|
|
Post by earnest on Jul 28, 2015 20:28:04 GMT -5
Well looks like the lizard lords haven't quite got down to business - the tag cloud reveals all.  It's a trap!  .. they publish just enough to lure in those sincerely curious about the real truth so they can id and track them. Now you've got me scared... Maybe my $85 EMF protector pendant is not so protective after all!!!  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 28, 2015 20:40:50 GMT -5
It's a trap! .. they publish just enough to lure in those sincerely curious about the real truth so they can id and track them. Now you've got me scared... Maybe my $85 EMF protector pendant is not so protective after all!!! Those things are another means of reptillian control ... they're bugged! It's very hard though because if you try to destroy it or throw it away they'll know and replace the tracking device in your sleep. The only way around it is to clone yourself and surreptitiously foist the pendant off on the unsuspecting duplicate. I've heard that there's an Albanian syndicate who specializes in this work. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2015 8:27:40 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2015 8:58:06 GMT -5
"something is not a secret just because you don't know about it"  fare the well JS, you will be missed
and best of luck young Trevor  |
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Jul 30, 2015 15:24:13 GMT -5
New Dawn is not a conspiracy magazine. It consistently contains articles from a wide range of topics other than conspiracies. Ok, maybe it's different now. When I used to read it 20 years ago it seemed to be heavily focused on conspiracy stuff. Perhaps it would help you perceive and judge reality more accurately if you updated your database of past knowledge with information from the present, the Now....in this case, even a decade ago. A quick search reveals that even way back in 2005, New Dawn was not primarily a conspiracy magazine. And i just read an article on the beginnings of New Dawn, and how the first year's article were about politics and big business, big brother, the new world order type things. Though not specified, the author of this article stated that after the first year, the publishers could see their readers wanted to read of other subjects, so unless i send an email off to the publishers for the facts, i theorize New Dawn had a broad spectrum of subject matter within the first couple of years of publication. With that said, you and Envy Adams can continue with your business of immaturely mocking that which you do not like or agree with. From the article... |
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Jul 30, 2015 15:50:57 GMT -5
You see, my interest ends where the cray-cray begins. My interest here is in the extremes, because of what they reveal about the person with the extreme views. Then your interest has not ceased as you are still here in this thread. Though you have made it clear you have no interest in discussing the topic. You're only interest is to mock and deride and to enjoy yourself as you do these things, and when confronted, respond with your usual diversionary messed up arguments to prove to others you are innocent...and i have already stated i will not allocate any serious amount of time arguing with you, as all this will do is clutter up the thread with your nonsense. Threads remain on topic when you and others like you are simply ignored, and i only respond when you say really really dumb things, though i figure that's what you need to do to get people to respond to you. I agree, while my interest is to discuss the intricate elements within conspiracies, it is a side interest to see you and others like you reveal your natures\attitudes by your "extremes". |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 30, 2015 16:06:21 GMT -5
You see, my interest ends where the cray-cray begins. My interest here is in the extremes, because of what they reveal about the person with the extreme views. Then your interest has not ceased as you are still here in this thread. Though you have made it clear you have no interest in discussing the topic. You're only interest is to mock and deride and to enjoy yourself as you do these things, and when confronted, respond with your usual diversionary messed up arguments to prove to others you are innocent...and i have already stated i will not allocate any serious amount of time arguing with you, as all this will do is clutter up the thread with your nonsense. Threads remain on topic when you and others like you are simply ignored, and i only respond when you say really really dumb things, though i figure that's what you need to do to get people to respond to you. I agree, while my interest is to discuss the intricate elements within conspiracies, it is a side interest to see you and others like you reveal your natures\attitudes by your "extremes". My ridicule of the cray-cray and the cray-cray crew is absolutely on topic and you are demonstrably incorrect, I have very specifically written about the events of 9/11. You not allocating serious time to our dialog is more than fine with me, but you never answered the direct and simple question: do you agree with andy's opinion that there is uncertainty as to whether or not each tower was struck by a 767 that day? You see, you make this claim that I'm not interested in discussing the underlying topic, but all you do in your replies is spew out a steady stream of insulting rants. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 30, 2015 16:46:51 GMT -5
The word 'proof' in the title is too strong, but there is much evidence that casts doubt on whether the 767 hit the building. I suspect providing a long video would be pointless, so here is a 5 minute one. For more comprehensive information patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.html |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 1, 2015 0:46:57 GMT -5
The word 'proof' in the title is too strong, but there is much evidence that casts doubt on whether the 767 hit the building. I suspect providing a long video would be pointless, so here is a 5 minute one. For more comprehensive information patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.htmlIt's nice to see that you're consistent in that you morph in this dialog the same way you morph the existential and forum-politics dialogs: Whether actual planes were involved I'm not sure |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Aug 1, 2015 2:14:37 GMT -5
The word 'proof' in the title is too strong, but there is much evidence that casts doubt on whether the 767 hit the building. I suspect providing a long video would be pointless, so here is a 5 minute one. For more comprehensive information patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.htmlIt's nice to see that you're consistent in that you morph in this dialog the same way you morph the existential and forum-politics dialogs: Whether actual planes were involved I'm not sure They could be drones. It could be a 'missile'. Those are examples that are not 'actual planes'. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 1, 2015 2:29:58 GMT -5
It's nice to see that you're consistent in that you morph in this dialog the same way you morph the existential and forum-politics dialogs: They could be drones. It could be a 'missile'. Those are examples that are not 'actual planes'. Also nice to see that your word-lawyering propensities cross dialog-type boundaries as well.  Morphing and word-lawyering are both specific forms of rationalized self-justification. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Aug 1, 2015 2:31:57 GMT -5
They could be drones. It could be a 'missile'. Those are examples that are not 'actual planes'. Also nice to see that your word-lawyering propensities cross dialog-type boundaries as well. Morphing and word-lawyering are both specific forms of rationalized self-justification. It's pretty obvious to most that a missile is not an 'actual plane'. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 1, 2015 2:44:52 GMT -5
Also nice to see that your word-lawyering propensities cross dialog-type boundaries as well. Morphing and word-lawyering are both specific forms of rationalized self-justification. It's pretty obvious to most that a missile is not an 'actual plane'. So are you not sure that it was a drone or a missile? A drone is an "actual plane". What hit each tower had wings, and missiles don't have wings. And as far as them not being the 767's that were reported -- that's really a deep enough bunny hole as to hit the cray-cray threshold. That would mean that either the flights the airlines reported missing were hoaxes (including the families of the dead passengers and all the public information about them prior-to the date) or those planes were diverted or otherwise destroyed in a separate action. I've been to that NEADs facility that scrambled the fighter jets that day and tracked each flight. It's on the base that I worked at for 9 years and was a source of data I used in my projects. There are hundreds of airmen that work there and a substantial number of them would have had to have been in on this.  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Aug 1, 2015 3:21:24 GMT -5
It's pretty obvious to most that a missile is not an 'actual plane'. So are you not sure that it was a drone or a missile? A drone is an "actual plane". What hit each tower had wings, and missiles don't have wings. And as far as them not being the 767's that were reported -- that's really a deep enough bunny hole as to hit the cray-cray threshold. That would mean that either the flights the airlines reported missing were hoaxes (including the families of the dead passengers and all the public information about them prior-to the date) or those planes were diverted or otherwise destroyed in a separate action. I've been to that NEADs facility that scrambled the fighter jets that day and tracked each flight. It's on the base that I worked at for 9 years and was a source of data I used in my projects. There are hundreds of airmen that work there and a substantial number of them would have had to have been in on this. In speaking specifically of 'actual planes', we are distinguishing between 'actual planes' and 'not-actual planes'. A drone/missile is a not-actual plane. I'm not going to comment on your speculations, because my only reason for posting the video and information was to show that there is legitimate uncertainty. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 1, 2015 3:42:04 GMT -5
So are you not sure that it was a drone or a missile? A drone is an "actual plane". What hit each tower had wings, and missiles don't have wings. And as far as them not being the 767's that were reported -- that's really a deep enough bunny hole as to hit the cray-cray threshold. That would mean that either the flights the airlines reported missing were hoaxes (including the families of the dead passengers and all the public information about them prior-to the date) or those planes were diverted or otherwise destroyed in a separate action. I've been to that NEADs facility that scrambled the fighter jets that day and tracked each flight. It's on the base that I worked at for 9 years and was a source of data I used in my projects. There are hundreds of airmen that work there and a substantial number of them would have had to have been in on this. In speaking specifically of 'actual planes', we are distinguishing between 'actual planes' and 'not-actual planes'. A drone/missile is a not-actual plane. I'm not going to comment on your speculations, because my only reason for posting the video and information was to show that there is legitimate uncertainty.  my speculations?? Play whatever word games you want now to justify your past comment on the uncertainty as to whether "actual planes" were involved, it's obviously a very silly game of self-justification by rationalization. yer takin' liberties with "legitimate" there son. |
|
my speculations??