Massage Adagio

The Obama Deception: Alex Jones

FortunateOne

Banned
Jan 29, 2008
1,693
10
0
vancouver
Theres a big difference between The Onion and AP, Reuters, NY Times, Times of London, Armytimes etc.......
Yes, but there is a big difference between any balanced and unbalanced reporting venue. It takes a great deal more effort not to be swayed so completely by any of these sources. If you haven't seen it, touched it, heard it with your own senses, then it is all bs. What happens when you so valiantly support someone or something, and find out later it was all lies? I am sure this has happened to you in your personal life with a person or persons who you actually know. Everyone has had this happen to them at one time. Why do you need to believe someone you don't even know so much?

The scientists in the past had scientific "facts" to "prove" the earth was flat. Keep that in mind every time people on the internet, radio or tv want to get you to believe something. I've seen infomericals verifying the benefits of certain creams and potions, all false and misleading. But they have "proof", so that's enough in your mind to pick up the phone and order some now?

A healthy amount of scepticism is important in dealing with everything.

A closed mind cannot learn.
 

HankQuinlan

I dont re Member
Sep 7, 2002
1,744
6
0
victoria
That's great footage, but you wonder why is was totally left out of the 9/11 Commission Report? Especially with the fact that no steel building in history has ever collapsed from fire.
The point is that it doesn't matter. It is just another page on the internet, with a bunch of facts and links.

Here's another one, responding to your "fact" that states that the "fact" is not at all a fact.

http://forthardknox.com/2008/01/25/steel-buildings-that-collapsed-due-to-fire-before-9-11/

It too is just another page on the internet that provides an answer. You can google back and forth to determine whether it seems to be true or not, by checking the "facts" presented about other steel buildings collapsing from fire. It just doesn't matter.

The real thing is that it is just one small point, and it doesn't have anything to do with the big question of why one would believe a whole theory that makes no logical sense? Think about why people want to believe these things.

Once again, the Fortunate One demonstrates common sense in her post above.
 

LightBearer

Banned
Nov 11, 2008
867
2
0
Yes, but there is a big difference between any balanced and unbalanced reporting venue. It takes a great deal more effort not to be swayed so completely by any of these sources. If you haven't seen it, touched it, heard it with your own senses, then it is all bs. What happens when you so valiantly support someone or something, and find out later it was all lies? I am sure this has happened to you in your personal life with a person or persons who you actually know. Everyone has had this happen to them at one time. Why do you need to believe someone you don't even know so much?

The scientists in the past had scientific "facts" to "prove" the earth was flat. Keep that in mind every time people on the internet, radio or tv want to get you to believe something. I've seen infomericals verifying the benefits of certain creams and potions, all false and misleading. But they have "proof", so that's enough in your mind to pick up the phone and order some now?

A healthy amount of scepticism is important in dealing with everything.

A closed mind cannot learn.
Those scientists had "facts" that were wrong. The earth is obviously round.

As for that 911 debunking shit thats all bought and paid for, the real criminals of 911 arent going to investigate themselves. NIST are all Bush appointees. As you saw from the video WTC 7 wasnt hit by anything and a few small fires and it collapses. Meanwhile a towering inferno in China and the building is still there. Thats Evidence in your face. Its a VIDEO. Someone tells you jet fuel can make a building collapse, yet video proves otherwise. HELLO?

Kevin Ryan former manager for Underwriters Laboratory was fired for saying 9/11 was inside job.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urs14eAaFcM

Scientists Accuse White House of Distorting Facts
By JAMES GLANZ

Published: February 18, 2004


he Bush administration has deliberately and systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad, a group of about 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, said in a statement issued today.

The sweeping charges were later discussed in a conference call with some of the scientists that was organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists, an independent organization that focuses on technical issues and has often taken stands at odds with administration policy. The organization also issued a 37-page report today that it said detailed the accusations.

Together, the two documents accuse the administration of repeatedly censoring and suppressing reports by its own scientists, stacking advisory committees with unqualified political appointees, disbanding government panels that provide unwanted advice, and refusing to seek any independent scientific expertise in some cases.

"Other administrations have, on occasion, engaged in such practices, but not so systematically nor on so wide a front," the statement from the scientists said, adding that they believed the administration had "misrepresented scientific knowledge and misled the public about the implications of its policies."

A White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, said today he had not seen the text of the scientists' accusations. "But I can assure you that this is an administration that makes decisions based on the best available science," he said.

Dr. Kurt Gottfried, an emeritus professor of physics at Cornell University who signed the statement and spoke in the conference call, said the administration had "engaged in practices that are in conflict with the spirit of science and the scientific method." Dr. Gottfried asserted that what he called "the cavalier attitude toward science" could place at risk the basis for the nation's long-term prosperity, health and military prowess.

The scientists denied that they had political motives in releasing the documents as the 2004 presidential race began to take shape, with Howard Dean dropping out a day after Senator John Kerry narrowly defeated Senator John Edwards on the Wisconsin Democratic primary. The organization's report, Dr. Gottfried said, had taken a year to prepare — much longer than originally planned — and had been released as soon as it was ready.

"I don't see it as a partisan issue at all," said Russell Train, who served as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under Presidents Richard M. Nixon and Gerald R. Ford, and who spoke in the conference call in support of the statement. "If it becomes that way I think it's because the White House chooses to make it a partisan issue," Mr. Train said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/18/science/18CND-RESE.html?ex=1392526800&en=3a4ea036ff21604b&ei=5007
 

LightBearer

Banned
Nov 11, 2008
867
2
0
The point is that it doesn't matter. It is just another page on the internet, with a bunch of facts and links.

Here's another one, responding to your question:

http://forthardknox.com/2008/01/25/steel-buildings-that-collapsed-due-to-fire-before-9-11/

It too is just another page on the internet that provides an answer.

The real thing is that it is just one small point, and it doesn't have anything to do with the big question of why one would believe a whole theory that makes no logical sense?

Once again, the Fortunate One demonstrates common sense in her post above.
LOL did you notice those buildings that collapsed from fire were only 2-stories max? Was there a large dust cloud with vaporized concrete everywhere? Nice try....
 

HankQuinlan

I dont re Member
Sep 7, 2002
1,744
6
0
victoria
Lightbearer, you keep proving my point over and over.

You keep posting "proofs" to every comment, and never stop to think about why you believe this stuff. My point in posting links, was to demonstrate you can google a link for everything you want to "prove." It only takes a second. I didn't even read the stuff on the links I posted, because it doesn't MATTER. It doesn't mean you can THINK.

I am now moving on now to harass some other believers. What's a good UFO abductees' website?
 

LightBearer

Banned
Nov 11, 2008
867
2
0
Lightbearer, you keep proving my point over and over.

You keep posting "proofs" to every comment, and never stop to think about why you believe this stuff. My point in posting links, was to demonstrate you can google a link for everything you want to "prove." It only takes a second. I didn't even read the stuff on the links I posted, because it doesn't MATTER. It doesn't mean you can THINK.

I am now moving on now to harass some other believers. What's a good UFO abductees' website?
So goverment websites arent legitamate? Interviews with heads of state all on video isnt legitimate? It's not a shady video of the Lochness monter or the Easter bunny. The proof these websites offer about UFO's and stuff like that isnt "proof", the evidence they show is bogus. What's so hard to understand?
 

LightBearer

Banned
Nov 11, 2008
867
2
0
Just once, I will play your game, and post some "proof." By your standards, since it is on the internet, and it sounds scientific and credible, and has a bunch of photos and diagrams and whatnot, it must be relevant.

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

You can post another link reiterating the party line, and I could post another one by googling the internet, and on and on, and eventually the world will end. But this is getting tiring, and I knew from the beginning that no "proof" can ever be found if it disagrees with the theory.
http://www.infowars.net/pictures/mar07/200307WTC6and7aerial.jpg
Heres a picture from a news helicopter of the WTC complex after collapse and WTC 4,5,6 had the towers fall on them and they survived. WTC3 didnt survive. Now how is this picture irrelevant or bullshit like UFO abductions. and since when do buildings collapse symaterically inot there own footprint at freefall speed. Architects say it's impossible without demolitions. Oh wait thermal expansion right? Never happened before in history but convieniently everything went right for AL-CIAda, I mean ALqaeda. Why did Willie Rodriguez head custodian, worked the WTC for 20 years say he felt an explosion push him up out of his office chair while in his basement office before the planes hit? Logic would tell you there was a bomb below. And I could go on.
 

LightBearer

Banned
Nov 11, 2008
867
2
0
I'm sure you can. (Shakes head and retires)
Exatcly run since you cant debate. What dont you understand? What has more weight? What is more legitimate, government declassified documents where they admit things like staging terrorist attacks. Or a random website that supports whatever claim I am arguing for. Really quit being such a child like wess.
 

Shakerod

Active member
May 7, 2008
616
71
28
The point is that it doesn't matter. It is just another page on the internet, with a bunch of facts and links.

Here's another one, responding to your "fact" that states that the "fact" is not at all a fact.

http://forthardknox.com/2008/01/25/steel-buildings-that-collapsed-due-to-fire-before-9-11/

It too is just another page on the internet that provides an answer. You can google back and forth to determine whether it seems to be true or not, by checking the "facts" presented about other steel buildings collapsing from fire. It just doesn't matter.

The real thing is that it is just one small point, and it doesn't have anything to do with the big question of why one would believe a whole theory that makes no logical sense? Think about why people want to believe these things.

Once again, the Fortunate One demonstrates common sense in her post above.
One fact doesn't matter, but when you start adding up hundreds of facts that don't add up, then you have a case for an investigation. DON'T TELL ME THIS IS NOT IMPORTANT ENOUGH FOR THAT TO HAPPEN.
 

LightBearer

Banned
Nov 11, 2008
867
2
0
Wikipedia is not a reliable source as it's facts are added by posters that can add misleading info. Most of it is spot on, but subject to opinions interpreting the facts, thus leading to skewed info.
Operation Northwoods Makes It To Mainstream Media - 40 Years Late
Sunday, May 27th, 2007
Create Your Own Reality?

Subliminal Secrets Exposed

Never Be Lied To Again!

What You Aren't Supposed To Know
In the early 1960s, America’s top leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba’s then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.

America’s top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: “We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba,” and, “casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.”

Details of the plans are described in Body of Secrets (Doubleday), a new book by investigative reporter James Bamford about the history of America’s largest spy agency, the National Security Agency. However, the plans were not connected to the agency, he notes.

The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy’s defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years.

“These were Joint Chiefs of Staff documents. The reason these were held secret for so long is the Joint Chiefs never wanted to give these up because they were so embarrassing,” Bamford told ABCNEWS.com.

“The whole point of a democracy is to have leaders responding to the public will, and here this is the complete reverse, the military trying to trick the American people into a war that they want but that nobody else wants.”

Gunning for War

The documents show “the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government,” writes Bamford.

The Joint Chiefs even proposed using the potential death of astronaut John Glenn during the first attempt to put an American into orbit as a false pretext for war with Cuba, the documents show.

Should the rocket explode and kill Glenn, they wrote, “the objective is to provide irrevocable proof & that the fault lies with the Communists et all Cuba [sic].”

The plans were motivated by an intense desire among senior military leaders to depose Castro, who seized power in 1959 to become the first communist leader in the Western Hemisphere, only 90 miles from U.S. shores.

The earlier CIA-backed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba by Cuban exiles had been a disastrous failure, in which the military was not allowed to provide firepower.The military leaders now wanted a shot at it.

“The whole thing was so bizarre,” says Bamford, noting public and international support would be needed for an invasion, but apparently neither the American public, nor the Cuban public, wanted to see U.S. troops deployed to drive out Castro.

Reflecting this, the U.S. plan called for establishing prolonged military  not democratic  control over the island nation after the invasion.

“That’s what we’re supposed to be freeing them from,” Bamford says. “The only way we would have succeeded is by doing exactly what the Russians were doing all over the world, by imposing a government by tyranny, basically what we were accusing Castro himself of doing.”

‘Over the Edge’

The Joint Chiefs at the time were headed by Eisenhower appointee Army Gen. Lyman L. Lemnitzer, who, with the signed plans in hand made a pitch to McNamara on March 13, 1962, recommending Operation Northwoods be run by the military.

Whether the Joint Chiefs’ plans were rejected by McNamara in the meeting is not clear. But three days later, President Kennedy told Lemnitzer directly there was virtually no possibility of ever using overt force to take Cuba, Bamford reports. Within months, Lemnitzer would be denied another term as chairman and transferred to another job.

The secret plans came at a time when there was distrust in the military leadership about their civilian leadership, with leaders in the Kennedy administration viewed as too liberal, insufficiently experienced and soft on communism. At the same time, however, there real were concerns in American society about their military overstepping its bounds.

There were reports U.S. military leaders had encouraged their subordinates to vote conservative during the election.

And at least two popular books were published focusing on a right-wing military leadership pushing the limits against government policy of the day.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee published its own report on right-wing extremism in the military, warning a “considerable danger” in the “education and propaganda activities of military personnel” had been uncovered. The committee even called for an examination of any ties between Lemnitzer and right-wing groups. But Congress didn’t get wind of Northwoods, says Bamford.

“Although no one in Congress could have known at the time,” he writes, “Lemnitzer and the Joint Chiefs had quietly slipped over the edge.”

Even after Lemnitzer was gone, he writes, the Joint Chiefs continued to plan “pretext” operations at least through 1963.

One idea was to create a war between Cuba and another Latin American country so that the United States could intervene. Another was to pay someone in the Castro government to attack U.S. forces at the Guantanamo naval base  an act, which Bamford notes, would have amounted to treason. And another was to fly low level U-2 flights over Cuba, with the intention of having one shot down as a pretext for a war.

“There really was a worry at the time about the military going off crazy and they did, but they never succeeded, but it wasn’t for lack of trying,” he says.

After 40 Years

Ironically, the documents came to light, says Bamford, in part because of the 1992 Oliver Stone film JFK, which examined the possibility of a conspiracy behind the assassination of President Kennedy.

As public interest in the assassination swelled after JFK’s release, Congress passed a law designed to increase the public’s access to government records related to the assassination.

The author says a friend on the board tipped him off to the documents.

Afraid of a congressional investigation, Lemnitzer had ordered all Joint Chiefs documents related to the Bay of Pigs destroyed, says Bamford. But somehow, these remained.

“The scary thing is none of this stuff comes out until 40 years after,” says Bamford.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...ies+in+afghanistan+so+the+locals+will+like+us
 

Shybutniceguy

Member
Mar 9, 2009
131
0
16
Exatcly run since you cant debate. What dont you understand? What has more weight? What is more legitimate, government declassified documents where they admit things like staging terrorist attacks. Or a random website that supports whatever claim I am arguing for. Really quit being such a child like wess.
Its not a debate when one loudmouth apparently is right and everyone else is wrong. Newsflash, just because its published on the internet doesn't make it so. I don't mind reading through or joining in on a reasonable debate, but you my friend are a knowitall and not worth the time. Hell you weren't worth my time typing this but fuck, go get laid or something already. You're beating the proverbial dead horse.
 

LightBearer

Banned
Nov 11, 2008
867
2
0
Its not a debate when one loudmouth apparently is right and everyone else is wrong. Newsflash, just because its published on the internet doesn't make it so. I don't mind reading through or joining in on a reasonable debate, but you my friend are a knowitall and not worth the time. Hell you weren't worth my time typing this but fuck, go get laid or something already. You're beating the proverbial dead horse.
Its not the internet, its the news. Its just posted on the internet. And why would ABC cover something so worthless.
 

wess

New member
Jan 5, 2009
614
2
0
Lightbearer, you keep proving my point over and over.

You keep posting "proofs" to every comment, and never stop to think about why you believe this stuff. My point in posting links, was to demonstrate you can google a link for everything you want to "prove." It only takes a second. I didn't even read the stuff on the links I posted, because it doesn't MATTER. It doesn't mean you can THINK.

I am now moving on now to harass some other believers. What's a good UFO abductees' website?
I was thinking maybe Lightbearer believes that the US planted a atomic bomb in the ocean to cause the tsunami.:D :D :D :D
 
Vancouver Escorts