Where will we get TV shows if...

new new new!!!

luckily nothing happened last time though the signs were ominous.
hopefully nothing will happen this time either. the below is not written by
myself but i have heavily pruned it, it is anonymous.

the highlights are: 911 and the 7-7 bombings in london just happened to coincide
with drills of exactly those scenarios, so here is a drill you may want to take
note of.
note: the 911 drill was called vigilant guardian, remember that

it's called topoff and happens on the 16th of october, primarily it's a dirty
bomb attack on portland although similar attacks are supposed to take place in
phoenix az, guam, somewhere near the east coast of canada, london, australia,
and i think new zealand. (in portland 15k emergency workers alone)

http://www.dhs.gov/xprepresp/training/gc_1179430526487.shtm
http://www.dhs.gov/xprepresp/training/gc_1179350946764.shtm

you know that 'accident' where 5-6 (but who's counting) nuclear warheads were
somehow released and somehow placed on the wing of a b-52 and flown over the
country (us). http://www.oregontruthalliance.org/?q=node/123

you at it again 'fan... spouting your typical american bigotry and hatred?

i'll bet you don't even have the first clue as to why your government tells you
to hate communism.

frog1234... carry on, i could read this stuff all day long (not that it isn't all
obvious to a blind man. 🙂)

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

hehehehehehe
how funny is that!

i'm not gonna say i agree with everything that frog said, but i feel like he
needs someone at least slightly on his side, seems like everyone here couldn't
possibly imagine that the us government could ever been involved with a shady
plot to secure it's economic growth...

i don't claim to know all the facts, but i would say that the bush
administration stood to gain a lot by the events of 9/11 and the path that it
led down. i wouldn't put it past a man like bush/bush snr. to conceive and
act out a grand scheme like this in the name of power and money.

all things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the right one.

however good a statement that may be, something tending to be correct is not
proven to be true 100% of the time. if people didn't go round asking
questions, and probing 'truths' that have been shoved in our faces then we
might still believe that smoking is good for a sore throat, or that the sun
revolves around the earth. it is human nature to examine conjecture until the
truth can be proven with no doubt.

frog has doubt about the ci rcumstances surrounding 9/11, i don't really
know
what to think about the events surrounding that day, but you'd be a fool to
just blindly take an official government statement and all the 'media'
coverage to be the whole truth.

personally i'm glad that there are people out there who delve into the
evidence that contradicts the official statements, and while they might be
wrong, it certainly raises some interesting questions about who really stood
to gain the most from 9/11.

well done man. this guys whole site is absolute gold.
though i am wondering if it was written by 'god' judgeing by the homepages
opening statement 😉

fridgist, you are absolutely correct. people must delve to find the truth.
and i am sure that there are many out there that don't blindly believe what
their media and government spoon feeds them. all of which is good.

however, people like carnifx take things to extremes, and definately don't help
their own cause any. by simple attacking people, their credibility goes right
out the window. they sound like raving lunatics.

now look at the difference. you have stated quite clearly that you don't
dissagree with his points of view. but by being rational and not attacking,
people are more willing to listen and not attack in return.

yeah he's awesome. i thought 'god' had adopted a similar style to maddox with
his ranting about tamagotchi's a while back; although i dare say maddox writes
with more elegance and style 😛

how odd. i've just watched zietgiest the film. had an amazing clip in it from
network 1976.

as for that site. any place that slates the mum and dad piece of steaming dog
poo, the i-phone (and it's cousin the i-pod) is fab in my book.

i looked at maddox's page on 911 and i won't argue with his logic, if you agree
with it fine go ahead.

but to ok argue with it anyway, what is he suggesting, that the government would
have looked less suspicious if they had killed everyone who released web
pages/video/radio asking tricky questions about 911, that is an awful lot of
hits to order and is going to look very very suspicious.

and so what? the answer is that they should have killed anyone who spoke up and
so if you don't hear any evidence it's a conspiracy then it must be a conspiracy?

don't actually bother with the evidence, white it all of with a simple piece of
flawed logic.

others say the they can't have really done it because the evidence is too obvious.
well the same happens where con artists have so much contempt for their victims
they will pull some bald face stuff.
but if when the evidence is right there and everyone answers 'they couldn't be
that dumb' or 'it would be in the papers' they fail to realize their reaction is
why it isn't in the papers and why such bald faced stuff works and has been
shown to work time and time again and immortalized in similar stories such as of
the emperors new clothes etc...

now i am hardly going to buy the lame book videoopiate mentioned but do you
expect to find a fair assessment from a book titled 'debunking 9/11 myths'?

oh, well videoopiate please tell me, since you have read the book was it
explained why the flash occurs on all cameras and all angles of all videos of
both planes hitting?

btw it can't be a reflection because a reflection could only be bright for one
camera angle, for something to be bright for all angles light must be generated
at the spot (or otherwise piped in by fibre optics or a laser burning a target).

there are lots of such questions i can ask and there is a huge list i had in
another thread, something tells me that almost none of those will be even
vaguely adequately addressed by the book you have read.

i want to say separately that the reason i posted was because while i consider
it most likely nothing will happen any fair assessment of the signs in the first
post will lead to at least some awareness that there are a few too many signs to
just brush aside is inconsequential.

and as i said a false flag operation only works if enough people will buy it
obviously and so it is possible that if there is enough internet chatter it
might have to be canceled, postponed or...

now i don't consider it likely that this will be the straw that breaks such a
camels back, nor am i sure in this case there is any camel but if there is a 1%
chance there is a camel (read the post and tell me you think there isn't any
chance, and if you tell me there isn't any chance then you are probably close
minded regarding the possibility of any such thing except historically) and if
there is a 1% chance there is a camel then how can i not do my bit and post the
evidence and encourage others to do so as well.
maybe there is one chance in 1,000 that this will be the straw, one in 100,000
chance of stopping a nuclear war, i'll take it.

by the way half of new yorkers believe us leaders had foreknowledge of impending
9-11
attacks and

may i just say most ppl act moronic about this.

everybody with half a brain can see there is something wrong with the official
story so just plain believing is seriously retarded no matter which side does
the actual believing.
whether or not any government had anything to do with it is of no interest when
it comes to the question if you really know the truth and i'm pretty sure i
don't so my best guess is no one here knows what exactly went down or what is
still going on.

the only thing this all is usually based on, is the fact that america got what
it wanted a 'war' and a new enemy...
honestly this would have happened either way - opportunistic or intentional not
a single one of you dorks knows which one it was!

---

so to all the conspiracy nerds have you ever heard of deliberate misinformation,
which is not even necessary thx to you. making up a lot of theories without
prove is the worst thing to do - not a single sane person will believe you!

and to all the fox news believers. use whats left of your brain and stop
believing everything you see and hear. your mama is no virgin either!

oh, and why am i so upset?

this is so the wrong place for this.. god damn it. (i didn't bump the thread btw)

are you retarded?
the laser or fibre optic were examples of possible exceptions to my claim that
the light must be created at that point, both are totally impossible in this
case, the flash is very clear very real and happens before the plane hit and is
seen by all cameras leading both crashes.

the pod though clearly present and in the wrong place and too prominent and seen
from too many angles not to be real but it is not as unequivocal as the flash.

there was an unprecedented power down and installation of something and the bomb
sniffing dogs were not allowed back in after.
and squib blasts can be plainly seen.

but no, it doesn't take that long to have a building collapse engineered,
implode neatly into it's footprint will take longer but the wtc didn't.
the flaw such arguments have is they claim that military or explosive equipment
and cutting of supports is not able to bring down a building but a touch of jet
fuels and it's a house of cards ready to collapse at freefall speeds.

also it would be easy to spend even months or years under guise of engineering
to gut a support here and there not that i believe that's how they did it as
they didn't need to.

this is how willing they are to believe a lie.
plane fuel fire = collapse
plane fuel fire + explosives + cutting supports = no collapse?

the levels where the squib blasts occur are far far below when the building is
being compressed and happen at just isolated spots and not at windows. (enough
force to appear as a powerful explosive but at the next pane not enough to budge
it?)
however if the lamest answer on earth is found those who want to believe it will.

look at building 7, not only is a reporter telling us it has collapsed (and she
didn't get the number wrong as she calls it by it's full name) while it plainly
stands in the background out the window she stands at. but other video shows
squib blasting off in neat patterns coming from wall before the building starts
moving, clearly the cause of the collapse.

also with 1 and 2 the squibs naturally lead the destruction and in some cases by
more floors than i care to count but with wtc 7 the squibs are the first sign
anything is wrong.


incidentally i have had actually intelligent people in denial say that the desks
and chairs and occice equipment and plaster boards have to be removed for
controlled demolition.
what, do they think that stuff is going to keep it up?
those in denial and sufficiently dishonest with themselves will believe
anything, evidence is graded on a slope so steep nothing could make them believe.

so videoopiate, what would it take for you to believe?