Loose Change - Part IV

[gumboot]

This matters little. The cam is a static vid. The recording device, old tape it looks to be, decides the "frame rate" here. There were other frames just not recorded.You just set these things on a rec rate, like sp, lp ets. Tree in the woods etc...

Er... I'm not sure what you mean by "static vid" but that's not entirely true.

Video cameras have a fixed frame rate - the only video camera in the world, currently, that has, or ever had, a variable frame rate is the Panasonic AJ-HDC27H VariCam. Given that:
1) The Varicam had not been released by September 2001
2) The Varicam is an HD camera
3) The Varicam costs $65,900

I think it's safe to say the Pentagon footage was not shot with a Varicam. Which means it had a fixed frame rate.

Now you are quite right in that LOWER frame rates than the camera rate can be produced by the recording mechanism.

However, this is all irrelevant. The Pentagon footage is at a frame rate of rought 1fps. Whether that was the camera CCD's actual frame rate, or a drop-down to the recorder is actually irrelevant. The point is only one frame is going to capture the airliner moving at 500 MPH. (In fact they had only a 1/8 chance of capturing the airliner before impact AT ALL).

In addition, the camera appears to have a very low shutter speed (something I would expect of a surveillance camera - and this also would be fixed). This only further blurs the single frame of an airline travelling across the open space before the Pentagon in 0.1 seconds.

-Andrew

 

[Drysdale]

Mr Knight, this shcitk is getting old. All your posts are nothing but riddles. You keep saying look what I've said.
Well, you've wrote hundreds of sentences and not said a dang thing but it's a secret and I'll only tell those worthy.
What a bunch of crap. I think you take the cake bud.
There's been some real winners post here in the truth movement but you are the top. They at least would try and pin down certain things in the movie but you dont even do that. All you do is make vague references with a if only you knew what I did attitude.

It's shtick and bad shtick at that. Pretty sad.

 

[gumboot]

Isn't that interesting the person that put the film up has plenty to say which you didn't even refer to.

Why would I? I'm quite capable (and qualified, for that matter) to make my own conclusions about photographic interpretation. And quite frankly most people are appalling at interpreting photographs, and even worse at interpreting video or motion film.

If you download this exact footage, then focus on frame 7152. Frame 7152 is when the "plane" comes into view, but is only half painted in. Frame 7153 then adds a white color to make the plane seem real. At the same frame 7153 a tree behind the plane also seems to grow, or something coming out of it where it was not in the previous frame before. Frame 7185 is when smoke magically appears before the plane seems to hit the building, and then the big fireball happens. Is this for real, or made up?

And there you have why I don't bother paying attention to some internet moron's laughable attempt at video interpretation.

The "smoke magically appears" is almost certainly the aircraft - moving at such high speed in such a slow frame that it appears as a simple streak of white across the ground. As I would expect.

-Andrew

 

[Gravy]

Sir Knight, I'm glad to see that you're at least beginning to bring up some issues related to the topic of this thread. In the response to your first post, you were given the link to my analysis of the video "Loose Change."

Have you read it? If not, here it is again: http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html or if you want to download the document as a .doc file, go here: http://tinyurl.com/epp82

I'm very disappointed to hear that nothing can change your mind about 9/11 being an inside job. I assume then, that you are here to bring us around to your point of view. That will be an uphill battle, and you will need to have truly uncovered information that is not available elsewhere.

At least you brought up a couple of issues that can be addressed with facts. You do not believe that flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Have you spoken to anyone who was there? If not, why? I direct your attention to Hal Bidlack's post on this forum, which is linked below. He was there.

I hope you will also give serious consideration to the question (asked below also) of what standards of proof you would want to be used at your trial, should you be wrongly accused of a serious crime.

The following is an excerpt from an email I sent this morning to the most prominent Pentagon no-planers in this country and abroad. It is in response to an email sent to these people by another no-planer, Craig Hill. Please rebut the evidence below with your facts. I also cover this issue extensively in my "Loose Change" guide, linked above. You will need to address each point. Take your time. I await your answer.

******

"Give me one good reason to think you're not the lying pseudo-science supporter of the terrorist traitors who attacked our country which the chief economist of the Labor Dept 2001-2002 says you are, and i won't nail you as such in the next edition of Wikipedia." ~ Craig Hill, 2006 Green Party candidate for U.S. Senate from Vermont

"Moseley, you're either an idiot or a traitor, and my guess is probably both." ~ Craig Hill, 2006 Green Party candidate for U.S. Senate from Vermont

Mr. Hill,

As I will show below, your "guesses" are not evidence. Further, it ill-becomes a candidate for the United States Senate to publicly hurl invective and threats at people who disagree with him, as I've seen you do in these exchanges. If elected, is that how you would respond to your constituents? Would the people who've donated to your campaign be pleased to hear that this is how immaturely you behave? This is my first email to this group. Please refrain from caliing me a shill, tool, idiot, or any of the other names I've seen you use. If you disagree with my evidence, present yours, with sources.

Mr. Hill, I don't know Jon Moseley, but as to the credibility of Morgan Reynolds, the former Labor Department economist you mentioned, do you also believe that no planes hit the Twin Towers?

Evidence, not opinion, should dominate these discussions. Suppose you were accused of a serious crime that you did not commit. Would you want your standards of evidence to be admissible at your trial? I thought not. As an American, please keep that in mind before making unfounded accusations about 9/11, or about the people who have honest disagreements with you.

And please, if you doubt that flight 77 hit the Pentagon, talk to the witnesses, first responders, and investigators who were there. I'm absolutely astonished that supposed "researchers" have the nerve to make outlandish claims and accusations without speaking to the people who were involved.

Craig Hill:
Barbara Honneggar [sic. It's Honnegger] interviewed dozens of Pentagon employees who told her that bombs went off in the Pentagon minutes before the Thing ("plane") hit it. The bombs took out the entirety of Naval Intelligence...

Mark Roberts reply:
I was unable to find these interviews on the internet. Please provide a source for them. If you don't have a source for "dozens," one person who was in the Pentagon and claims that a bomb went off five minutes before the plane struck will do for now. Thousands of people were there. Surely you can provide the account of one who makes this claim.

How about the Pentagon security staff? Do they confirm your story? Did alarms go off at 9:32? Were calls to 911 made at 9:32? What local emergency personnel were mobilized? I certainly haven't heard of any. Were people running in panic while emergency responders moved in? You know, the normal things that happen when bombs go off. As for the Naval Command Center being taken out by bombs, perhaps you should ask the survivors from those offices if bombs went off before the plane hit. I think they would have noticed that. Further, what would be the purpose of such bombs, the discovery of which would prove an "inside job?"

Craig Hill:
FYI, Li'l Jonny, the lawn in front of the tiny hole in the Pentagon betrays your superstitious belief/lie a 757 hit the building. For that to be possible, the hole just above the basement had to have been preceded by gouges in the earth from the 9-foot diameter engines, hanging beneath the wings, dragging on the ground, as the plane flew 4 feet above the lawn, as even the Pentagon claims. End of [expletive deleted by MR] story. Slam Dunk.

Mark Roberts reply:
False. Because of the wing position and dihedral, the underslung Rolls-Royce RB 211-535 engines on flight 77 did not project far below the fuselage. Further, flight 77 was not flying level over the Pentagon lawn, and it certainly did not skid into the building: it flew into it. It was descending after crossing about 15 feet above the highway, which is elevated on a berm. Its right engine just struck the top of the construction generator in front of the Pentagon, which was housed in a trailer. By the way, dihedral also explains why, although the plane hit in a slightly left wing down position, the left wing marks on the building were nearly horizontal. Please see the many eyewitness reports of the plane hitting the building (yes, "dozens," with sources) linked below. And for detailed information on damage to the Pentagon, please see the ASCE's Pentagon Building Performance Report, also linked below.

I hope any disbelievers of the flight 77 crash will review the evidence in the links below carefully. If you want to argue that the plane didn't hit the Pentagon, you will need to refute all of these facts with your own verifiable evidence.

First, an important message from someone who was at the Pentagon on 9/11. Please take it to heart.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1849603&postcount=1

How about the dozens of eyewitnesses accounts of the crash? For your claim to be true, all of theirs must be false. Please provide your evidence that refutes these reports.
http://eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/witness.html
http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoud.../witnesses.htm

Notice that many of those witnesses specifically mention seeing a huge American Airlines jet hit the Pentagon.

Just released was the flight 77 Flight path analysis, which contains detailed information. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc02.pdf

And the Air Traffic Control transcripts were also released recently: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc06.pdf

Summary of Flight 77 depicting the identity of crew, seat assignments of passengers, and seats from which telephone calls were made:
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200054.html

More on the phone calls, from the 9/11 Commission Report: http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

Of course, for anyone interested in the damage to the Pentagon, the ASCE's Pentagon Building Performance Report is essential reading: http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf From page 35: "The width of the severe damage to the west facade of the Pentagon was approximately 120 ft (from column lines 8 to 20).

A single 16-foot hole? As mentioned above, that is laughably false. The hole extends along the wing line left, and especially, right, of the fuselage hole, all the way to column 18. It is not a cookie-cutter hole: that simply cannot happen with a reinforced concrete building. Note in the following picture the total destruction of masonry and the reinforced columns broken and bent in the direction of impact (the plane came in from the right of the picture): http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/6.jpg

No debris on the lawn? That couldn't be less true. Why don't CTs show these photos?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/879044e5acd97bcc7.jpg
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/879044e5acd9b75a6.jpg
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/879044e5acd9e4fea.jpg[
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/879044e5ad1fb1eb4.jpg
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/879044e5add2ebf1b.jpg

Need more photos of 757 debris? There are hundreds of photos and several videos showing a huge assortment of debris. Here is a montage with a small sampling:

Many debris photos at 911myths.com http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html

How about the account of the C-130 pilot who saw both the flight 77 attack and the aftermath of flight 93? Lying?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCVRkAkC8n4&search=Shanksville

Photos from witness Steve Riskus, seconds after the crash (he gives his contact info, but be nice: he gets a lot of email): http://www.criticalthrash.com/terror.html

Next, you need to remember that the remains of every flight 77 victim but one (a two-year-old) was recovered and positively identified by forensics experts. Personal effects of many survived the crash and fires and were returned to the victims' families. Articles on Pentagon disaster morgue operations and victim identification:
http://ndms.chepinc.org/data/files/3/266.pdf and http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/stripe/6_48/national_news/12279-1.html

As for the question, "Where are all those Pentagon video cameras?" the answer is that the Pentagon uses live security – human beings – for its perimeter security. Here's a post on the BAUT forum from a Pentagon employee who was there on 9/11. http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=746514&postcount=173 An excerpt:"Why isn't there more video? Without telling too much of what I know of Pentagon security, you would be suprised how few cameras there are outside the building. Humans actively patrolling a building's perimeter are a tad more effective than dozens of monitors which may or may not be watched at any given moment."

A brief look at the ridiculous "A missile hit the Pentagon" theory:
1) No missile was seen or heard by anyone. All eyewitnesses report a passenger jet crash.
2) No missile debris was found
3) Missiles do not carry thousands of gallons of jet fuel
4) Missiles do not carry the remains of flight 77 passengers
5) Missiles do not carry tons of 757 debris
6) In the photo below, the yellow dots indicate the broken light poles. The red line indicates the path a missile would have to take in order to knock them over. Or, the missile would have to have a wingspan of over 100 feet. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehost/879044caa801aabf4.jpg

An examination of numerous Pentagon/flight 77 questions at 9/11myths.com http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon.html

A detailed examination of the Jet engine pieces found at the Pentagon http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

And how about the hundreds of first responders and investigators who were on the scene the first day? All lying? Your position is deeply disrespectful of their service. Have you attempted to contact any of the 8,000 people who were on the scene after the crash? If you still have doubts, please do so. Here are a few suggestions for contacts:

the Pentagon 3-person Crash Response Team
the Arlington County Fire Department
the Arlington County Sheriff's Department
Arlington County Emergency Medical Services
the Arlington, VA Police Department
Fairfax County Fire & Rescue
Montgomery County Fire & Rescue
Alexandria, VA Fire & Rescue
District of Columbia Fire & Rescue
the Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit
the Military District of Washington Search & Rescue Team
the Fort Myer Fire Department
the Arlington County SWAT Team
the Virginia State Police,
the FBI's Evidence Recovery Teams
the National Transportation Safety Board Investigators
American Airlines representatives
the HHS National Medical Response Team
the Pentagon security staff,
the DOD Honor Guard
the Pentagon Medical Unit
the Pentagon Defense Protective Service,
Four U.S. Army Chaplains
One Catholic Priest (Stephen McGraw)
the FBI Hazmat Team
the EPA Hazmat Team
the FEMA Incident Support Team
the FEMA Emergency Response Team
the FEMA Disaster Field Office
the FEMA Virginia-1, Virginia-2, Maryland-1 and Tennessee-1 Task Forces
the US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach, Fairfax County and Montgomery County
the National Naval Medical Center CCRF
Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams
the Virginia Department of Emergency Management
the U.S. Army 54th Quartermaster Company Mortuary Staff
the U.S. Army 311th Quartermaster Company Mortuary Staff
the U.S. Armed Forces Institute of Pathology
the American Red Cross,
the United States Secret Service,
the C-130H crew

***********

Sir Knight, I hope you will take seriously my appeal to, at minimum, speak to the people who were involved as witnesses to the crash itself, as rescuers, and as investigators. Anything less means that your claim is insincere.

Will you do that?

 

[Dog Town]

Your right GB, watchen f-ball and partaking here, I'm out!

 

[Gravy]

I am not suggesting either way, fake or real. I also want to make it clear I don't have a firm resolution on whether a plane hit the Pentagon, because there is evidence and witnesses, and testimony on both sides. I do want to suggest that photos released, and information released about these events is very manufactured.

WHY WOULD WE NEED TO MANUFACTURE EVIDENCE?

Suggestions aren't evidence. How many times do you have to be told? Please present your evidence of this fraud. Now.

 

[gumboot]

Suggestions aren't evidence. How many times do you have to be told? Please present your evidence of this fraud. Now.

Sir Knight didn't make it clear, but to be fair to him he was quoting the blurb that went with the youtube video of the pentagon hit, rather than expressing an opinion of his own.

He did not indicate if he agreed with their views or not, though he seems rather put out that I ignored them (is it normal requirement to recount the comments posted with a video when you link to it? )

-Andrew

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Er... I'm not sure what you mean by "static vid" but that's not entirely true.
-Andrew

i think he was saying the camera was shooting 30fps, and displaying 30fps on the monitor, but the DVR/VCR/whatever was only recording 1fps

makes sense

 

[Sir Knight]

OMG, go away for 14 hours, and there are 3.5 pagesof post....damn thats a lot of reading...

Sir Knight:

If you are asserting, which I think you are, that the US govt are the ones who put together and carried out 9/11, a complex and multilocationed event, and that they were powerful enough to keep anything significant about their role in it from leaking, than don't you find it, as we do, completely insane, that they could not then do something as simple as planting a few weapons of mass destruction in the large country of Iraq, to affirm in the eyes of the american people, the justification for the war?

Seriously. Since the war began, and no WMDs were found, Bush has fallen lower than any president in terms of approval. His entire admin is under the gun for it, and they may lose the next election as a result.

Yet, with all that, even now, NO WMD have turned up...compared to the skill, preparation, and deceit required for them to carry out 9/11, don't you think to plant a few of these things wouldn't be that hard????

Well one thing happened over here, where they have more control and access and the other happened over there. WMD is not something I guess your carry around in your suit case. LOL

And they probably didn't think they needed any real excuses and that everyone would take their word on it, and guess what, IT ALMOST WORKED. Next time they WILL PLANT SOMETHING I am sure of it.

They won't make the same mistake twice.

SK

P.S. Well for one thing I do THINK they messed up on a lot of things and some of it is geting out. But with so much disinformation also being leaked it hurts the real people from doing much with what they know.

 

[Pardalis]

Well one thing happened over here, where they have more control and access and the other happened over there. WMD is not something I guess your carry around in your suit case. LOL

And they probably didn't think they needed any real excuses and that everyone would take their word on it, and guess what, IT ALMOST WORKED. Next time they WILL PLANT SOMETHING I am sure of it.

They won't make the same mistake twice.

SK

Good thing we have you to notice all this. Geez, you have such insights into the White House, what would we do without you?!

 

[T.A.M.]

That is not good enough, in my opinion Sir Knight. they could plant something tomorrow, or yesterday, and almost all of america would buy it, but they haven't, and they have more than enough control over there now to at least do that.

And don't minimize things. If they have the almighty power you and others say they have, to carry out something as Huge as 9/11, I would say planting WMDs on the freakin moon would be within their power...

 

[defaultdotxbe]

everytime i see a post form sir knight i think of this, so i have to say it:

Arthur: You fight with the strength of many men, Sir Knight.
BK: [silence]
Arthur: I am Arthur, King of the Britons.
BK: [silence]
Arthur: I seek the finest and the bravest knights in the land to join me in my court at Camelot.
BK: [silence]
Arthur: You have proved yourself worthy. Will you join me?
BK: [silence]
Arthur: You make me sad. So be it. Come, Patsy!
BK: None shall pass.
Arthur: What?
BK: None shall pass!
Arthur: I have no quarrel with you, good Sir Knight, but I must cross this bridge!
BK: Then you shall die.
Arthur: I command you, as King of the Britons, to stand aside!
BK: I move for no man.
Arthur: So be it!
[They fight. Arthur chops off BK's arm]
Arthur: Now stand aside, worthy adversary.
BK: 'Tis but a scratch!
Arthur: A scratch?! Your arm's off!
BK: No, it isn't.
Arthur: Well what's that, then?
BK: ... I've had worse.
Arthur: You liar!
BK: Come on, you pansy!
[Fight continues, Arthur chops BK's other arm]
Arthur: Victory is mine! [kneels to pray] We thank thee, Lord, that in thy mercy--
[BK kicks Arthur's head]
BK: Come on then!
Arthur: What?!
BK: Have at you!
Arthur: You are indeed brave, good Sir Knight, but the fight is mine.
BK: Oooh, had enough, eh?
Arthur: Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left!
BK: Yes, I have!
Arthur: LOOK!!
BK: It's just a flesh wound!
[BK continues kicking]
Arthur: Look, stop that!
BK: Chicken! Chicken!!
Arthur: Look, I'll have your leg...
[still kicking]
Arthur: RIGHT!!!
[Arthur chops one of BK's legs]
BK: RIGHT! I'll do you for that!
Arthur: You'll what?!
BK: Come here!!
Arthur: What are you gonna do, bleed on me!?
BK: I'm invincible!!
Arthur: You're a looney.
BK: The Black Knight always triumphs! Have at you!! Come on then!
[Arthur chops the other leg]
BK: All right....we'll call it a draw.
Arthur: Come, Patsy!
BK: Ooh, I see. Running away, eh? You yellow bastards!! Come back here and take what's coming to you! I'll bite your legs off!!

 

[Sir Knight]

Sir Knight didn't make it clear, but to be fair to him he was quoting the blurb that went with the youtube video of the pentagon hit, rather than expressing an opinion of his own.

He did not indicate if he agreed with their views or not, though he seems rather put out that I ignored them (is it normal requirement to recount the comments posted with a video when you link to it? )

-Andrew

Well considering that you tried to get the video to answer my question I posted, you failed to mention that even the person that had examined the video extremely well didn't find it all that conclusive and pointed out facts in the film the would strongly suggest that it was or might be FAKE. No, you go on to suggest that it would SHOW me the plane which I was looking for and it doesn't. And I doubt seriously that it is the original untouched video, especially after what was posted along side of it.
And even he states there are witness on both sides, well I am sure the GOV put in a few of their own to make sure someone said what they wanted. They usually do, and I speak from personal experience.

It is far from what I asked for. So I still say SHOW ME THE PLANE.

SK

 

[Sir Knight]

That is not good enough, in my opinion Sir Knight. they could plant something tomorrow, or yesterday, and almost all of america would buy it, but they haven't, and they have more than enough control over there now to at least do that.

And don't minimize things. If they have the almighty power you and others say they have, to carry out something as Huge as 9/11, I would say planting WMDs on the freakin moon would be within their power...

First of all they DID PLANT WMD's, they did it to the PUBLIC in their minds to get us to go over there and fight without a big objection and it worked. We were already over there by the time they had to admit there weren't any. So, they planted WMD in our minds, not mine actually as I knew there wasn't any, so we would NOT object for them going over there. The horse was already out of the barn so did they actually need any WMD? No they got what they wanted, the backlash of finding out their data was faulty was more than they expected in the public eye, so they were surprised, most crooks get a surprise now and again.

They get what they want but not always exactly how they want it.

Now I never said they had ultimate power, I suggested maybe they are working to that end, but they haven't got it yet. They are well within the ability to pull of this 9/11 thing, you are fooling yourself to think they can't.

SK

 

[gumboot]

Well considering that you tried to get the video to answer my question I posted, you failed to mention that even the person that had examined the video extremely well didn't find it all that conclusive and pointed out facts in the film the would strongly suggest that it was or might be FAKE.

Do you have poor reading comprehension? I don't care what their opinion is of the video. I'll make up my own opinion.

I wasn't using it to "answer your question" I was using it to demonstrate that there is NO WAY that footage would capture AA77 in any form that would make it identifiable as an aircraft.

I did the calculations to demonstrate my findings.

No, you go on to suggest that it would SHOW me the plane which I was looking for and it doesn't.

At which point did I suggest that?

And I doubt seriously that it is the original untouched video, especially after what was posted along side of it.

I've seen many many versions of the same clip.

And even he states there are witness on both sides, well I am sure the GOV put in a few of their own to make sure someone said what they wanted.

Please cite the testimony of ONE SINGLE WITNESS who claims to have seen something other than a commercial passenger plane. JUST ONE.

It is far from what I asked for. So I still say SHOW ME THE PLANE.

Two can play at this. I still say THE SECURITY CAMERA IS NOT CAPABLE OF CAPTURING AN AIRLINER TRAVELLING AT 500MPH WITH ENOUGH CLARITY TO IDENTIFY IT.

Got it?

Gravy has posted you a mountain of evidence of AA77 in The Pentagon.

I can only add the personal account of a good friend of my father's, whose office was hit by AA77. He described the following things all consistant with AA77 hitting The Pentagon:
1) Airliner wreckage
2) The smell of kerosene
3) Flash burns (this are distinct, and you only get them from hydrocarbon fuel fireballs, not from high explosives)

-Andrew

 

[T.A.M.]

so you don't think that they could pull off planting a few simple chemical weapons over there, but you think they could pull off 9/11...that is illogical.

And as to what you seem to be indicating would be a lack of motive, for them, I disagree. Even though they, according to you, purposely lied to go there, you are then saying that they simply sucked it up and took it on the noggin with respect to public opinion, creating the worse numbers the administration has ever had, and putting their continuance of power in serious jeopardy, by way of likely losing to the Democrats in 2008 because of the war. They could have bolstered their approval, and avoided or at least minimized the affect on the polls and potential re-election, by simply planting a few chemical weapons here, a few there...It is simply illogical.

Seems to me that any group so obsessed with power over the people, and maintaining that power, would do everything they could to keep it, not jeopardize their future control by making themselves look horrible in the eyes of the public who elects or ejects them. A few little WMDs would have done it...and so easy to do...

 

[delphi_ote]

Well one thing happened over here, where they have more control and access and the other happened over there. WMD is not something I guess your carry around in your suit case. LOL

And they probably didn't think they needed any real excuses and that everyone would take their word on it, and guess what, IT ALMOST WORKED. Next time they WILL PLANT SOMETHING I am sure of it.

They won't make the same mistake twice.

SK

P.S. Well for one thing I do THINK they messed up on a lot of things and some of it is geting out. But with so much disinformation also being leaked it hurts the real people from doing much with what they know.

I'm curious. Is there some psychosomatic block that blinds and protects you from evidence that would shatter your world view or are you just too lazy to read and respond to Gravy's post?

ETA Your posts are becoming more incoherent and paranoid by the hour. Please talk to your family, get some support, and then seek professional help.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

so you don't think that they could pull off planting a few simple chemical weapons over there, but you think they could pull off 9/11...that is illogical.

he says you cant just bring WMDs over in a suitcase, but the thing is....you can

the smallest nuke is a mere 50 pounds, chemical and biological weapons come in even smaller packages, theres no reason they couldnt arrange to find a vial of anthrax or sarin on saddam when they captured him

 

[Sir Knight]

Sir Knight didn't make it clear, but to be fair to him he was quoting the blurb that went with the youtube video of the pentagon hit, rather than expressing an opinion of his own.

He did not indicate if he agreed with their views or not, though he seems rather put out that I ignored them (is it normal requirement to recount the comments posted with a video when you link to it? )

-Andrew

What really ticks me off is that people on here ARE NOT READING WHAT I TYPE, this is a prime example of what I am talking about. The guy you are having to spell something out to didn't read what I said, for I did say what I was going to post and why. If he had read carefully instead of jumping the gun he would have known that, but it is more fun to jump me and beat on me than READ what I actually said and WHY I said it.

you guys go off half cocked and take short excerpts, ignor important facts or other peoples statements, even including those that carefully examined and give you what you are using to try to prove your point, and the people you are LEAVING OUT of the equation are more qualified and more informed than you are. But what they have to say about what you are attemtping to twist is not important?

You are doing exactly what you are accusing the LC people of doing but doing it much worse than you accuse them of doing and doing a terrible job of it at best.

And you wonder why I just don't drop my tousers and show you mine?

LOL, you wouldn't take the time to even read it before twisting it into something else. I will find the right people to share with, those that THINK BEFORE RIPPING APART, those that consider FACTS BEFORE BS.

I possibly will share it with someone on here, maybe I met some real people we shall see.

But tomorrow I am meeting with someone in real life and I mean eye to eye and will show them what I have. I met with them to day and he is willing to review things and I trust him. He just isn't anyone either, he isn't surprised by what I have on the contrary, he was more informed than I was about many things for very specific reasons.

Anyway, good night people

Have fun but I wonder what you must dream about when you are asleep because from what I see from what you mostly post you must be dreaming now if you think you can change my mind from what you say. Your shouting and accusations just don't bother me, not for the reasons you think, I was just frustrated for the most part but I have found some people here are not quite like you mouthy ones. you sound like Politicians for the most part not real people that would welcome anyone with the truth.

I have not lied about anything and one day you will know that to be a fact, one way or another you will know, maybe not the way you want, and maybe you won't like it when you see/hear it, and maybe you will just wish it away once again. no one can make you accept anything, not even the truth, that is sometihng I learned a long time ago. People who like lies like living in lies. Say that 10 times fast. LOL

 

[SRW]

everytime i see a post form sir knight i think of this, so i have to say it:

I have asked him already how much he pays Patsy to bang the coconuts together, and he refuses to answer. I do not think he is a real Sir Knight at all.