Merged 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
bill smith said:
Voila..
CENTCOM announced in 2008 that a team of employees would be "[engaging] bloggers who are posting inaccurate or untrue information, as well as bloggers who are posting incomplete information."
The Air Force is now also engaging bloggers. Indeed, an Air Force spokesman said:
"We obviously have many more concerns regarding cyberspace than a typical Social Media user," Capt. Faggard says. "I am concerned with how insurgents or potential enemies can use Social Media to their advantage. It's our role to provide a clear and accurate, completely truthful and transparent picture for any audience."
In other words, the government is targeting "social media", including popular user-ranked news sites.
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2009/01/government-heavily-manipulates-social.html
http://www.sheilacasey.com/2009/01/paid-blog-attack-armies-flood-blogs-with-comments.html article
http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1056648.html Zionist bloggers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awy8cmcuBlk&feature=related video on cointelpro
Click to expand...

So...
Correcting people who are wrong is a bad thing? That would explain many things about the so called "truth movement." This seems pretty innocuous to me. I guess one could argue it's a waste of resources, but it doesn't seem too bad.
I don't suppose you have a link to the original text, do you?
 
ihaunter said:
So...
Correcting people who are wrong is a bad thing? That would explain many things about the so called "truth movement." This seems pretty innocuous to me. I guess one could argue it's a waste of resources, but it doesn't seem too bad.
I don't suppose you have a link to the original text, do you?
Click to expand...

Then I suppose that you found this NIST statement perfectly reasonable too ?

Here's one example of a NIST response to a question challenging their narrow scope:

Reporter Jennifer Abel:"..what about that letter where NIST said it didn't look for evidence of explosives?"

Michael Neuman [spokesperson at NIST, listed on the WTC report]: "Right, because there was no evidence of that."

Abel: But how can you know there's no evidence if you don't look for it first?

Neuman: "If you're looking for something that isn't there, you're wasting your time... and the taxpayers' money."

http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=5546
 
Why the sudden change in gears? Is it an admission that there is nothing suspicious or sinister regarding the military paying people to correct "bloggers who are posting inaccurate or untrue information, as well as bloggers who are posting incomplete information." If not, I would truly like to hear what you think is wrong with this. Quoting NIST about something completely different does nothing to address my point. What problem do you have with correcting errors and lies?
 
bill smith said:
I couldn't say for sure although there can be little doubt that government agency people are present in the threads. They will show up bit by bit. One thing I have heard is that they like to use the word 'trivial'.
Click to expand...


Really? I heard they like to use phrases like "there can be little doubt".

PS that's twice today that I have been mysteriously transported to another thread. I'm pretty sure I didn't do it delibertely.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4734764#post4734764
Click to expand...
slingblade said:
What's hilarious is that it isn't the first time a Twoofer has hit "nominate" instead of "reply," and yet each one who has done so always suspects someone else did it to him, on purpose, just to screw with him. His trivial little post isn't where he thinks he put it, so the NWO is on the move again!
Click to expand...
bill smith said:
That particular time I pressed 'quote' just as I did for this post. Yu can see that by the fact that the quoted text of the adressed party is also reproduced. Just a glitch I reckon.
Click to expand...


Hitting the Nominate button also quotes the post you're nominating. You made a mistake. It's an insanely insignificant one at that. It is quite revealing, however, that you refuse to even accept the possibility you made a mistake that has no impact on anything.

Your refusal to accept this does more damage to you than just admitting that it's quite likely you accidentally clicked the Nominate button.
 
Last edited:
ihaunter said:
So...
Correcting people who are wrong is a bad thing? That would explain many things about the so called "truth movement." This seems pretty innocuous to me. I guess one could argue it's a waste of resources, but it doesn't seem too bad.
I don't suppose you have a link to the original text, do you?
Click to expand...
bill smith said:
Then I suppose that you found this NIST statement perfectly reasonable too ?

Here's one example of a NIST response to a question challenging their narrow scope:

Reporter Jennifer Abel:"..what about that letter where NIST said it didn't look for evidence of explosives?"

Michael Neuman [spokesperson at NIST, listed on the WTC report]: "Right, because there was no evidence of that."

Abel: But how can you know there's no evidence if you don't look for it first?

Neuman: "If you're looking for something that isn't there, you're wasting your time... and the taxpayers' money."

http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=5546
Click to expand...


OK, bill smith is either trolling or very unwell, mentally. I'm leaning toward mentally ill after this epic non sequitur. Even trolls can manage to follow the flow of a topic...

On ignore he goes...
 
bill smith said:
That particular time I pressed 'quote' just as I did for this post. Yu can see that by the fact that the quoted text of the adressed party is also reproduced. Just a glitch I reckon.
Click to expand...

Bill, before making this blunderingly obtuse post you could have quite easily checked yourself by simply hitting the 'nominate' button to see what happens. Had you done so you would have immediately realized that the text of the post you nominated is also reproduced. This exceedingly simple experiment would have saved you from appearing to be, yet again, an utter imbecile. Why your repeated blunders fail to cause you even the slightest bit of embarrassment is anyone's guess. I'd hazard that some sort of personality disorder is it play here.
 
bill smith said:
Voila..
CENTCOM announced in 2008 that a team of employees would be "[engaging] bloggers who are posting inaccurate or untrue information, as well as bloggers who are posting incomplete information."
The Air Force is now also engaging bloggers. Indeed, an Air Force spokesman said:
"We obviously have many more concerns regarding cyberspace than a typical Social Media user," Capt. Faggard says. "I am concerned with how insurgents or potential enemies can use Social Media to their advantage. It's our role to provide a clear and accurate, completely truthful and transparent picture for any audience."
In other words, the government is targeting "social media", including popular user-ranked news sites.
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2009/01/government-heavily-manipulates-social.html
http://www.sheilacasey.com/2009/01/paid-blog-attack-armies-flood-blogs-with-comments.html article
http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1056648.html Zionist bloggers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awy8cmcuBlk&feature=related video on cointelpro
Click to expand...



bill smith said:
Then I suppose that you found this NIST statement perfectly reasonable too ?

Here's one example of a NIST response to a question challenging their narrow scope:

Reporter Jennifer Abel:"..what about that letter where NIST said it didn't look for evidence of explosives?"

Michael Neuman [spokesperson at NIST, listed on the WTC report]: "Right, because there was no evidence of that."

Abel: But how can you know there's no evidence if you don't look for it first?

Neuman: "If you're looking for something that isn't there, you're wasting your time... and the taxpayers' money."

http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=5546
Click to expand...


I hate trivial spam.
 
Last edited:
There can be little doubt about the trivial nature of this turn of events. However, we I can neither confirm nor deny our agency I had anything to do with it.
 
JoeyDonuts said:
There can be little doubt about the trivial nature of this turn of events. However, we I can neither confirm nor deny our agency I had anything to do with it.
Click to expand...
The 'trivial' thing was just a demonstration of DMT for some of the young trainees.
 
Last edited:
Would that count as NIST "engaging" someone who had an inaccurate system clock time?
 
MikeW, I don't know what's happening, but the images of your 911mythswiki pages make my Opera 10.0 alpha web browser crashing. I must view these page under Fx3, for example.
 
240-185 said:
MikeW, I don't know what's happening, but the images of your 911mythswiki pages make my Opera 10.0 alpha web browser crashing. I must view these page under Fx3, for example.
Click to expand...
Hmm, I just downloaded Opera 10, tried a few pages and it all seemed to work. Can you give me a sample URL or two that are causing you problems? Do you get a particular crash error? Which operating system are you running?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom