a) participating the drill, or b) aware that a drill is taking place. It takes just one listen to the emergency calls to NORAD on 9/11 to see this principle in motion. The flight controllers thought the planes were part of the drills, and the guy from NORAD, when called, was like: "Is this real world or exercise?"
Submitted by matnotharry (user info) at 2006-08-15 18:36:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-08-15 07:33:03 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by matnotharry (user info) at 2006-08-15 07:27:54 (#)
Ranking: 2
Those drills do seem mighty convenient, though I don't think they are quite as impossible as the second site calculates (however it would surely be highly unlikely).
--------------------------
ETs doesn't respond when he can't find a good answer, but why you don't try this one.
How are the drills convenient? If you were involved in a conspiracy would you plan it like this? How would it help you in any way? I know if I was doing it i would make sure absolutely nothing out of the ordinary was done by the govt that day.
-----------
Convenient was the wrong word. But it does seem to be a mighty coincidence
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-15 18:20:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-08-15 17:38:28 (#)
Ranking: 0
3: I'm telling you, it's not gonna be a land 'war'. The war will be won from the air."""
Not matter how many bombs you drop you still have to send someone to gain control of the control. Stalingrad was bombed from the air over and over and the Germans still lost it even if they held 90% of the city at one point.
Now tell me, how are Americans, who are already got their hands full with other theaters of war, are supposed to control and occupy a heavily armed country of 70 million all by themselves? And we're not talking about french people here, we're talking about Muslims who have shown us quite a number of time to be rather stubborn and brutal if need be.
I don't know about you but I think that if you get into a conventional war with Iran, you will be so busy that even Canada could walk across the border and take over the U.S. Perhaps we'd need a few allies like Belgium and Monaco, but you get the point.
Anyway, unless Americans start nuking or get the support of other major powers, it would be retarded for them to try another Iraq³
----------------
Oh, I totally agree! It would be a disaster, but for various reasons, our government is pulling out all the stops to pin something on Iran.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-08-15 17:38:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
3: I'm telling you, it's not gonna be a land 'war'. The war will be won from the air."""
Not matter how many bombs you drop you still have to send someone to gain control of the control. Stalingrad was bombed from the air over and over and the Germans still lost it even if they held 90% of the city at one point.
Now tell me, how are Americans, who are already got their hands full with other theaters of war, are supposed to control and occupy a heavily armed country of 70 million all by themselves? And we're not talking about french people here, we're talking about Muslims who have shown us quite a number of time to be rather stubborn and brutal if need be.
I don't know about you but I think that if you get into a conventional war with Iran, you will be so busy that even Canada could walk across the border and take over the U.S. Perhaps we'd need a few allies like Belgium and Monaco, but you get the point.
Anyway, unless Americans start nuking or get the support of other major powers, it would be retarded for them to try another Iraq³
Submitted by Laser (user info) at 2006-08-15 16:38:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Auto -2
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2006-08-15 16:22:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Warning! Another ETS rant is inevitable! http://www.ubersite.com/m/91839
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-08-15 16:11:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-15 13:13:13 (#)
Ranking: 0
1: No. Not yet.
2: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I'm not even gonna dignify that stupid shit with a real response.
3: I'm telling you, it's not gonna be a land 'war'. The war will be won from the air.
We didn't have justification back then. We still don't, but we're working on manufacturing some. Give it time.
You think *I* make no sense, but *I'm* not the one who knows jack shit about history as is evidenced in your response to #2.
---------------------------------------
Why do we need to control the flow of oil, if it is pumping we have the money to buy it. Money talks much louder than politics in oil.
You cannot win a war without going on Land. Vietnam, Soviets in Afghanistan, the list goes on and on, bombing first then sending in troops is still a Land war. You said it was going to be like Iraq, Iraq IS a land war, no matter how many bombs you drop first once soilders engage on the ground it is a land war. And if we want to get any oil out of the country we will have to go in on foot. You are just plain stupid if you don't see how it will be near impossible to do this in Iran and leave it in any condition to pump oil, and if there is any mastermind pulling the strings in America they could easily see this.
I give up, you don't have the tools for a discussion involving war if you can't see what a land war is.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-08-15 14:50:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-08-12 05:15:00 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-08-12 04:29:17 (#)
Ranking: -2
i got owned on this one? okay, this has to be a joke. no way can you be this dumb. let's see what we've covered in this post:
1.) i said it was what the official story was, a 757 hit the pentagon. physical evidence proved this, you disagreed.
2.) you said that the 757 would have cut the light poles in half, not uprooted them.
3.) i asked you what it was, because it couldn't be a missile at this point (because of the light poles, and damage done to the building), and it couldn't be another plane because of... well, common sense.
4.)you said there was no way of knowing... except you said you knew it wasn't a 757... does this even make sense?
5.) then you said the government planted the light poles to make it look like a 757 had hit the pentagon to go with the already overly intricate conspiracy.
6.) i thought you'd feel stupid at this point, but you never retracted your statement.
are you seriously trying to tell me that the government planted uprooted light poles around the pentagon without anyone noticing and then rigged it up to make it look like it was hit by a 757??
is that what you're trying to tell me?
walk into this one, i dare you. of course, you can also tell me where i've gone wrong in my above statements about what has occurred in our conversations..
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-08-15 13:50:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-15 13:36:43 (#)
Ranking: -2
It's inaccurate simply because these aren't all terrorist attacks. Many are staged government black ops. ""
are you really that retarded?
I am better than you in every way.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-15 13:13:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-08-15 12:56:24 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-15 12:43:37 (#)
Ranking: 0
Pitting Iraq against Iran didn't serve the same purposes.
1: Iraq was selling oil in Euros. We couldn't solve that problem by pitting him against Iran. Plus we'd just spent the better part of a decade telling the UN he needed to be disarmed. It wouldn't be very good politics to just start giving him weapons AGAIN.
2: We couldn't control the oil flow out of Iraq by pitting the two countries against one another.
3: We couldn't ensure victory by getting Saddam to do our dirty work again. We'd already tried that once and he failed his objective.
4: If you want something done right you gotta do it yourself.
-----------------------------------------
1: iraq was barely selling any oil, isn't Iran selling in euro's now?
2: if we were supplying one we could, and we don't want to control the flow of oil we just don't want the profits to go to shit that will hurt us.
3: but we could ensure victory in what we be a long LAND WAR
Then why didn't this shadow group that runs everything do it in the early 90's when the western world and a lot of middle eastern ones were behind them?
You continue to make no sense.
----------------
1: No. Not yet.
2: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I'm not even gonna dignify that stupid shit with a real response.
3: I'm telling you, it's not gonna be a land 'war'. The war will be won from the air.
We didn't have justification back then. We still don't, but we're working on manufacturing some. Give it time.
You think *I* make no sense, but *I'm* not the one who knows jack shit about history as is evidenced in your response to #2.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-15 13:08:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-08-15 12:56:24 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-15 12:43:37 (#)
Ranking: 0
Pitting Iraq against Iran didn't serve the same purposes.
1: Iraq was selling oil in Euros. We couldn't solve that problem by pitting him against Iran. Plus we'd just spent the better part of a decade telling the UN he needed to be disarmed. It wouldn't be very good politics to just start giving him weapons AGAIN.
2: We couldn't control the oil flow out of Iraq by pitting the two countries against one another.
3: We couldn't ensure victory by getting Saddam to do our dirty work again. We'd already tried that once and he failed his objective.
4: If you want something done right you gotta do it yourself.
-----------------------------------------
1: iraq was barely selling any oil, isn't Iran selling in euro's now?
2: if we were supplying one we could, and we don't want to control the flow of oil we just don't want the profits to go to shit that will hurt us.
3: but we could ensure victory in what we be a long LAND WAR
Then why didn't this shadow group that runs everything do it in the early 90's when the western world and a lot of middle eastern ones were behind them?
You continue to make no sense.
----------------
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-15 13:07:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-08-15 12:24:22 (#)
Ranking: -2
This is the big gaping hole in your theories, they don't make sense. If a group with no morals was in charge why aould they risk dissatisfaction in thewir power base by waging an unpopular war when they could just lift the sanctions and deal with Iraq.
-----------------
There is no hole. You're just not seeing the big picture, as usual.
The people who really rule are not elected officials. They control everything no matter who is in office. Whether it's the neo-cons or the openly globalist far left, if you extend their agenda out far enough, they are one and the same.
The only difference is, it requires a different media blitz. It's kinda like retooling the propaganda factory, only to make a slightly different-looking product that serves the exact same purpose.
As for Iran...again, I only meant it wouldn't be a "land invasion". If I said "land war" at any point, I misspoke.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-08-15 12:56:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-15 12:43:37 (#)
Ranking: 0
Pitting Iraq against Iran didn't serve the same purposes.
1: Iraq was selling oil in Euros. We couldn't solve that problem by pitting him against Iran. Plus we'd just spent the better part of a decade telling the UN he needed to be disarmed. It wouldn't be very good politics to just start giving him weapons AGAIN.
2: We couldn't control the oil flow out of Iraq by pitting the two countries against one another.
3: We couldn't ensure victory by getting Saddam to do our dirty work again. We'd already tried that once and he failed his objective.
4: If you want something done right you gotta do it yourself.
-----------------------------------------
1: iraq was barely selling any oil, isn't Iran selling in euro's now?
2: if we were supplying one we could, and we don't want to control the flow of oil we just don't want the profits to go to shit that will hurt us.
3: but we could ensure victory in what we be a long LAND WAR
Then why didn't this shadow group that runs everything do it in the early 90's when the western world and a lot of middle eastern ones were behind them?
You continue to make no sense.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-15 12:43:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-08-15 12:24:22 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-15 11:52:29 (#)
Ranking: 0
There will be troops there for the next 50 years.
14 military bases aren't being built for nothing.
---------------
You still haven't explained how that is cheaper or better for those in charge than using Iraq against Iran?
----------------------
Pitting Iraq against Iran didn't serve the same purposes.
1: Iraq was selling oil in Euros. We couldn't solve that problem by pitting him against Iran. Plus we'd just spent the better part of a decade telling the UN he needed to be disarmed. It wouldn't be very good politics to just start giving him weapons AGAIN.
2: We couldn't control the oil flow out of Iraq by pitting the two countries against one another.
3: We couldn't ensure victory by getting Saddam to do our dirty work again. We'd already tried that once and he failed his objective.
4: If you want something done right you gotta do it yourself.
Submitted by tbone (user info) at 2006-08-15 12:35:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
that is a lot like this http://www.ubersite.com/m/72858
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-08-15 12:35:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-15 12:01:41 (#)
Ranking: 0
Well, we did it from 1953 to 1979 without firing a shot, but I don't see that happening again.
An attack on Iran won't be a traditional land invasion. There would be all-out airstrikes preceding any deployment of land troops to secure oil fields. It would be similar to the invasion of Iraq, but on a much more massive scale. This is all barring a successful internal regime change.
----------------------------------
Not a traditional land invasion, but similiar to Iraq?
That has been a traditional land invasion since WWII. Softeninng them up with airstrikes then sending in troops is how wars are fought now.
When you put troops on the ground it is a land war.
Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Ten or twenty reviews down you were saying it wouldn't be a land war, now you are saying it would be like Iraq. Are you stupid or just trying to get heat, either way you are pretty good at it.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-08-15 12:24:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-15 11:52:29 (#)
Ranking: 0
There will be troops there for the next 50 years.
14 military bases aren't being built for nothing.
---------------
You still haven't explained how that is cheaper or better for those in charge than using Iraq against Iran?
This is the big gaping hole in your theories, they don't make sense. If a group with no morals was in charge why aould they risk dissatisfaction in thewir power base by waging an unpopular war when they could just lift the sanctions and deal with Iraq.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-15 12:01:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-08-15 11:31:57 (#)
Ranking: -2
Explain how we could get oil from Iran without getting into a land war?
------------------
Well, we did it from 1953 to 1979 without firing a shot, but I don't see that happening again.
An attack on Iran won't be a traditional land invasion. There would be all-out airstrikes preceding any deployment of land troops to secure oil fields. It would be similar to the invasion of Iraq, but on a much more massive scale. This is all barring a successful internal regime change.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-15 11:52:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-08-15 11:31:57 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-15 10:30:17 (#)
Ranking: 0
I meant I didn't know what they were thinking morally. I know what they are thinking strategically; that's the easy and obvious part...you know, the part you STILL don't see even though I've all but spelled it out for you numerous times now.
But, again, you probably went to an American school, so what can I realistically expect from you?
If you want to know the truth about the monetary system, read this: http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm
--------------------------------
Oh it is the obvious part?
Then please just fucking once explain to me how the US is getting oil from Iraq, or do you think they are going to be keeping troops there for the next 10 years?
------------------
There will be troops there for the next 50 years.
14 military bases aren't being built for nothing.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-08-15 11:31:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-15 10:30:17 (#)
Ranking: 0
I meant I didn't know what they were thinking morally. I know what they are thinking strategically; that's the easy and obvious part...you know, the part you STILL don't see even though I've all but spelled it out for you numerous times now.
But, again, you probably went to an American school, so what can I realistically expect from you?
If you want to know the truth about the monetary system, read this: http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm
--------------------------------
Oh it is the obvious part?
Then please just fucking once explain to me how the US is getting oil from Iraq, or do you think they are going to be keeping troops there for the next 10 years? Why wouldn't it have been easier to just lift the fucking sanctions and trade with him? Why not even use him against Iran (remember that little war they had).
Explain how we could get oil from Iran without getting into a land war?
Not a single one of your explinations of this conspiracy when drawn to a logical conclusion makes any sense.
The US is not helped by war in the middle east. There are easier ways to get rich.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-15 11:16:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Note: Pat Robertson was on CBN last night peddling his unique brand of religious propaganda on the American public and he said: "It could be that this terrorist cell in England was just the "B" Team, and the "A" Team is still on the loose, waiting to strike. That remains to be seen."
Now why would Mr. Robertson say something like that? Besides the fact that he's an aging lunatic with a thirst for Muslim blood?
Submitted by BobLobla (user info) at 2006-08-15 11:04:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
http://www.glumbert.com/media/tonguetwister.html
(link SFW)
I know you have probably seen it but if not, JAPANESE PEOPLE ARE FUCKED
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-15 10:30:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-08-14 19:13:11 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-14 17:00:07 (#)
Ranking: 0
Don't ask me what the hell they're thinking, I'm sure it will become clearer as time goes by what their agenda is, but like I said, I think it's ultimately to take Iran.
---------------------------------------------------------
I think I follow you now ETS
You don't know what they are thinking, but you know it is a huge conspiracy involving the intentional demolition of the WTC, propping up the dollar hegemony, stopping production of an affordable electric car, keeping the metric system down, and ultimately taking Iran's oil.
Man what a sheep I have been not realizing all those bankers have been running the world since before WWII.
It is all so clear now!
-----------------------------
I meant I didn't know what they were thinking morally. I know what they are thinking strategically; that's the easy and obvious part...you know, the part you STILL don't see even though I've all but spelled it out for you numerous times now.
But, again, you probably went to an American school, so what can I realistically expect from you?
If you want to know the truth about the monetary system, read this: http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-15 10:14:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-08-14 20:14:06 (#)
Ranking: -2
How fucking DARE you.
The UK fucking bankrupted itself in perhaps the only just war there has ever been.
------------------
While common citizens were devastated and the state was deprived, some people, just as in the United States, made out like bandits.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-15 10:11:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2006-08-15 06:34:29 (#)
Ranking: 2
you make it so hard sometimes.
-----------
It's not like I'm trying to be this incredibly good-looking.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-15 10:09:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by The_Mighty_Badger (user info) at 2006-08-15 08:30:35 (#)
Ranking: -2
i have never bothered to rate your posts before because i find you intensly annoying and believe you to be verging on insane. you are a cock.
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons
-----------------
If "normal" people take all their political cues from Maddox, then straightjacket my ass up. I'd rather be insane.
Submitted by BranDo (user info) at 2006-08-15 08:51:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
when is NORAD going to do the next terror drill?
Submitted by The_Mighty_Badger (user info) at 2006-08-15 08:30:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
i have never bothered to rate your posts before because i find you intensly annoying and believe you to be verging on insane. you are a cock.
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-08-15 07:33:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by matnotharry (user info) at 2006-08-15 07:27:54 (#)
Ranking: 2
Those drills do seem mighty convenient, though I don't think they are quite as impossible as the second site calculates (however it would surely be highly unlikely).
--------------------------
ETs doesn't respond when he can't find a good answer, but why you don't try this one.
How are the drills convenient? If you were involved in a conspiracy would you plan it like this? How would it help you in any way? I know if I was doing it i would make sure absolutely nothing out of the ordinary was done by the govt that day.
Submitted by matnotharry (user info) at 2006-08-15 07:27:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-14 19:58:00 (#)
Ranking: 0
Did you know they were running drills ON 7/7 that invlolved the EXACT SAME TRAIN STATIONS the "terrorists" hit? Don't believe me? Think I'm crazy?
Here is an interview with Peter Power, Managing Director of Visor Consultants, which was running the exercises on BBC Radio 5: http://www.prisonplanet.com/audio/090705exercise_clip.mp3
You know what the chances of that are? This will give you an idea: http://www.infowars.com/articles/London_attack/probability_drill_attack_coinciding.htm
Did you know they were warned beforehand just like on 9/11? http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/3489.asp
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20050801&articleId=782
I could probably dig further, but that's just 10 minutes worth of internet searching.
---------
Those drills do seem mighty convenient, though I don't think they are quite as impossible as the second site calculates (however it would surely be highly unlikely).
The third site I don't quite agree with either:
"Fact of the matter is that British Authorities knew it is coming, warned the Israelis before the first bomb. The Associated Press reported July 7 that an anonymous source in the Israeli Foreign Ministry said Scotland Yard had warned the Israeli Embassy in London of possible terrorist attacks in the U.K. capital. The information reportedly was passed to the embassy minutes before the first bomb struck at 0851 London time. The Israeli Embassy promptly ordered Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to remain in his hotel on the morning of July 7."
I read that as the Authorities received a threat of an attack and kept Netanyahu inside as a 'just-in-case' whilst they got their bearings. If the Authorities had interpretted the warning as just an idle threat and said nothing to the embassy they could have lost the finance minister and been critised for doing nothing
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2006-08-15 06:34:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
you make it so hard sometimes.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-08-15 05:31:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Jay, you are seriously a dick. So is Brad, but two dicks fighting don't make a right.
Erm, they make Gay porn I guess. Which I don't want to see in the mornings. Or ever.
This post made vaguely sensible points, but not very well.
Submitted by DirtyDoubleEntendre (user info) at 2006-08-15 03:56:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Reference to 1984?
Cooooool.
I made sweet sweet love to that book.
And to this:
http://www.ubersite.com/m/91817
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-08-15 03:06:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
unless the U.S. starts nuking the Middle East, I doubt it could manage to occupied it when it's failing in a country like Iraq.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-08-15 02:34:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Fuck off jay.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-08-15 02:11:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Over 150 reviews, and I haven't even touched it yet?
Wow, Brad must have been arguing with 5-6 people at the same time.
Did he keep his insults straight?
Did his keyboard blow up?
Did he get an internet BJ from Filthy?
PRESSING QUESTIONS, PEOPLE!
Submitted by GnarlsBarkley (user info) at 2006-08-15 00:30:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
the end of the world, is sooner than we think. Why am I not going to have children? they'll die because the world is ending.
Submitted by Emridhs (user info) at 2006-08-15 00:10:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
What? the US is gonna get nuked? Oh noes! Australian Television Channels will end up having to show endless repeats of old American shows! oh wait.. They already do that. At least the annoying american tourists can help the Gold Coast cut thier electricity bills with thier new found glow in the dark action.
Dude, give it a rest. Nobody believes the crackpot on the street screaming "the end is nigh!" You sir, are acting exactly like that crackpot. Stop lurking on an internet site shouting this out, if you really want to make this heard, make yourself presentable. Ramming anything at people the way you have been has the exact reaction that is happening now. It makes the person doing it look insane, and it definatly doesnt help whatever cause your fighting for. I know you are likely to flare up at this, but if people dont want to believe you, they won't. Wether or not they have been 'brainwashed' by the Media.
I have a laugh at your attack on the media though. Haven't you realised that all these sites that you reference to aid your arguement are members of media as well. Different media, different agenda, but definatly as equally biased. Though I will agree those quotes at the end of your little story here are pretty bullshit.
Submitted by Zoidberg (user info) at 2006-08-14 22:11:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
while I don't quite believe its a big brother plot, thought you might find this interesting ETS
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf
Operation Mongoose, page 10 is where it gets interesting, its where the DoD considers faking terrorist attacks to get world support for an invasion of Cuba
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-08-14 20:14:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-08-14 17:58:31 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-14 17:30:55 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by BobLobla (user info) at 2006-08-14 17:20:09 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-14 17:12:51 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by BobLobla (user info) at 2006-08-14 17:07:07 (#)
Ranking: -2
--------
Why in the hell has it gotta be all or nothing with you people all the time!?
I never said anyone was "egging anyone on". All I said was it was beneficial NOT to stop him.
-------------
Oh but look !!!! LOL LOL
----------------
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-14 17:02:37 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by BobLobla (user info) at 2006-08-14 16:55:37 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-14 16:39:54 (#)
Ranking: 0
As for the U.K.*****making******* Hitler invade Poland... This isn't entirely untrue. Of course, no one MADE Hitler invade Poland, but businessmen in both the U.S. and the U.K. profited off Hitler's actions, including Bush's grandfather, Prescott. All of this is well documented now. ""
How fucking DARE you.
The UK fucking bankrupted itself in perhaps the only just war there has ever been.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-08-14 19:58:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by matnotharry (user info) at 2006-08-14 19:34:17 (#)
Ranking: 0
"Since 9/11/2001, our governments have kept us on edge with a series of so-called "terrorist plots" that turned out to be nothing more than hyped-up government hoaxes"
------------
7/7 seemed pretty real
-------------------
Did you know they were running drills ON 7/7 that invlolved the EXACT SAME TRAIN STATIONS the "terrorists" hit? Don't believe me? Think I'm crazy?
Here is an interview with Peter Power, Managing Director of Visor Consultants, which was running the exercises on BBC Radio 5: http://www.prisonplanet.com/audio/090705exercise_clip.mp3
You know what the chances of that are? This will give you an idea: http://www.infowars.com/articles/London_attack/probability_drill_attack_coinciding.htm
Did you know they were warned beforehand just like on 9/11? http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/3489.asp
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20050801&articleId=782
I could probably dig further, but that's just 10 minutes worth of internet searching.
Submitted by matnotharry (user info) at 2006-08-14 19:34:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Since 9/11/2001, our governments have kept us on edge with a series of so-called "terrorist plots" that turned out to be nothing more than hyped-up government hoaxes"
------------
7/7 seemed pretty real
Submitted by indoninja (user info)