Five Dancing Israelis

reply to post by BIHOTZ


I've never been much of one for 9/11 conspiracies, but I have to say...that article was very eye opening and interesting. Thank you for sharing it!

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by geobro

 

It's a nice piece of fiction. But it fails the reality check.

And what reality are we talking about?

The false paradigm created by your criminal Masters?

Seems to me it explains a lot of plane crashes in the past, from Charles Lindbergh to Paul Wellstone to 911, among other things.....

Details for your assertion please....

reply to post by SimontheMagus


So which Lindbergh plane crash are you referring to? Since the man died of cancer at the age of 72....

As for the rest of it? Politicians murdered and replaced with clones....Supreme Court ordering Congress to pass legislation.....the Attorney General ordering Navy SEALs and Delta Force to attack other countries....
You seriously believe all that?

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by SimontheMagus

 

Politicians murdered and replaced with clones....Supreme Court ordering Congress to pass legislation.....the Attorney General ordering Navy SEALs and Delta Force to attack other countries....
You seriously believe all that?

The attack on the cloning is totally predictable and expected... neither one of us can prove it either way so its irrelevant. Personally I believe that Reno and Clinton were sufficiently corrupt as their selves.

Do I "seriously believe" that there are good people within the military who received a gigantic wake-up call on 911? I most certainly do.... and ironically 911 will turn out to be the death blow for these Cabalist bastards. They just have no limit to their greed and insidiousness and it will be their downfall. How much money and power is enough for them? No amount, apparently.

reply to post by SimontheMagus


Someone watched Futureworld one too many times. The whole article is full of manure.

Originally posted by geobro
reply to post by lunarasparagus

 

nope i would win that one 100% sure still not seen a clock on any news show of that day .all you have to do is ask older people who remember that day go on it does not hurt what have you got to loose .you could even start a thread on it . i phoned the sun newspaper in scotland these guys are on the ball after he told me it was 9.30 am gmt he heard about it he went quiet & hung up when it was pointed out that new york is 5 hours behind our time .the mirror news paper tried a story about weapons grade material going missing on the 13th of sept 2001 or 9-13-2001 depending on where you are . i am dyslexic with a very good memory especially of that day .they now deny publishing that story even though lots of people can remember it . i was the first person in the diner that day and got told the cooks not in to midday i sat down & told the barman to change the channel on he widescreen to the sports thinking it was a move it was exactly 11. 43 AM exactly . a lot of people remember hearing it at 9.40 ish here not just me show me your money

Widescreen? Unlikely in 2001, especially in a "diner" although not impossible.

But "diner" - are you sure you're in the UK? And you managed to avoid all news of the event for two hours plus?

Interestingly enough though my memories of the day suggest I heard that a plane had hit the first tower around 11ish, which does seem a bit early. I imagine I must be mistaken.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


i put in diner as most who visit this site are american in the uk we call it bar meals . big screen tv in the pub with live logo on top corner seem to remember it on all channels .and bar man saying cooks not in till MIDDAY .i had flown up from luton airport to inverness scotland & still have stub from journey. 11 .40 am entered restaurant /diner /pub while trying to order grub told barman to turn movie over as it was a sports bar he informed me that it was a REAL EVENT PS WHERE WERE YOU

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by geobro
reply to post by lunarasparagus

 

Interestingly enough though my memories of the day suggest I heard that a plane had hit the first tower around 11ish, which does seem a bit early. I imagine I must be mistaken.

or are you think really hard about it

reply to post by geobro


I was in London. It's preposterous that the event was broadcast early in the UK. I mean surely even if - in the very unlikely event - it's all a shadowplay created for TV, the conspirators would not be stupid enough to put the footage out hours too soon?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by geobro

 

I was in London. It's preposterous that the event was broadcast early in the UK. I mean surely even if - in the very unlikely event - it's all a shadowplay created for TV, the conspirators would not be stupid enough to put the footage out hours too soon?

Quite a conundrum, isn't it? You've seen the reporter saying that the building has collapsed when it is still standing above her shoulder. Is there ANYTHING you would consider proof of foreknowledge? Evidently not. You are a charlatan, and everyone can see it.

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by geobro

 

I was in London. It's preposterous that the event was broadcast early in the UK. I mean surely even if - in the very unlikely event - it's all a shadowplay created for TV, the conspirators would not be stupid enough to put the footage out hours too soon?

Quite a conundrum, isn't it? You've seen the reporter saying that the building has collapsed when it is still standing above her shoulder. Is there ANYTHING you would consider proof of foreknowledge? Evidently not. You are a charlatan, and everyone can see it.

You're so angry. You should try to lighten up, if only for the sake of your mental and physical wellbeing.

I've gone over the "early BBC report" so many times it's just not worth doing again. Believe what you want.

Either

1 The conspirators needlessly involved a vast foreign news organisation by asking them to adhere to a 'script', thereby implicating at least dozens of extra civilians to the plot; they did this even though it was pointless, since they could have just allowed the BBC to report the collapse of the building anyway

2 Reuters had been listening to the fire chiefs saying that the building was about to fall. They mistakenly put on the wire that it had fallen and the BBC picked it up

If you think 1 is more plausible than 2, be my guest. You won't find many sane people who agree.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
You're so angry. You should try to lighten up, if only for the sake of your mental and physical wellbeing.

I live in New York, I worked in the WTC for many years. I knew people that died. They destroyed my city and are almost finished destroying my country. Am I supposed to take this lightly?

've gone over the "early BBC report" so many times it's just not worth doing again. Believe what you want.

Either

1 The conspirators needlessly involved a vast foreign news organisation by asking them to adhere to a 'script', thereby implicating at least dozens of extra civilians to the plot; they did this even though it was pointless, since they could have just allowed the BBC to report the collapse of the building anyway

2 Reuters had been listening to the fire chiefs saying that the building was about to fall. They mistakenly put on the wire that it had fallen and the BBC picked it up

If you think 1 is more plausible than 2, be my guest. You won't find many sane people who agree.

The media is CIA-controlled and has been going back to at least the 50's after those Vatican Rat Lines Nazis came over here and took over with their psy-ops. This is a fact. The media is right in the thick of 911, in fact, they made it possible to pull off. And basically, they screwed up and got caught. That's not too difficult to understand, unless you don't know these basic facts, or are deliberately covering them up. So which of these things provides YOUR motivation, Trickster?

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

The media is CIA-controlled and has been going back to at least the 50's after those Vatican Rat Lines Nazis came over here and took over with their psy-ops. This is a fact. The media is right in the thick of 911, in fact, they made it possible to pull off. And basically, they screwed up and got caught. That's not too difficult to understand, unless you don't know these basic facts, or are deliberately covering them up. So which of these things provides YOUR motivation, Trickster?

Yeah. All the millions of people who work in media in the US and UK are in on it.

Preposterous.

And anyway, even if every BBC employee is a paid-up member of your conspiracy, why bother with the 'script'? You still seem weirdly unwilling to explain that one.

reply to post by SimontheMagus

The media is CIA-controlled and has been going back to at least the 50's after those Vatican Rat Lines Nazis came over here and took over with their psy-ops. This is a fact. The media is right in the thick of 911, in fact, they made it possible to pull off. And basically, they screwed up and got caught. That's not too difficult to understand, unless you don't know these basic facts, or are deliberately covering them up.

There about 58,500 journalist in the US. Earning an average of $36K per year.
You are saying that they are all being told not to report anything that goes against the OS?
You are also saying that none of them get pissed off at their editors.
You are also saying that they are all happy going against what they schooled for. Reporting the truth.

Can you really say all of that with a straight face? If so can you give us any examples of reporters being told not to report against the OS?

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
You're so angry. You should try to lighten up, if only for the sake of your mental and physical wellbeing.

I live in New York, I worked in the WTC for many years. I knew people that died. They destroyed my city and are almost finished destroying my country. Am I supposed to take this lightly?

've gone over the "early BBC report" so many times it's just not worth doing again. Believe what you want.

Either

1 The conspirators needlessly involved a vast foreign news organisation by asking them to adhere to a 'script', thereby implicating at least dozens of extra civilians to the plot; they did this even though it was pointless, since they could have just allowed the BBC to report the collapse of the building anyway

2 Reuters had been listening to the fire chiefs saying that the building was about to fall. They mistakenly put on the wire that it had fallen and the BBC picked it up

If you think 1 is more plausible than 2, be my guest. You won't find many sane people who agree.

The media is CIA-controlled and has been going back to at least the 50's after those Vatican Rat Lines Nazis came over here and took over with their psy-ops. This is a fact. The media is right in the thick of 911, in fact, they made it possible to pull off. And basically, they screwed up and got caught. That's not too difficult to understand, unless you don't know these basic facts, or are deliberately covering them up. So which of these things provides YOUR motivation, Trickster?

As a fellow skeptic, I'd really stay away from saying the entire media industry was in on it. This is indicating a cover up which includes way too many people. (I earned my degree in broadcasting not too long ago and if I was working for a media outlet and they told me to shut my mouth I would totally drop the ball on that lol)

I do believe the government has control of what is to be released and not released in the press but as far as hundreds of people acting as double agents within the media industry just doesn't sit right with me.

Originally posted by bhornbuckle75

Originally posted by chemistry

Originally posted by bhornbuckle75

Originally posted by buster2010
And don't forget how 4000 Jews chose not to show up at work that day.

Que the Israeli supporters.

That's actually been debunked countless times.... For instance

Or here

edit on 3-6-2012 by bhornbuckle75 because: added another link

bhornbuckle75: It is very clear that your sources are simply the outpourings of the Anti Defamation League; an organisation that the world would be better off without.

Seriously? So you're just going to immediately say that any evidence I give you that disproves what you want to believe is from the "Anti Defamation League", no matter how thorough the evidence in the source is? I suppose there's no point in even trying to convince you if you're just going to stick your head in the sand and believe what you want to despite the evidence.

He is simply saying that he does not buy what you are sellin'.

You can take up your annoyance about him at the Israeli embassy. While you are there you might like to tear up your American passport.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by SimontheMagus

 

The media is CIA-controlled and has been going back to at least the 50's after those Vatican Rat Lines Nazis came over here and took over with their psy-ops. This is a fact. The media is right in the thick of 911, in fact, they made it possible to pull off. And basically, they screwed up and got caught. That's not too difficult to understand, unless you don't know these basic facts, or are deliberately covering them up.

There about 58,500 journalist in the US. Earning an average of $36K per year.
You are saying that they are all being told not to report anything that goes against the OS?
You are also saying that none of them get pissed off at their editors.
You are also saying that they are all happy going against what they schooled for. Reporting the truth.

Can you really say all of that with a straight face? If so can you give us any examples of reporters being told not to report against the OS?

You just constructed a ludicrous falacious argument. Are you a trained Hasbarat propagandist?

What has the number of journalists in the US and their average wage got to do with the price of butter?

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


A masterclass in the strawman argument construct;

Yeah. All the millions of people who work in media in the US and UK are in on it.

The strawman lie.

Preposterous.

He attacks his own lie.

And anyway, even if every BBC employee is a paid-up member of your conspiracy, why bother with the 'script'?

This strawman lie is completely TrickoftheShade's creation but claims that it is by another atser.

You still seem weirdly unwilling to explain that one.

Here TrickoftheShade asks that some else be held to account for his own lie!!!!




Remarkable.

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

A masterclass in the strawman argument construct;

Yeah. All the millions of people who work in media in the US and UK are in on it.

The strawman lie.

Let's see what he wrote:

"The media is CIA-controlled and has been going back to at least the 50's after those Vatican Rat Lines Nazis came over here and took over with their psy-ops. This is a fact. The media is right in the thick of 911, in fact, they made it possible to pull off. And basically, they screwed up and got caught. That's not too difficult to understand, unless you don't know these basic facts, or are deliberately covering them up"

It's there in black and white. He thinks that the CIA control the entire media. That the media is an organ of US propaganda. That means that everyone in it is implicated in the conspiracy. Unless you think it's possible to get people to write exactly what you want without telling them.

I can tell I'm talking to someone with little life experience, and I imagine you've never worked on a news desk. It's a remarkably flat hierarchy and news gathering is done by everyone bar subs. It's not reasonable to believe that a few placemen could affect broadcasting or writing to the extent that output could be thoroughly controlled and vetted to the extent required by Simon's fantasies. Equally it is simply not practically viable to believe that the BBC could put out an erroneous "script" without huge numbers being in on the conspiracy.

But perhaps you can tell me why the perps would get the bbc to read out a "script"? Whether implicated or not? Simon can't, and I imagine this is going to be one of the questions that you weirdly seem unwilling to answer...

reply to post by MI5edtoDeath

You just constructed a ludicrous falacious argument. Are you a trained Hasbarat propagandist?

What has the number of journalists in the US and their average wage got to do with the price of butter?

So you can't give any examples of the media being 'bought' off (for lack of better term)?
Journalist don't live high on the hog. And for you to suggest they have all been silenced by higher ups is insulting their dignity. They have family and friends in the community where they live. It would be damn hard for all 58,000 of them to be living the same lies.

But then maybe you live in a different world. A world where everything is a lie. If so then why watch any tv? Why read any print of any format? Why post on forums where the rest of the world resides?

You need to prove a track record of the media lying to us. Not a case of one or two misinformed reporters. But many reporters printing things they knew were lies.