BNW Brave New World
Samenzwering, verborgen agenda's en geheime geschiedenis. De zoektocht naar de wereld die achter de façade van alledag ligt.
Hoevaak ik wel niet een "jij werkt voor de overheid!" naar m'n hoofd heb gekregenquote:Op maandag 25 april 2011 21:53 schreef THEFXR het volgende:
[..]
je bent knettergek, als jij denkt dat ik ingehuurd ben, was het maar zo hoefde ik ook niet zo hard te werken.
Natuurlijk is dat knettergek, maar tis niet alsof dat zomaar uit de lucht wordt gegrepen he.
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Dat breed houden lijkt mij ook het beste, maar het feit is dat er een aantal mensen wel degelijk tunnelvisie hebben ontwikkeld. Het is, zoals Dribbel al aangeeft, daardoor vrijwel onmogelijk om de discussie over iets anders te voeren. Het wordt altijd afgedaan met:quote:
[..]
Persoonlijk denk ik ook dat je de scope van mogelijkheden zo breed mogelijk wil houden in dit onderwerp. Tunnelvisie zal nooit geen bevredigend antwoord kunnen geven toch?
We gaan er in dit topic van uit dat 911 stinkt op verschillende lagen, morphing - NoPlane is misschien 1 van die punten maar er zijn er veel meer.
'zo'n stel holbewoners kunnen nooit een dergelijke aanslag plannen' of (en dit is de beste) 'het is veel eenvoudiger om het no-plane complot uit te voeren, dan om een undercoveragent te sturen naar Afghanistan om het plan daar op te zetten'.
Waarom wil men niet aan een veel logischere theorie? Nou, heel simpel, die kun je niet 'bewijzen' aan de hand van youtube-filmpjes. Dan moet je namelijk ECHT op onderzoek uit. Dan kom je in het echte intelligence-werk en de 'onderzoeksjournalisten' op FOK zullen toch ook wel begrijpen dat zij niet in staat zijn om de link tussen de kapers van 9/11 en de Amerikaanse overheid aan te tonen. Ik ben dat ook niet, maar dat betekent niet dat ik dan maar een theorie ga verzinnen die ik wel van achter mijn computer kan '''''bewijzen'''''''.
Cuz I'm praying for rain, And I'm praying for tidal waves
I wanna see the ground give way.I wanna watch it all go down.
Mom please flush it all away.I wanna watch it go right in and down.
I wanna watch it go right in. Watch you flush it all away.
I wanna see the ground give way.I wanna watch it all go down.
Mom please flush it all away.I wanna watch it go right in and down.
I wanna watch it go right in. Watch you flush it all away.
Misschien is het eens aardig om andersom te denken. Stel, je wilt een oorlog gaan voeren in Irak, en je komt met het stomme idee dat er dan vliegtuigen in het WTC moeten gaan vliegen.quote:
Waarom wil men niet aan een veel logischere theorie? Nou, heel simpel, die kun je niet 'bewijzen' aan de hand van youtube-filmpjes. Dan moet je namelijk ECHT op onderzoek uit. Dan kom je in het echte intelligence-werk en de 'onderzoeksjournalisten' op FOK zullen toch ook wel begrijpen dat zij niet in staat zijn om de link tussen de kapers van 9/11 en de Amerikaanse overheid aan te tonen. Ik ben dat ook niet, maar dat betekent niet dat ik dan maar een theorie ga verzinnen die ik wel van achter mijn computer kan '''''bewijzen'''''''.
Hoe zou je dat aanpakken? Wat heb je nodig? Wat zijn de middelen en hoe zouden we het doen zodat het verhaal geloofwaardig blijft?
The truth was in here.
Wat je nodig hebt is in ieder geval een manier om het plan bij de terroristen te krijgen. De VS weet dat er terroristische cellen in binnen- en buitenland zijn, die dolgraag een aanslag zouden willen plegen in Amerika waarbij veel mensen om het leven komen.quote:
[..]
Misschien is het eens aardig om andersom te denken. Stel, je wilt een oorlog gaan voeren in Irak, en je komt met het stomme idee dat er dan vliegtuigen in het WTC moeten gaan vliegen.
Hoe zou je dat aanpakken? Wat heb je nodig? Wat zijn de middelen en hoe zouden we het doen zodat het verhaal geloofwaardig blijft?
Ze weten ook, vanuit diverse operaties in Afghanistan en andere landen, dat er radicale Afghanen zijn die gewoon een normaal opleidingsniveau hebben.
Wat nodig is is een Amerikaanse moslim, die je met niet al te veel moeite een geloofwaardige valse achtergrond kunt geven. Iets wat in de koude oorlog natuurlijk veelvuldig werd gedaan. En tijd, je moet het wel plannen. Je kunt niet verwachten dat een willekeurige moslim die zich meldt in de grot bij Bin Laden meteen vertrouwd wordt. Dat wordt al makkelijker als die persoon een geloofwaardig verhaal heeft, en een uitgewerkt plan wat redelijk fullproof is.
Dat is volgens mij alles wat je in het buitenland moet regelen. Voor de rest kan de betreffende undercover-agent de vlieglessen en dergelijke regelen.
In Amerika moet geregeld worden wat je wilt regelen. Wil je dat er weinig slachtoffers vallen, dan zorg je dat het gebouw zover mogelijk leeg is.
Edit: misschien staat er bij de Grot van Osama wel een ideeënbus. En heeft Bush daar een mooi uitgewerkt plan in laten stoppen door de neef van Obama? Ik roep maar iets....
Cuz I'm praying for rain, And I'm praying for tidal waves
I wanna see the ground give way.I wanna watch it all go down.
Mom please flush it all away.I wanna watch it go right in and down.
I wanna watch it go right in. Watch you flush it all away.
I wanna see the ground give way.I wanna watch it all go down.
Mom please flush it all away.I wanna watch it go right in and down.
I wanna watch it go right in. Watch you flush it all away.
En hier doorheen:quote:
Misschien ook eens aardig om doorheen te bladeren
http://debunking911.com/
Ik heb niet alles gelezen op die site hoor en ook weet ik vanaf mijn computertje natuurlijk niet of alles klopt (maar ik heb wel het idee dat de meeste artikelen op die site door experts op de desbetreffende vakgebieden zijn geschreven), maar het kan misschien wél een hoop herhaling schelen in dit topic.
Op maandag 20 juli 2009 21:50 schreef J0kkebr0k het volgende:
Wat insinueer je daarmee dan? Wil je zeggen dat het geen vliegtuigen waren? Wat dan.... komkommers? In het WTC zijn weldegelijk vliegtuigen gevlogen.
Ik ben niet gek, ik ben geen vliegtuig!
Wat insinueer je daarmee dan? Wil je zeggen dat het geen vliegtuigen waren? Wat dan.... komkommers? In het WTC zijn weldegelijk vliegtuigen gevlogen.
Ik ben niet gek, ik ben geen vliegtuig!
Herhaling ontkom je niet aan. Is ook niet zo erg, als men maar fatsoenlijk blijft tegen elkaar.quote:Op dinsdag 26 april 2011 12:53 schreef Dribedabou het volgende:
[..]
En hier doorheen:
http://debunking911.com/
Ik heb niet alles gelezen op die site hoor en ook weet ik vanaf mijn computertje natuurlijk niet of alles klopt, maar het kan misschien wél een hoop herhaling schelen in dit topic.
http://debunking911.com/osama.htm
Zo, nu is het mijn beurt om eens een gruwelijke lap tekst te plaatsen van een andere site die aangeeft wat ik erover denk:
Zo, nu is het mijn beurt om eens een gruwelijke lap tekst te plaatsen van een andere site die aangeeft wat ik erover denk:
quote:"A few Arabs in the desert could not have pulled this off..." Why Osama is perfect for this attack.
Conspiracy theorists like to say "Some Arabs with box cutters couldn't have pulled this off." Let's forget for a minute how racist that statement is. (Arabs can do anything Americans can do) Let's also imagine that the hijackers didn't make it clear they had a bomb as well as the box cutters. The fact is they were the perfect ones to pull this off. Osama went to school for civil engineering at a time when the towers were being built. America thought enough of him to use him to hold off the USSR in Afghanistan. Most of the hijackers have college educations. Some had flight experience and trained with simulators.
An Airliner filled with jet fuel is just a very destructive flying car bomb. Is he really that smart or was the US government not smart enough to realize this? There is evidence some thought about this but failed to act quickly enough to stop it. Telling pilots not to open the cockpit doors under any circumstance and fitting the airliners with better cockpit doors may have stopped the attacks. Just as tellers in a bank are instructed to give money to bank robbers, pilots were under the old rules of letting hijackers do what they want. Any small group could have done what he did. Saying they were a few Arabs from the desert is appealing to the racist in us.
The conspiracy story suggests a few Arabs can't convince you they have a bomb and are dangerous. Remember that most hijackings ended in the past with hijackers making demands and sometimes people being rescued by specialists in hijackings. Now add the hijackers attacking and possibly killing crew members and you can easily conclude the passengers had little reason to risk injury or death. So you don't need any government intervention to carry out that part of the plan. If the passengers of the other airliners knew what was coming I'm sure the plan wouldn't have worked as well. We can draw that conclusion from flight 93.
The conspiracy story also suggests it would be impossible to evade radar without government help. As if there aren't 4,000 airliners in the air at any given time in America. There were hundreds in that area alone. It may have been easier to intercept an airliner with the transponder on but even that isn't easy due to the amount of airliners in the air at the time. One airliner that didn't have anything to do with the attack was thought to be a hijacking and people were planning an intercept. Can you imagine if that plane was brought down by accident? Conspiracy theorists want us to believe its easy to quickly find these flying "needles in the haystacks" when they can't even find photos of iron workers cutting columns at an angle during cleanup. Not even when it's on the same web site and they have all the time in the world to find it.
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
Below is some history of Bin Laden and a link to a timeline of events concerning 911 and the hijackers and the evidence against them..
1957 Osama bin Muhammad bin Awad bin Laden is born in Riyadh. He is 17th of 52 children sired by Muhammad Bin Laden--Saudi Arabia's wealthiest construction magnate.
1979 Bin Laden graduates from King Abdul Aziz University in Jiddah with a degree in civil engineering.
1986-89 According to Islamic sources, bin Laden participates in numerous battles during the Afghan war against the Soviets as a guerilla commander, including the fierce battle of Jalalabad which led the Soviets to finally withdraw from Afghanistan.
1992 According to the current indictment against bin Laden, from 1992 on, bin Laden and other Al Qaeda members stated privately within the organization that a) Al Qaeda should put aside its differences with Shiite Muslim terrorist organizations, including Iran and its affiliated terrorist group Hezbollah, to cooperate against the perceived common enemy, the United States and its allies; B) the US forces stationed on the Saudi peninsula, including both Saudi Arabia and Yemen, should be attacked; and c) the US forces stationed in the Horn of Africa, including Somalia, should be attacked.
December 29, 1992 A bomb explodes in a hotel in Aden, Yemen, where US troops had been staying while en route to a humanitarian mission in Somalia. The bomb killed two Austrian tourists; the U.S. soldiers had already left. Two Yemeni Muslim militants, trained in Afghanistan and injured in the blast, are later arrested. US intelligence agencies allege that this was the first terrorist attack involving bin Laden and his associates (Source: New York Times 8/21/98).
1993 Sudan is placed on State Department's list of countries that sponsor terrorist activities (Source: Washington Post 8/23/98).
According to US government charges, bin Laden's followers try to obtain components of nuclear weapons and begin to work with Sudan's NIF to develop chemical arms (Source: US News and World Report 10/5/98).
February 26, 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
October 3 & 4th, 1993 Eighteen US troops are killed in an urban attack in Mogadishu, Somalia. American law enforcement, intelligence and national security officials are divided as to whether, as a federal indictment charges, bin Laden and his adherents helped train and arm the men who killed the US troops (Source: New York Times 2/8/99).
February/March 1995 Ramzi Yousef, mastermind of the World Trade Center bombing, is captured in Pakistan and extradited to the United States. A search of his former residences leads investigators to believe he is financially linked to bin Laden. Also, he had stayed at a bin Laden financed guest house while in Pakistan.
June 1995 Unsuccessful assassination attempt on the life of the President of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, in Addis Ababa. U.S. intelligence sources believe bin Laden was somehow linked.
August, 1995 Bin Laden wrote an open letter to King Fahd of Saudi Arabia calling for a campaign of guerrilla attacks in order to drive U.S. forces out of the kingdom.
November 13, 1995 Five Americans and two Indians are killed in the truck bombing of a US-operated Saudi National Guard training center in Riyadh. Bin Laden denies involvement but praises the attack (Source: Washington Post 8/23/98).
May 1996 The Sudan expels bin Laden because of international pressure by the United States and Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden then moves back to Afghanistan. (Source: Jane's Intelligence Review 10/1/98)
May 31, 1996 The four Saudi men accused of bombing the Saudi National Guard training center in Riyadh are beheaded in Riyadh's main square. Before their execution, they are coerced by the Saudi's into a public confession. In the confession, they claim to have read bin Laden communiqués.
Spring 1996 President Clinton signed a top secret order that authorized the CIA to use any and all means to destroy bin Laden's network.
June 25, 1996 A large truck bomb devastates the US military residence in Dhahran called Khobar Towers, killing 19 servicemen. The US military initially linked bin Laden to the attack but now believe a Saudi Shiite group was responsible (Source: Washington Post 8/23/98). U.S. investigators still believe bin Laden was somehow involved.
August 23, 1996 Bin Laden signed and issued a Declaration of Jihad outlining his organization's goals: drive US forces from the Arabian Peninsula, overthrow the Government of Saudi Arabia, liberate Muslim holy sites, and support Islamic revolutionary groups around the world. He declares that Saudis have the right to strike at US troops in the Persian Gulf.
November, 1996 Gwynne Roberts conducts interview of bin Laden for the British documentary program Dispatches. Bin Laden threatens to wage an Islamic holy war against the United States and its allies if Washington does not remove its troops from the Gulf region (Source: Reuters 2/20/97).
May 1997 CNN airs an interview with bin Laden in which he criticizes US "occupation of the land of the holy places."
July 1997 According to Islamic sources, a US-backed multinational mercenary force is formed with the aim of abducting or killing bin Laden. Witnesses claim to see 11 black Land Cruisers crossing into the Afghan city of Khost along with 2 helicopters. A source said force was composed of 1000 non-US mercenaries. (Source: Mideast Mirror 7/14/97--al-Hayat & al-Arab)
February 1998 Bin Laden issues joint declaration with the Islamic Group, Al Jihad, the Jihad Movement in Bangladesh and the "Jamaat ul Ulema e Pakistan" under the banner of the "World Islamic Front," which stated that Muslims should kill Americans including civilians--anywhere in the world.
May 1998 ABC's John Miller interviews bin Laden in Afghanistan.
June 1998 A raid is conducted in Albania against a cell of an Islamic terrorist movement by security personnel from the U.S. and Albania. Two suspected employees of bin Laden are arrested. The CIA takes custody of a van-load of documents and computer gear. Two weeks later, another raid was conducted and two more suspected bin Laden associates arrested. They were Egyptian nationals and were turned over to anti- terrorist officials in Egypt. All were associated with the Islamic Revival Foundation. (Source: Washington Post 8/12/98)
June 8, 1998 The grand jury investigation of bin Laden, initiated in 1996, issues a sealed indictment, charging Bin Laden with "conspiracy to attack defense utilities of the United States." Prosecutors charge that bin Laden heads a terrorist organization called al Qaeda, the base, and was a major financier of Islamic terrorists around the world.
August 6, 1998 The Egyptian Jihad group sent the United States a warning: they would soon deliver a message to Americans "which we hope they read with care, because we will write it, with God's help, in a language they will understand." (Source: New York Times 8/21/98)
Two simultaneous explosions at US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The bomb in Nairobi, Kenya kills 213 people, including 12 US nationals, and injure more than 4,500 . The bomb in Dar es Salaam kills 11 and injures 85. No Americans died in the Tanzania bombing.
August 12, 1998 The Small Group of presidential advisors meet with Clinton, reportedly with evidence that bin Laden is looking to obtain weapons of mass destruction and chemical weapons to use against US installations (Source: New York Times 9/23/98). US intelligence also reportedly intercepted a mobile phone conversation between two of bin Laden's lieutenants that implicated them in the embassy bombings. (Source: Newsweek 8/31/98)
August 20, 1998
US retaliation against bin Laden--cruise missiles attack a suspected terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and Al Shifa, a pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum. US intelligence claims that Al Shifa is tied to the production of chemical weapons for bin Laden. The Sudanese government vehemently denied these claims.
US adds bin Laden's name to list of terrorists whose funds are targeted for seizure by US Treasury in order to shut down the financial pipelines that allegedly subsidize bin Laden's terrorist activities. (Source: Washington Post 8/28/98)
September 23, 1998 US senior administrative officials admit that they had no evidence that directly linked bin Laden to the Al Shifa factory at the time of retaliatory strikes on Aug 20. Intelligence officials found financial transactions between bin Laden and the Military Industrial Corporation--a company run by the Sudan's government. (Source: New York Times 9/23/98)
November 4, 1998 A new superceding indictment is issued against bin Laden, Muhammad Atef and a host of other suspects. They are charged with bombing of two US embassies and conspiring to commit other acts of terrorism against Americans abroad. Two rewards of $5 million each are offered for Atef and bin Laden. Atef is described as bin Laden's chief military commander.
January 16, 1999 The US Attorney's office files its most complete indictment to date of Osama bin Laden and 11 other suspected members of his terrorist organization. The grand jury charges the men for conspiring to kill American nationals. The first count of the indictment charges that several of the co-defendants, acted with other members of "al Qaeda," a worldwide terrorist organization led by bin Laden, in a conspiracy to murder American citizens. The objectives of the terrorist group allegedly include: killing members of the American military stationed in Saudi Arabia and Somalia; killing United States embassy employees in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania; and concealing the activities of the co-conspirators by, among other things, establishing front companies, providing false identity and travel documents, engaging in coded correspondence, and providing false information to the authorities in various countries.
May 29, 2001 Four followers of Osama bin Laden are found guilty of charges stemming from the 1998 US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. Mohamed Rashed Daoud Al-Owhali, Khalfan Khamis Mohamed, Mohammed Saddiq Odeh, and Wadih El Hage are convicted of charges including murder, conspiracy and perjury after a nine-week federal trial during which prosecutors called over 90 witnesses, including al Qaeda informants and survivors of the bombings. Owhali and Mohamed face the death penalty at their sentencing, while Odeh and El Hage face life in prison.
Bin Laden's Confession...
Praise be to Allah who created the creation for his worship and commanded them to be just and permitted the wronged one to retaliate against the oppressor in kind. To proceed:
Peace be upon he who follows the guidance: People of America this talk of mine is for you and concerns the ideal way to prevent another Manhattan, and deals with the war and its causes and results.
Before I begin, I say to you that security is an indispensable pillar of human life and that free men do not forfeit their security, contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom. If so, then let him explain to us why we don't strike for example Sweden? And we know that freedom-haters don't possess defiant spirits like those of the 19 may Allah have mercy on them.
No, we fight because we are free men who don't sleep under oppression. We want to restore freedom to our nation, just as you lay waste to our nation. So shall we lay waste to yours.
No one except a dumb thief plays with the security of others and then makes himself believe he will be secure. Whereas thinking people, when disaster strikes, make it their priority to look for its causes, in order to prevent it happening again.
But I am amazed at you. Even though we are in the fourth year after the events of September 11th, Bush is still engaged in distortion, deception and hiding from you the real causes. And thus, the reasons are still there for a repeat of what occurred.
So I shall talk to you about the story behind those events and shall tell you truthfully about the moments in which the decision was taken, for you to consider.
I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind.
The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them in that. This bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others were terrorised and displaced.
I couldn't forget those moving scenes, blood and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high rises demolished over their residents, rockets raining down on our home without mercy.
The situation was like a crocodile meeting a helpless child, powerless except for his screams. Does the crocodile understand a conversation that doesn't include a weapon? And the whole world saw and heard but it didn't respond.
Cuz I'm praying for rain, And I'm praying for tidal waves
I wanna see the ground give way.I wanna watch it all go down.
Mom please flush it all away.I wanna watch it go right in and down.
I wanna watch it go right in. Watch you flush it all away.
I wanna see the ground give way.I wanna watch it all go down.
Mom please flush it all away.I wanna watch it go right in and down.
I wanna watch it go right in. Watch you flush it all away.
Dat klopt, maar het is wel vervelend als een no-planer elke keer met zijn scheve-pixel-onzin aan komt zetten. Iemand anders reageert daarop en vervolgens herhalen de no-planers wéér hun pixel-onzin met wéér alle namen/foto's/alles i.p.v. inhoudelijk in te gaan op posts.quote:
En ook als iemand een zijweg wil maken naar een andere theorie (zoals o.a. Schenkstroop probeerde) dat de no-planers ook daar weer dezelfde posts op plaatsen met hun scheve-pixel-onzin. Ik heb wel het idee dat iedereen, aanhangers van allerlei verschillende theorieën (behalve de no-planers) dat vervelend vinden.
Nou, dan is het toch beter als de no-planers een apart topic krijgen? Dan is iedereen tevreden. Het gaat hier om een discussie op basis van argumenten en níet om wie het best kan herhalen, want daar is geen kunst aan. En als de no-planers dat wel willen dan kunnen ze lekker in hun eigen topic alles voor elkaar keer op keer gezellig gaan herhalen.
Op maandag 20 juli 2009 21:50 schreef J0kkebr0k het volgende:
Wat insinueer je daarmee dan? Wil je zeggen dat het geen vliegtuigen waren? Wat dan.... komkommers? In het WTC zijn weldegelijk vliegtuigen gevlogen.
Ik ben niet gek, ik ben geen vliegtuig!
Wat insinueer je daarmee dan? Wil je zeggen dat het geen vliegtuigen waren? Wat dan.... komkommers? In het WTC zijn weldegelijk vliegtuigen gevlogen.
Ik ben niet gek, ik ben geen vliegtuig!
Boehoehoe! Die no-planers toch altijd hé..quote:
[..]
Dat klopt, maar het is wel vervelend als een no-planer met zijn scheve-pixel-onzin aan komt zetten. Iemand anders reageert daarop en vervolgens herhalen de no-planers wéér hun pixel-onzin met wéér alle namen/foto's/alles i.p.v. inhoudelijk in te gaan op posts.
En ook als iemand een zijweg wil maken naar een andere theorie (zoals o.a. Schenkstroop probeerde) dat de no-planers ook daar weer dezelfde posts op plaatsen met hun scheve-pixel-onzin. Ik heb wel het idee dat iedereen, aanhangers van allerlei verschillende theorieën (behalve de no-planers) dat vervelend vinden.
Nou, dan is het toch beter als de no-planers een apart topic krijgen? Het gaat hier om een discussie op basis van argumenten en níet om wie het best kan herhalen, want daar is geen kunst aan.
Waarom ga je zelf niet een apart topic maken? Deze reeks heeft al zoveel no-plane info in zich, dat het mij een onlogische zet lijkt om ons nu uit dit topic te verbannen eigenlijk
Je doet me sterk aan iemand denken, maar dat wist je al.
Oh, het maakt mij niet uit wie er een 'nieuw' topic krijgen en wie in het 'oude' topic blijven zitten, dat is het punt helemaal niet, maar er moet natuurlijk wel animo en toestemming voor zijn én niet weer allemaal door elkaar gaan lopen, zodat er 2 dezelfde reeksen ontstaan. Maar dat is misschien makkelijk op te lossen dat als iemand níet over scheve pixels wil praten dat hij verwezen wordt naar het ene topic en iemand die wél over scheve pixels wil praten, verwezen wordt naar het andere topic.quote:
[..]
Waarom ga je zelf niet een apart topic maken? Deze reeks heeft al zoveel no-plane info in zich, dat het mij een onlogische zet lijkt om ons nu uit dit topic te verbannen eigenlijk
Op maandag 20 juli 2009 21:50 schreef J0kkebr0k het volgende:
Wat insinueer je daarmee dan? Wil je zeggen dat het geen vliegtuigen waren? Wat dan.... komkommers? In het WTC zijn weldegelijk vliegtuigen gevlogen.
Ik ben niet gek, ik ben geen vliegtuig!
Wat insinueer je daarmee dan? Wil je zeggen dat het geen vliegtuigen waren? Wat dan.... komkommers? In het WTC zijn weldegelijk vliegtuigen gevlogen.
Ik ben niet gek, ik ben geen vliegtuig!
Scheve pixels bestaan niet eens, maar het is ons wel duidelijk dat je de theorie hiermee het hoekje van de idioten in probeert te duwen. Ordinaire trollerij dus.quote:
[..]
Oh, het maakt mij niet uit wie er een 'nieuw' topic krijgen en wie in het 'oude' topic blijven zitten, dat is het punt helemaal niet, maar er moet natuurlijk wel animo en toestemming voor zijn én niet weer allemaal door elkaar gaan lopen, zodat er 2 dezelfde reeksen ontstaan. Maar dat is misschien makkelijk op te lossen dat als iemand níet over scheve pixels wil praten dat hij verwezen wordt naar het ene topic en iemand die wél over scheve pixels wil praten, verwezen wordt naar het andere topic.
Scheve pixels, foute pixels, verkeerd geplaatste pixels... Hoe je het ook wilt noemen: De no-planers houden zich voornamelijk bezig met gezwam over pixels op lage resolutie foto's/filmpjes.quote:
[..]
Scheve pixels bestaan niet eens, maar het is ons wel duidelijk dat je de theorie hiermee het hoekje van de idioten in probeert te duwen. Ordinaire trollerij dus.
Maar vind jij 2 reeksen ook een goed idee J0kkebr0k, of blijf jij liever met z'n allen in 1 reeks zodat je de mensen die de no-plane-theorie niet aanhangen elke keer voor trollen uit kunt maken?
Op maandag 20 juli 2009 21:50 schreef J0kkebr0k het volgende:
Wat insinueer je daarmee dan? Wil je zeggen dat het geen vliegtuigen waren? Wat dan.... komkommers? In het WTC zijn weldegelijk vliegtuigen gevlogen.
Ik ben niet gek, ik ben geen vliegtuig!
Wat insinueer je daarmee dan? Wil je zeggen dat het geen vliegtuigen waren? Wat dan.... komkommers? In het WTC zijn weldegelijk vliegtuigen gevlogen.
Ik ben niet gek, ik ben geen vliegtuig!
Nee, dat labeltje plak jij er maar al te graag op.quote:
[..]
Scheve pixels, foute pixels, verkeerd geplaatste pixels... Hoe je het ook wilt noemen: De no-planers houden zich voornamelijk bezig met gezwam over pixels op lage resolutie foto's/filmpjes.
Nee.quote:Maar vind jij 2 reeksen ook een goed idee J0kkebr0k, of niet?
[ Bericht 5% gewijzigd door #ANONIEM op 26-04-2011 14:42:00 ]
In Feedback graag.quote:
[..]
Scheve pixels, foute pixels, verkeerd geplaatste pixels... Hoe je het ook wilt noemen: De no-planers houden zich voornamelijk bezig met gezwam over pixels op lage resolutie foto's/filmpjes.
Maar vind jij 2 reeksen ook een goed idee J0kkebr0k, of blijf jij liever met z'n allen in 1 reeks zodat je de mensen die de no-plane-theorie niet aanhangen elke keer voor trollen uit kunt maken?
O.k., nou doe hier iets mee dan:quote:
quote:
@oompaloompa: ik zal van de week ff kijken of ik iets kan tekenen mbt de schaduw.
Op maandag 20 juli 2009 21:50 schreef J0kkebr0k het volgende:
Wat insinueer je daarmee dan? Wil je zeggen dat het geen vliegtuigen waren? Wat dan.... komkommers? In het WTC zijn weldegelijk vliegtuigen gevlogen.
Ik ben niet gek, ik ben geen vliegtuig!
Wat insinueer je daarmee dan? Wil je zeggen dat het geen vliegtuigen waren? Wat dan.... komkommers? In het WTC zijn weldegelijk vliegtuigen gevlogen.
Ik ben niet gek, ik ben geen vliegtuig!
Dat is helemaal niet interessant voor jou. Het betreft namelijk scheve pixels. Je gaat nu zelf om een scheve pixel discussie vragen.quote:
[..]
O.k., nou doe hier iets mee dan:
[..]
[ Bericht 3% gewijzigd door #ANONIEM op 26-04-2011 15:07:39 ]
-ok nu kappen met zuigen!-
[ Bericht 96% gewijzigd door Bastard op 26-04-2011 15:15:47 ]
[ Bericht 96% gewijzigd door Bastard op 26-04-2011 15:15:47 ]
Op maandag 20 juli 2009 21:50 schreef J0kkebr0k het volgende:
Wat insinueer je daarmee dan? Wil je zeggen dat het geen vliegtuigen waren? Wat dan.... komkommers? In het WTC zijn weldegelijk vliegtuigen gevlogen.
Ik ben niet gek, ik ben geen vliegtuig!
Wat insinueer je daarmee dan? Wil je zeggen dat het geen vliegtuigen waren? Wat dan.... komkommers? In het WTC zijn weldegelijk vliegtuigen gevlogen.
Ik ben niet gek, ik ben geen vliegtuig!
Ik kwam op lets roll nog een interessante post tegen:
As a result, from the most part of our studies in 2010 and 2011, but long suspected by many
of us ever since we saw the below video all those years ago, we are almost certain that
actors, of the paid variety, were employed en masse on 9/11. Why they did this, we are
unsure of, but we dont need to explain why, in these videos a collective jigsaw puzzle
emerges.
The most striking is the abundance of innapropriate affect.
This video was the one that got many of us interested in the idea that actors could have
been used to promote the offical story. His innaporopriate affect is different from most
videos in this thread, but innapropriate all the same, the striking confidence that the
official story, yet to be formed, was repeated ad nausem, in relation to all elements of
the unfolding attack, that the official story was recited by this character is astounding.
Quite frankly the video speaks for itself.
However, the vast majority of the videos I have personally red flagged, the affect is
more striking, a total or partial lack of emotional content. On the surface of things, these videos seem to add up, to have all the right emotional elements. However,
apon closer inspection, they fall apart at the seams for what they really are.
Of course, this is a subject that touches the nerves of many. To those, im sorry. But for
the greater good, I just dont share your perspective. We must get to the truth, and nothing
in 9/11 is out bounds. If you catch a party in one lie, in many lies, you must assume,
de facto, that nothing they say is totally true. You can never expect to get to the truth
any other way. Its a safe assumption that if someone lies to you many times, virtually
nothing they have ever told you about an event may be entirely the truth. The burden of
proof is at least on them to prove the discrepencies pointed out here, or at least the
topic is not off hands to me or anyone else. Free speech means free speech, and also free
expression. That means people are quite entitled to disagree with the re search on its
merits, if they can, or even besmerch its creators (although dont expect to do it in their
back yard), but not attack the idea behind it. Thats attacking free speech.
Now, the videos.
Disclaimer, I am not saying ALL of these are 100% proved actors, merely putting up videos
and letting the viewer decide for themselves, with a bit of perspective of course. Im sure
videos will be posted that we might be wrong about. But once again, once you find one or
many cases of a phenomena, it seems right and sound to suspect it might be true to an
extent in all cases.
Im also aware that in tradgedies sometimes people have a tendancy to lie about things they
never saw in order to get publicity. I accept that. But as you will see, this goes far
deeper, most of these are stories supported and pushed on a larger level by the mainstream
media and "official" 9/11 documentaries.
1:16-1:22.
He speaks with a brash confidence not unlike our first witness above. How could anyone be so certain?
Pentagon Witnesses, sometimes people see different things. But when there is no correlation between any of the stories, and all describe a different kind of plane, isnt it safe to perhaps assume they are all lying? I think it is.
Witnesses who claim to have seen WTC aircraft from inside the WTC.
George Sleigh. Nothing in his acount seems terribly inplausible, that is until you read other testimonies from him from other sources regarding that day. His story has included,
and evolved to but not limited to, seeing the landing gear on the plane, it being up, and
down in various accounts, to even seeing the hijackers in the cockpit! Not bad for an aging
guy who only got a fleeting glimpse of the 400MPH projectile!
Stalney Primnath. Now again, nothing in his acount seems anything more than implausible,
again until you read other acounts of that day from him from different sources. These
acounts include, but not limited to, seeing the plane and identifying it as United
Airlines, seeing writing and logo on the plane, reacing to all this, having time to run
and dive under his desk before it hits. Absolute rubbish! All this is just not possible
in that time frame.
Phoney witnesses on the street that day;
This guy in the video cant even remember where he works. He has to look down at his feet
to read his crib notes! The phone is too old to have memo feature in it, and there doesnt
appear to be anything else in his hand. The guy in red at the begining of the video seems
to think the horror unfolding is humerous, as he begins a large open mouth smile just as
the camera cuts away from him.
So many interesting things in this video, but most striking, despite being so close to the
collapse, and only 6 seconds to react, how did this reporter avoid getting even a modicum
of dust on his suit?? Did he change his suit?
Phony witnesses in relation to elevator phenomenon at the WTC.
Kelly Badildo, taken from a documentary in 2001. You see, the problem with his acount, and
a myriad of others below, is that they are describing a phenomena that could not, would not
and did not happen. We have done much research on the elevator stories here at letsroll,
some of which can be found here;
http://letsrollforums.com/outrageous-wtc-9-11-t23603.html
The footage speaks for itself. The stories are outrageous, and are totally inconsistant
with many other accounts of people who were supposedly in the towers. Not only did the
lower elevators not bottom out at the lobby, but Elevators are designed NOT to do this.
As for the elevator doors, quick research shows they would never ever fly open and hit
the wall like he described. This testimony is just pure fantasy.
Firefighters who supposedly survived the WTC collapse/demolition.
Jay Jonas. Not only is he a nervous wreck here, looking away all the time, but what he
describes is impossible. The WTC fell at a rate of 9 floors a second at least, and the
section in the lobby would be unaffected right until the last minute, the core collumns
were stagered. Plus the noise would have been too deafening to hear that, and the collumns
were not visible from the stairwell. What a liar!
Jumper witnesses.
This guy doesnt seem very disturbed at all given all the jumpers and body parts hes
supposedly seen.
This guy tries his hardest to produce a single tear, rubbing his eyes so hard he might
burst a vessel, but never a tear comes. "I just went home"..yeah right.
Officials towing the party line or drastically changing their opinions;
Charlie Thornton, investigator of 2001 attacks. The buildings were a piece of shit? No,
you Charlie, are the piece of shit.
Finally, the most absurd WTC video to date, one that speaks for itself in every way;
Dear John, whos story has changed about 5 times, what a load of tripe. His story features
the same anomolies the staricase B survivors have, but even more so. These stories about
people surfing the collapse down were a dime a dozen in the early days, but I think they
smartened up and realised that anyone with 1/10th a brain cell would discount them, a few
slipped through the net clearly however.
Feel free, post any videos you can think of where you suspect acting or fraudulence! Lets compile an abundance of them, so the picture is clear to all.
As a result, from the most part of our studies in 2010 and 2011, but long suspected by many
of us ever since we saw the below video all those years ago, we are almost certain that
actors, of the paid variety, were employed en masse on 9/11. Why they did this, we are
unsure of, but we dont need to explain why, in these videos a collective jigsaw puzzle
emerges.
The most striking is the abundance of innapropriate affect.
This video was the one that got many of us interested in the idea that actors could have
been used to promote the offical story. His innaporopriate affect is different from most
videos in this thread, but innapropriate all the same, the striking confidence that the
official story, yet to be formed, was repeated ad nausem, in relation to all elements of
the unfolding attack, that the official story was recited by this character is astounding.
Quite frankly the video speaks for itself.
However, the vast majority of the videos I have personally red flagged, the affect is
more striking, a total or partial lack of emotional content. On the surface of things, these videos seem to add up, to have all the right emotional elements. However,
apon closer inspection, they fall apart at the seams for what they really are.
Of course, this is a subject that touches the nerves of many. To those, im sorry. But for
the greater good, I just dont share your perspective. We must get to the truth, and nothing
in 9/11 is out bounds. If you catch a party in one lie, in many lies, you must assume,
de facto, that nothing they say is totally true. You can never expect to get to the truth
any other way. Its a safe assumption that if someone lies to you many times, virtually
nothing they have ever told you about an event may be entirely the truth. The burden of
proof is at least on them to prove the discrepencies pointed out here, or at least the
topic is not off hands to me or anyone else. Free speech means free speech, and also free
expression. That means people are quite entitled to disagree with the re search on its
merits, if they can, or even besmerch its creators (although dont expect to do it in their
back yard), but not attack the idea behind it. Thats attacking free speech.
Now, the videos.
Disclaimer, I am not saying ALL of these are 100% proved actors, merely putting up videos
and letting the viewer decide for themselves, with a bit of perspective of course. Im sure
videos will be posted that we might be wrong about. But once again, once you find one or
many cases of a phenomena, it seems right and sound to suspect it might be true to an
extent in all cases.
Im also aware that in tradgedies sometimes people have a tendancy to lie about things they
never saw in order to get publicity. I accept that. But as you will see, this goes far
deeper, most of these are stories supported and pushed on a larger level by the mainstream
media and "official" 9/11 documentaries.
1:16-1:22.
He speaks with a brash confidence not unlike our first witness above. How could anyone be so certain?
Pentagon Witnesses, sometimes people see different things. But when there is no correlation between any of the stories, and all describe a different kind of plane, isnt it safe to perhaps assume they are all lying? I think it is.
Witnesses who claim to have seen WTC aircraft from inside the WTC.
George Sleigh. Nothing in his acount seems terribly inplausible, that is until you read other testimonies from him from other sources regarding that day. His story has included,
and evolved to but not limited to, seeing the landing gear on the plane, it being up, and
down in various accounts, to even seeing the hijackers in the cockpit! Not bad for an aging
guy who only got a fleeting glimpse of the 400MPH projectile!
Stalney Primnath. Now again, nothing in his acount seems anything more than implausible,
again until you read other acounts of that day from him from different sources. These
acounts include, but not limited to, seeing the plane and identifying it as United
Airlines, seeing writing and logo on the plane, reacing to all this, having time to run
and dive under his desk before it hits. Absolute rubbish! All this is just not possible
in that time frame.
Phoney witnesses on the street that day;
This guy in the video cant even remember where he works. He has to look down at his feet
to read his crib notes! The phone is too old to have memo feature in it, and there doesnt
appear to be anything else in his hand. The guy in red at the begining of the video seems
to think the horror unfolding is humerous, as he begins a large open mouth smile just as
the camera cuts away from him.
So many interesting things in this video, but most striking, despite being so close to the
collapse, and only 6 seconds to react, how did this reporter avoid getting even a modicum
of dust on his suit?? Did he change his suit?
Phony witnesses in relation to elevator phenomenon at the WTC.
Kelly Badildo, taken from a documentary in 2001. You see, the problem with his acount, and
a myriad of others below, is that they are describing a phenomena that could not, would not
and did not happen. We have done much research on the elevator stories here at letsroll,
some of which can be found here;
http://letsrollforums.com/outrageous-wtc-9-11-t23603.html
The footage speaks for itself. The stories are outrageous, and are totally inconsistant
with many other accounts of people who were supposedly in the towers. Not only did the
lower elevators not bottom out at the lobby, but Elevators are designed NOT to do this.
As for the elevator doors, quick research shows they would never ever fly open and hit
the wall like he described. This testimony is just pure fantasy.
Firefighters who supposedly survived the WTC collapse/demolition.
Jay Jonas. Not only is he a nervous wreck here, looking away all the time, but what he
describes is impossible. The WTC fell at a rate of 9 floors a second at least, and the
section in the lobby would be unaffected right until the last minute, the core collumns
were stagered. Plus the noise would have been too deafening to hear that, and the collumns
were not visible from the stairwell. What a liar!
Jumper witnesses.
This guy doesnt seem very disturbed at all given all the jumpers and body parts hes
supposedly seen.
This guy tries his hardest to produce a single tear, rubbing his eyes so hard he might
burst a vessel, but never a tear comes. "I just went home"..yeah right.
Officials towing the party line or drastically changing their opinions;
Charlie Thornton, investigator of 2001 attacks. The buildings were a piece of shit? No,
you Charlie, are the piece of shit.
Finally, the most absurd WTC video to date, one that speaks for itself in every way;
Dear John, whos story has changed about 5 times, what a load of tripe. His story features
the same anomolies the staricase B survivors have, but even more so. These stories about
people surfing the collapse down were a dime a dozen in the early days, but I think they
smartened up and realised that anyone with 1/10th a brain cell would discount them, a few
slipped through the net clearly however.
Feel free, post any videos you can think of where you suspect acting or fraudulence! Lets compile an abundance of them, so the picture is clear to all.
Ik vind het nogal misselijk dat mensen die hun emotie's gewoon tonen, die iedereen op hun eigen manier toont, worden weersproken puur en alleen maar om het feit dat ze hun emoties niet tonen zoals de commentator dat wil. Alleen al daarom steek ik een dikke middelvinger op naar degene die die comments maakt. Alles is op basis van "hij jankt niet hard genoeg" of "hij is er te luchtig onder". Ja en? Als er iemand voor mijn ogen word neergeschoten heb ik geen idee hoe ik reageer, misschien ben ik jaren daarna er nog emotioneel over, of misschien weet ik het vanaf dag 1 een goeie plaats te geven waardoor ik volgens sommige mensen "te rustig" overkom. En dan zou zo'n kut nerd op het internet mij even gaan uitmaken voor leugenaar. Come on hey..
Daar heb je gelijk in. We zijn allemaal verschillend en tonen onze emoties niet allemaal op dezelfde manier. Kan ook zijn dat deze mensen nog in shock zijn en dat pas later de emoties los komen.quote:
Ik vind het nogal misselijk dat mensen die hun emotie's gewoon tonen, die iedereen op hun eigen manier toont, worden weersproken puur en alleen maar om het feit dat ze hun emoties niet tonen zoals de commentator dat wil. Alleen al daarom steek ik een dikke middelvinger op naar degene die die comments maakt. Alles is op basis van "hij jankt niet hard genoeg" of "hij is er te luchtig onder". Ja en? Als er iemand voor mijn ogen word neergeschoten heb ik geen idee hoe ik reageer, misschien ben ik jaren daarna er nog emotioneel over, of misschien weet ik het vanaf dag 1 een goeie plaats te geven waardoor ik volgens sommige mensen "te rustig" overkom. En dan zou zo'n kut nerd op het internet mij even gaan uitmaken voor leugenaar. Come on hey..
Ik vind het daarentegen wel interessant. Dus, waar blijft het?quote:
[..]
Dat is helemaal niet interessant voor jou. Het betreft namelijk scheve pixels. Je gaat nu zelf om een scheve pixel discussie vragen.
Cuz I'm praying for rain, And I'm praying for tidal waves
I wanna see the ground give way.I wanna watch it all go down.
Mom please flush it all away.I wanna watch it go right in and down.
I wanna watch it go right in. Watch you flush it all away.
I wanna see the ground give way.I wanna watch it all go down.
Mom please flush it all away.I wanna watch it go right in and down.
I wanna watch it go right in. Watch you flush it all away.
Iemand die controle studie met betrekking op de op elkaar lijkende gezichten al gedaan?
Egregious professor of Cruel and Unusual Geography
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Onikaan ni ov dovah
Werkt JB op bestelling dan? Of op commando kan ik beter zeggenquote:
[..]
Ik vind het daarentegen wel interessant. Dus, waar blijft het?
