9/11 Poll

Use some common sense Scott. If you are able to take your hollywood spectacles off for just a minute, you would understand that they were working off preliminary reports about how the FDNY were expecting the building to collapse or misunderstood that it had already collapsed.

Do you really expect the NWO to tell the media that they were going to demolish the building? Absolute nonsense.

Well.. you tin-hatters think Larry admitted to demolishing the building on national TV, so you are a creature of shameful opportunism.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

lol. That's the thing scott, you actually think Obama is calling the shots! It's not him, it's the international bankers, the CFR, the trilateral commission, the bilderburgers, etc. And of course you think he's better. But "they" know that, they conducted polls. They know everyone in America feels that way, that's why they put him in there. . . b/c things were getting pretty hot, so they needed a pressure valve, something to take the heat off, to make the people happy. Don't you think they were aware of how many people wanted Bush impeached? Don't you think they were aware of how many people KNEW 9/11 was bullshit? How do you keep the country from boiling over after staging a coop, stealing the 2004 election, killing 4000 of your own people, starting two pre-emptive wars, initiating a depression, tanking the dollar, stealing two(one?) nuclear war heads (their still out their floating around unaccounted for you know), spreading anthrax, getting caught trying to create a flu pandemic. . . the list goes on and on. . . I GOT IT!!! YOU distract them and cool them all off by "allowing" the first black man to get elected president!

He's just a distraction. I just wish people would IGNORE the man, and pay attention to the policies. I'm telling you, IT DOESN"T MATTER WHO IS IN THE OVAL OFFICE. You keep saying one is better than the other. I'm saying it doesn't matter. It's like trying to debate whether Hitler or Stalin is better if your a Pole during WWII!

But you know what? I'm beginning to think I'm wrong. I think now that maybe it would have been better HAD McCain won. Maybe you wouldn't be so blind and sheepish to what is actually going on. You really don't get that both party's politicians and parties are OWNED. They both do exactly what they are told.

I WISH people would PRETEND that W. was the man that was still in the oval office. You know? Imagine that for a moment. Mmmmm. ... yes. Close your eyes, are you doing it? I am. Can you see it now? Not a whole lot of difference in policies right now is there? lol Nope, no difference, not a once. Git-mo, still the same. Iraq, still the same. Afghanistan, still the same. Banking and Financial policies? Identical. Trade? Identical. EVERYTHING, IDENTICAL.

Well, ok, the Supreme Court make up might look a little different, but you know what? The elites don't give a crap too much about social policy, you know why? Because they control social policy through what is programmed in movies and on TV. And those Studio Execs and Media Moguls are also part of the CFR. Lol Your minds are all OWNED Muahahahahh. Well. . . . unless you get rid of your TV and quit going to the movies.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Am I missing something or did you just out yourself as a tin-hatter?

 

Get with the times Kenny; even the last government body to investigate the JFK assassination now admits that Oswald couldn't have done it alone. If you read books by the likes of Jim Marrs' Crossfire, or even taken the time to see Oliver Stone's movie JFK, starring Kevin Costner as the detective and based on Jim Marrs' book as well as another, you would realize how unlikely it is that Oswald could have fired at JFK at all.

 

I think it's a combination.

Not everyone in America felt that way on election day and not everyone feels that now. I do believe a majority does however, and I'm certainly in that majority.

Perhaps. But "if it makes you happy, it can't be that bad" (that line comes from a song ;-)).

Again, maybe so. In the case of JFK, I've heard that some, such as certain mafia members, felt that he had double crossed him, and many weren't happy with his decision concerning the bay of pigs, as well as his rapprochement with Russia. If Obama makes strong enemies, he might suffer a similar fate. Then again, he might pull a Clinton without the scandal and do relatively well. I still maintain that I believe his administration is a marked improvement over the Bush administration.

I don't see it that way.

You make it sound like one has to choose to do one thing or the other. I choose to pay attention both to the man and to his administrations' policies.

I disagree.

We've established our disagreement, yes ;-).

I wouldn't even compare George W. Bush to those 2. Did he use some methods that were similar to Hitler, say? Sure. But while it tried to buck the growing trend for international consensus, in the end, it came back to the table licking its wounds. Did it do a lot of damage in the meantime? Sure. But I'm sure that most countries would never compare it to Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia.

McCain seems much more owned than Obama. Now I'm not saying that the power elites couldn't take him out if they wanted to; he's not a king. However, I do believe he can be part of the elite himself.

The following is from the book 9/11 and American Empire: Intelectuals Speak Out. It's an excerpt from a chapter written by Peter Phillips with Bridget Thornton and Celeste Volger titled Parameters of Power in the Global Dominance Group: 9/11 & Election Irregularities in Context...

The higher-circle policy elites (HCPE) are a segment of the American upper class and are the principal decision-makers in society. While having an overall sense of "we-ness", they tend to have continuing disagreements on specific policies and necessary actions in various socio-political circumstances.6 These disagreements can block aggressive reactionary responses to social movements and civil unrest, as in the case of the labor movement in the 1930s and the civil rights movement in the 1960s. During these two periods the more liberal elements of HCPE tended to dominate the decision-making process and supported passing the National Labor Relations and Social Security Acts in 1935, as well as the Civil Rights and Economic Opportunities Acts in 1964. These pieces of national legislation were seen as concessions to the ongoing social movements and civil unrest and were implemented without instituting more repressive policies.

On the other hand, during perriods of threats by external enemies in World Wars I and II, the HCPE were more consolidated. In these periods, more conservative/reactionary elements of the HCPE were able to push their agendas more forcefully. During and after World War I, the United States instituted repressive responses to social movements through the Palmer Raids and the passage of the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918. After World War II, the McCarthy-era attacks on liberals and radicals and the passage in 1947 of the National Security Act and the anti-labor Taft-Hartley Act were allowed and encouraged by the HCPE.​

They then go on to talk of a subset of the HCPE, which they label the Global Dominance Group, and which they believe was responsible for 9/11. But a subset is not the whole.

Obama wants to close it down, but congress dragging its feet.

Other then there leaving the cities and towns tomorrow, shortly before Bush left, we had McCain going on about possibly being there for 100 years. Now, the withdrawal date is set for 2011.

Everyone who was paying attention knew before the election that Obama wanted to reinforce the troops in Afghanistan, not draw them down. I've never said that Obama was perfect, but he made no bones about his stance concerning this issue well before he was elected.

Saying it doesn't make it so. I wasn't very impressed with his handling of the banks, but atleast he's on the right track in regards to Iraq.

I believe that the mass media ignoring or at best ridiculing theories that don't coincide with the official 9/11 story to be pretty bad. However, I sincerely don't think that they're "controlling" me when I watch T.V. or movies. I just make sure to watch stuff I consider to be good. Incidentally, I haven't had cable for more than a year, so I don't exactly watch a lot of T.V.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. I haven't watched all that many movies either, although I did recently see some animes that I really liked...

 

What's your source for this?

I'm pretty sure you quoted Jim Marrs 9/11 work which was like taking candy from a baby as far as debunking goes... so why would his JFK bullshit be any better?

A movie that is apparently filled with inaccuracies and thing which blatantly didn't happen.

Basically, you will believe anything Scott, that much is clear. I'm more interested in hearing of Trippy's evidence.

So how about it Trippy?

 

That was a stupid movie which took great and obvious liberties with historical facts.

 

I'm still chuckling to think anyone would find an Oliver Stone film to be a history lesson. That is so funny. I'm staggered by my laughter.

I remember as a kid seeing a 60 Minutes show in which they tested some of the ideas of the assassination. They put the Zapruder film through a test in which the frames were analyzed. Points were plotted and acceleration curves drawn. The impacts came from the front, not the back. In another test sharpshooters from the TX state police were asked to shoot at a car on a track from a vantage point to replicate the shooting conditions for Oswald. All of the sharpshooters had sufficient time to take 3 shots. Something the woo woos of the day said was impossible. All sharpshooters hit, missed, and hit. That's what Oswald did. Funny how tests turn out some times.

I got to stop now I'm still chuckling.

 

nope, you didn't miss a thing, he declared himself as a perfectly sane, reasonable, rational adult that has seen the zapruder film and seen Kennedy's head impacting BACKWARD's, while OSWALD was positioned BEHIND Kennedy.

Hey, Welcome to the world of basic textbook physics 101 Kenny! (minutes 4:30-6:50)

 

What proof do you have of this?

 

As pointed out to you, the point at hand was steel being recycled before the many experts got to investigate it.

It is a lot of work to have any debate with you as you manage to avoid any point being made.

lol There was a week where I wasn’t on sciforums and I missed about five of your posts in a row. Since then you have avoided far more of mine and every time I mention one you complain about that week last year. So I actually went back and looked at the posts you keep citing. The majority of the points were you asking headspin or Tony to answer for you. There was barely anything to respond to. You have avoided my posts numerous times Scott.

Yes but accusing me of dodging a point because you couldn’t be bothered reading my post is a bit rich.

See Kenny’s post.

We have done this to death. He was not talking about molten steel. He clarifies in another quote. But if you actually want his opinion why don’t you quit cherry picking comments and read his report? It supports the official story and was peer reviewed I believe. I’m talking about actual peer review.

That’s idiotic.

1. This has yet to be demonstrated. 2. There would have been other evidence.

It has been demonstrated that an office fire can weaken unprotected steel.

lol

I wasn't making a generalised comment on 9/11 I was talking specifically about why the investigation did not look further for incendiaries.

Yeah I’ll bet. He has such a good track record.

1. Read Kenny’s post. 2. You shifted the subject again. You were claiming that the steel found which experienced erosion was most likely cause by thermite. You can’t back this up with more than random links to documents on thermite.

 

Ok Scott, I guess most of our disagreements on this, like before, will just have to wait and see. The fact is Scott, if you go over ALL his broken campaign promises, I don't have to wait and see, I judge a man based on all his lies. You? Apparently still are suffering from the fever of obamaitis.

With 9/11, the media repeated something often enough, and people believed it. Now, they are doing the same with Obama, and YOU are falling for the same trick, repeating back to me what I have already heard from the media. I don't need to hear it any more than you need to hear the excuses for how the official 9/11 story is real.

Here: these are the lies. If you STILL want to believe the NWO spokesman before he stages the next terrorist attack, be my guest. But for my money, comparing Bush to a Hitler or a Stalin is apt when he allows the destruction of his own people and then launches a two preemptive resource wars based on it killing and displacing millions. Obama is no better b/c he is continuing them, and, I have a sneaking suspicion, there will be another terrorist attack, in all likelihood it will be cyber-based, so they can shut down the internet. And it will be a false flag as well, and an excuse to round more people up and take away their freedom.

What Obama's done in Iraq? W. had already started, he's not doing anything different that wasn't already planned. McCain was just being honest about what we are going to do there in the long run, and the is have a permanent presence like we have in Korea. It is a resource war for oil in the middle east, totally unpredictable. We have no plans to let our hegemony go of those oil fields, the ones in Kuwait, or the ones in Saudi Arabi. If they are threatened? There will be more violence. If Israel Launches strikes at Iran, more violence. Mr. McCain was just being honest in a way that Mr. Obama has not the ability to be.

 

sure boss, lighten up, just keepen' it friendly and joken around. :thumbsup: