NWS Nieuws & Achtergronden
Discussieer hier diepgaander over de actualiteiten.
Ik heb eigenlijk ook nog geen bewijs gezien wat de officiële lezing ondersteund...quote:Op maandag 26 juni 2006 13:38 schreef Tijger_m het volgende:
tot dusverre heb ik geen enkel bewijs gezien dat de officieele officiële
lezing ontkracht op essentieele essentiële punten.
het enigste wat ik er eigenlijk verder over kwijt wil hier is dat er na 411dagen tegenwerking door de Bush-administration een flut onderzoekje is ingesteld met een minimaal budget waarbij de belangrijkste getuigen zich vooral op hun recht tot zwijgen hebben beroepen en waarbij het verhoor van de vice- en de president is verworden tot een theekransje zonder eed, zonder notulist en achter gesloten deuren, so much voor een verhoor dan.
En zonder verder door te draven over dronevliegtuigen, controlled demolitions en aanverwante wilde speculaties blijven er voor mij genoeg vragen over die de officiële lezing aan het wankelen brengen en eigenlijk onbeantwoord zijn gebleven.
Are we not savages, innately destined to maim and kill?
Blame it on the environment, heredity or evolution: we're still responsible
Our intelligence may progress at geometric rates
Yet socially we remain belligerent neonates
Blame it on the environment, heredity or evolution: we're still responsible
Our intelligence may progress at geometric rates
Yet socially we remain belligerent neonates
Het probleem is dat mensen wel geneigd zijn allerlei 'conspiracy' films te gaan kijken, maar de feiten die in die films (zoals loose change) verdraaid, verzonnen, gelogen of verzwegen zijn, nooit opzoeken.
Je mag je twijfels hebben bij de officiele lezing, maar de meeste 'believers' kunnen totaal niet meer relativeren en geloven werkelijk alleen nog maar wat de 'goeroes' hun voorschotelen.
Je mag je twijfels hebben bij de officiele lezing, maar de meeste 'believers' kunnen totaal niet meer relativeren en geloven werkelijk alleen nog maar wat de 'goeroes' hun voorschotelen.
A little philosphy may inclineth a man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy shall bringeth men's minds about to religion.
Id legi modo hic modo illic. Vero, Latine loqui non est difficilissimum.
Id legi modo hic modo illic. Vero, Latine loqui non est difficilissimum.
Het is een conspiracy van de VS om ons in een conspiracy te laten geloven. Die fouten zijn overduidelijk idd.quote:Op maandag 26 juni 2006 17:03 schreef Toffe_Ellende het volgende:
damn.. in de ondertiteling staat ergens 'ik wordt'
Inderdaad. De mensen geloven de officiele verklaring niet meteen, maar wel een of ander dom filmpje. Dat is gewoon spectaculairder.quote:Op maandag 26 juni 2006 17:41 schreef Pracissor het volgende:
Het probleem is dat mensen wel geneigd zijn allerlei 'conspiracy' films te gaan kijken, maar de feiten die in die films (zoals loose change) verdraaid, verzonnen, gelogen of verzwegen zijn, nooit opzoeken.
And if you listen very hard
The tune will come to you at last
When all are one and one is all
To be a rock and not to roll
The tune will come to you at last
When all are one and one is all
To be a rock and not to roll
Maar mennekes toch, als de Amerikaanse overheid niet zo geheimzinnig had gedaan en niet verdachte figuren de zaak hadden laten uitzoeken, dan was het wantrouwen toch niet zo groot geweest? Die mensen denken gewoon, waar rook is, is vuur... en niet onterecht, deze regering is nou niet bepaald eerlijk en betrouwbaar geweest...
weten wij veel wat er in het belang van het onderzoek naar buiten is gebracht, misschien wel juist foutieve informatie.quote:Op maandag 26 juni 2006 18:24 schreef Toffe_Ellende het volgende:
Maar mennekes toch, als de Amerikaanse overheid niet zo geheimzinnig had gedaan en niet verdachte figuren de zaak hadden laten uitzoeken, dan was het wantrouwen toch niet zo groot geweest? Die mensen denken gewoon, waar rook is, is vuur... en niet onterecht, deze regering is nou niet bepaald eerlijk en betrouwbaar geweest...
aan de andere kant vind ik die conspiracy filmpjes teveel uit gaan van (vergezochte) aannames, waar ze vervolgens weer op doorborduren alsof het feiten zijn. maar dat had ik geloof ik al eerder in dit topic gezegd.
hoofdletters kosten teveel tijd
don't avoid pain to gain pleasure
niet iedereen is iedereen
don't avoid pain to gain pleasure
niet iedereen is iedereen
dat er al tientallen jaren dingen gebeuren waar het grote publiek geen weet van heeft staat voor mij als een paal boven water .. wat zeg ik, tientallen ? .. maak er maar gerust "al vanaf het moment dat er politiek bestaat" van, de oude romeinen waren d'r ook al heel goed in nl ..quote:Op maandag 26 juni 2006 16:46 schreef Tijger_m het volgende:
Uh huh, alsof Echelon niet bestond ver voor 911. Als je een kapstok zoekt zal je er vast wel een kunnen vinden en ik betwijfel geen moment dat Bush altijd van plan is geweest om Irak binnen te vallen, ik begrijp alleen niet waarom men het nodig acht om de terroristen vrij te praten.
Het een sluit het ander niet uit, echt niet.
en dat Bush Iraq wou binnen vallen was al langer duidelijk, Iran zit al in de planning sinds de Sjah eruit werd geknikkerd in 79 en het is alleen aan de grotere weerstand in Iraq te danken dat ze nog niet in Teheran zitten imo .. alleen Afghanistan kwam wel heel goed uit ..
maar hoe was de politieke situatie op dat moment ook alweer, aangaande Iraq, de amerikanen die voor de zoveelste keer te horen kregen dat er nog een ronde gepraat moest worden en daar waren ze best boos over als ik het goed heb
idd, het een sluit het ander niet uit .. maar ik heb genoeg van de amerikanen gezien om alles wat ze doen met argusogen in de gaten houden, teveel onduidelijkheden, teveel halve waarheden, teveel gelukkige toevalligheden .. voor de moslims cq het terrorisme werden we in de ban gehouden van het dreigende communisme
pleased to meet you
Je kan het ook wiskundig bekijken zonder dom filmpje.quote:Op maandag 26 juni 2006 18:09 schreef Fir3fly het volgende:
Inderdaad. De mensen geloven de officiele verklaring niet meteen, maar wel een of ander dom filmpje. Dat is gewoon spectaculairder.
bronquote:The term “official 9/11 account” refers to the account of the events of Sept. 11, 2001, as presented in June 2004 by the Commission of Inquiry appointed by President George W. Bush, and complemented by other official documents issued by US government agencies. This account includes various details, such as identities of the alleged hijackers, identities of aircraft, timelines and other data used to prove that the crime of 9/11 was perpetrated by the named individuals under the orders or the inspiration of Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders.
It can be demonstrated by two straightforward mathematical techniques that the official acccount on 9/11 is simply not true.
The first method uses boolean algebra. The other method is based on probability theory.
Boolean algebra used to invalidate the official 9/11 account
Boolean algebra deals not with numbers but with truth values. In Boolean mathematics we have only two values: True and false. One of the primary operations in boolean algebra is the operator AND. In the equation A AND B we have:
Given A = true and B = true, then A AND B = true
Given A = true and B = false, then A AND B = false
Given A = false and B = true, then A AND B = false
Given A = false and B = false, then A AND B = false
The AND relationship can be illustrated by three bulbs connected in series. The truth value for each bulb is ON or OFF. In order for bulb C to be ON, both A and B must be ON. If either A or B or both are OFF, C will not obtain electrical current and be OFF. The same would apply to a longer series of bulbs connected in series.
Applying the AND relationship to the official 9/11 account, we posit that
in order for the official account to be true, a number N of fundamental allegations must be proved as true. If any one of these fundamental allegations are false, the entire official account is false.
Thus, it is only necessary to demonstrate that a single fundamental allegation in the official account is false for the entire account to be deemed false. Fundamental allegations include the following (a non-exhaustive list), all of which are part of the official version on 9/11:
1. No plans existed prior to 9/11 to protect the Pentagon and the White House against approaching aircraft (if such plans actually existed, questions would arise why they were not implemented and who prevented their implementation).
2. The idea that the World Trade Center could be attacked from air, did not occur to any US government agency before 9/11 (if it is shown that the idea actually was discussed by US military agencies, the question would arise why it was not taken into consideration to protect these assets).
3. All persons named by the FBI as hijackers actually boarded the four aircraft which crashed on 11 Sep. 2001 (if they did not board the aircraft, the hijackings could not have taken place).
4. The planes which crashed on 11 Sep. 2001 were flight number AA11 (tail number N334AA), flight number AA77 (tail number N644AA), flight number UA93 (tail number N591UA) and flight number UA175 (tail number N612UA) (if the flight and tail number are not those listed here, the question arises whether the planes that allegedly crashed at the known locations were the same ones which departed from the listed airports).
5. Flight AA11, a Boeing 767, left from Logan Airport, Boston, and crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York (some critical assumptions made in the official story rely on the identity of this flight number, the airport of departure and on the type of aircraft).
6. Flight AA77, a Boeing 757, left from Dulles Airport, Washington, D.C., and crashed into the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. (some critical assumptions made in the official story rely on the identity of this flight number, the airport of departure, the type of aircraft and the claim that this aircraft crashed on the Pengaton).
7. Flight UA175, a Boeing 767, left from Logan Airport, Boston, and crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center in New York (some critical assumptions made in the official story rely on the identity of this flight number, the airport of departure and on the type of aircraft.
8. Flight UA93, a Boeing 757, left from Newark Airport and crashed into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania (some critical assumptions made in the official story rely on the identity of this flight number, the airport of departure and on the type of aircraft).
9. The US military were not notified in time to scramble military jets and prevent the crashes of the hijacked aircraft (had they been notified in time, questions would arise why they did not scramble military jets in time and who was negligent).
10. President George W. Bush did not know that “America was under attack” before entering the primary school in Florida on the morning of 9/11 (should it transpire that President Bush actually knew what was going on in New York as he entered the school, questions would arise as to his foreknowledge of the crime).
11. The South and North towers of the World Trade Center as well as WTC no. 7 collapsed due to fire (if evidence can be produced that steel buildings cannot be made to collapse by fire, it would suggest that they were made to collapse by explosives, as actually suggested by a number of witnesses).
12. Numerous calls from hijacked passengers were made to family members and airline personnel with cell phones (if it can be shown that at the particular moment of the phone calls the planes were flying above 8,000 feet and/or at the speed of 500 miles per hour or more, it would suggest that the cellphone stories are a fabrication, because of the technical high improbability of succeeding such calls from high altitude and/or high speed).
If any one of the above allegations is found to be false, the official account must be put in doubt or rejected and the suggestion of official deception or criminal complicity must be considered as justified.
Probability theory used to invalidate the official 9/11 account
It is also possible to “disprove” the official 9/11 account by using probability theory. If it is shown that the probability of the official account is so low as to approach zero, it can be safely maintained that the official account is untrue.
The probability of a compound event to have occurred is the product of all sub-events necessary to accomplish the compound event. The underlying assumption is that the probability of each sub-event is independent of the probability of another sub-event. The following sub-events appear independent of each other. All of them have a low to extremly low probability. In order to simplify the demonstration, we arbitrarily assigned a probability of 0.1 (or 10 percent) to each of the following selected propositions which underpin the official account. Skeptics may try other combinations of probabilities, higher or lower, in order to test the methodology.
1. Four young, healthy and educated Muslims who possess large chunks of cash and like to party, can be expected to prepare for many months to sacrifice their lives in a murderous hijacking operation.
2. Four groups of Muslims can be expected to board four different aircraft in the United States on the same day without raising suspicion.
3. Young muslim men, known to have been in Afghanistan, would be expected to receive a visa to the United States in order to learn to fly.
4. Foreign Muslims who plan to hijack planes in the United States, can be expected to choose to train in US, rather than Arab, flight schools in order to prepare their hijackings.
5. A person planning a hijack operation in the US could be expected to tell an official US employee about his criminal motives, as Mohamed Atta had reportedly done in his encounter with Johnelle Bryant of the Agricultural Department in Florida.
6. Muslims who meticulously plan a hijacking operation in the United States, could be expected to "forget" a Kor’an on a bar stool on the eve of their operation and a flight manual in Arabic on the morning of their operation, in a rented car left near the airport from which they intended to hijack a plane.
7. Hijackers can be expected to fly from another town to the airport from which they intend to commit the hijacking operation merely two hours before their intended hijacking should start.
8. US military authorities can be expected to schedule, for exactly the date of the murderous events, war games and exercises including simulated plane hijackings and planes crashing on government buildings.
9. Conversations from cell phones made from passenger aircraft can be expected to function at any altitude and speed.
10. Passports of hijackers could be expected to be found on the crash sites, regardless of the lack of bodies and wreckage.
11. The US air force could be expected to bungle its attempts to intercept the hijacked planes.
12. No plans could have existed at the Pentagon to protect US government buildings against the risk of an accidental or malicious plane crash.
13. Neither the CIA nor the FBI could have any prior knowledge of the identities and whereabouts of the alleged hijackers before 9/11.
14. A law enforcement authority, such as the FBI, could be expected to show little interest in investigating mass murder.
15. A government would be expected to oppose an investigation of a terrorist attack against its own country.
16. Terrorists can be expected to commit mass murder without making any demands.
17. Five individuals with only packing knives can be expected to overwhelm fifty adults in a plane.
18. Hijackers in three different planes can be expected to successfully enter the pilot cabin without raising alarm.
19. A person who had never flown a Boeing passanger jet could be expected after a little simulator training to plunge the aircraft successfully between the first and second floor of the side of the Pentagon, even under conditions of extreme stress.
20. A crashed plane can be expected to leave any visible trace.
21. A high rise steel building can be expected to collapse on its own footprint after a raging fire.
22. Debris from a crashed plane can be expected to be found many miles from the crash site.
The compound probability of the above events is the product of the individual probabilities or 0.1**22 (0.1 in the 22 exponential). The actual figure is so small that it practically nears zero.
If one accepts the above propositions (even by increasing their probability of occurrence to 0,5), it follows that their compound probability is near zero. In fact, it suffices that a subset of the above propositions be shown to have a compound probability of near zero, to invalidate the official account on 9/11.
While both methods demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the U.S. authorities have fabricated the official account, the question arises why they have done so, what are they covering up, who perpetrated the mass murder of 9/11 and how was it accomplished. These questions are not pursued further here.
As long as the above statements of fact are not fully investigated, the U.S. administration must be considered as covering up the crime and thus as the prime suspect in this crime against humanity.
Are we not savages, innately destined to maim and kill?
Blame it on the environment, heredity or evolution: we're still responsible
Our intelligence may progress at geometric rates
Yet socially we remain belligerent neonates
Blame it on the environment, heredity or evolution: we're still responsible
Our intelligence may progress at geometric rates
Yet socially we remain belligerent neonates
Leuk die kansberekingen. Ik heb hier een glas dat ik op de grond laat vallen. De kans dat het aantal scherven en de positie ervan uitkomen zoals ze eindigen is oneindig tegen een en onmogelijk te reproduceren. Het is dus niet gevallen en niet kapot gegaan.
quote:Op maandag 26 juni 2006 18:55 schreef CeeJee het volgende:
Leuk die kansberekingen. Ik heb hier een glas dat ik op de grond laat vallen. De kans dat het aantal scherven en de positie ervan uitkomen zoals ze eindigen is oneindig tegen een en onmogelijk te reproduceren. Het is dus niet gevallen en niet kapot gegaan.
Are we not savages, innately destined to maim and kill?
Blame it on the environment, heredity or evolution: we're still responsible
Our intelligence may progress at geometric rates
Yet socially we remain belligerent neonates
Blame it on the environment, heredity or evolution: we're still responsible
Our intelligence may progress at geometric rates
Yet socially we remain belligerent neonates
Dit:quote:
Een verzameling claims gevolgd door een verzonnen cijfer dat zogenaamd iets bewijst, net alsof al die dingen netjes in percentages te bevatten zijn. Net zo onzinnig als claims over hoe een gebouw zou moeten instorten onder zulke omstandigheden, alsof er al honderd keer eerder een wolkenkrabber door een Boeing was geraakt.quote:The compound probability of the above events is the product of the individual probabilities or 0.1**22 (0.1 in the 22 exponential). The actual figure is so small that it practically nears zero.
Ja, dat waren ook allemaal Yanks in GeePeeOe uniformen.quote:Op maandag 26 juni 2006 18:41 schreef moussie het volgende:
voor de moslims cq het terrorisme werden we in de ban gehouden van het dreigende communisme
Zelden schryf ik wat ik wil, en nooit wat 'n ander wil.
HIERRRR
Heb ondertiteling bijgezet voor jullie.
[ Bericht 11% gewijzigd door reviewz op 26-06-2006 20:36:22 ]
Heb ondertiteling bijgezet voor jullie.
[ Bericht 11% gewijzigd door reviewz op 26-06-2006 20:36:22 ]
The Top Lies and Deceptions of Loose Change 1-10
Some of these are a bit redundant, since we have already covered many of the topics, but I wanted to produce a list of the top lies and deceptions of Loose Change. As you can tell from reading this blog and the Reader's Guide, there are literally hundreds of things wrong with the movie, but I wanted to compile a short (relatively speaking) list of the ones that really slap you in the face. I will probably post this up as a DOC or a PDF eventually. More to follow...
1. Claim: Charles Burlingame, an ex-Navy F4 pilot who worked in the Pentagon, participated in an exercise simulating crashing a 757 into a building in October 2000, before retiring to take a job at American Airlines,
Truth: Charles Burlingame started working for AA in 1979 and retired from the Naval Reserve in 1996, 4 years before these supposed exercises took place. Source
2. Claim: Investors with prior knowledge of 9/11 made millions buying put options on airline stock.
Truth: Both the 9/11 committee and business journalists investigated this claim and found nothing unusual. Much of the investment also involved purchasing airline stock. Source
3. Claim: Plane crashing into World Trade Center was identified as a windowless cargo plane.
Truth: The man who claimed this, Marc Birnbach, was over 2 miles away at the time. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=3&c=y
4. Claim: An air traffic controller reported that they thought flight 77 was a military plane.
Truth: The full quote was referring to the unsafe way the plane was flying, not that it was impossible for a civilian plane to fly like that. "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane you don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe." Source
5. Claim, Flight 77 managed to tear 5 light poles completely out of the ground,
Without damaging either the wings or the light poles themselves.
Truth: We don’t know that the wings were undamaged, since they crashed into the Pentagon fractions of a second later. There are pictures of the light poles, however, which show them broken and twisted. Source
6. Claim: The official explanation for flight 77 at the Pentagon is that the intense heat from the jet fuel vaporized the entire plane.
Truth: No official has made that claim, and in fact numerous pieces of the plane, including the bodies of the passengers, and the black boxes were found. Source
7. Claim: A spokesman for Rolls-Royce stated that engine parts found at the Pentagon did not belong to any of their engines.
Truth: The spokesman stated specifically that he was not an engineer and was not familiar with the engine in question. Source
8. Claim: Karl Schwarz President and Chief Executive Officer of Patmos Nanotechnologies LLC and I-Nets Security Systems, identified the engine as being a JT8D turbojet engine belonging to an A-3 Skywarrior.
Karl Schwarz is a proven fraud and conspiracy theorist, with no known background in technology or avionics. His companies are shell corporations with no employees or products. Furthermore, the A-3 Skywarrior never used a JT8D engine. The engine in question is consistent with that of the Rolls-Royce RB211 used by the 757. Source and here
9. Claim: Employees at the Pentagon were seen suspiciously carrying away a large box shrouded in a blue tarp.
Truth: The blue tarp was a tent, used to aid in the crash response. Source
10. Claim: The damage to the Pentagon was completely inconsistent with a Boeing 757?
Truth: Studies by NIST, the ASCE and Purdue University, including computer simulations show that the damage was perfectly in keeping with a crashing airplane. Source
Some of these are a bit redundant, since we have already covered many of the topics, but I wanted to produce a list of the top lies and deceptions of Loose Change. As you can tell from reading this blog and the Reader's Guide, there are literally hundreds of things wrong with the movie, but I wanted to compile a short (relatively speaking) list of the ones that really slap you in the face. I will probably post this up as a DOC or a PDF eventually. More to follow...
1. Claim: Charles Burlingame, an ex-Navy F4 pilot who worked in the Pentagon, participated in an exercise simulating crashing a 757 into a building in October 2000, before retiring to take a job at American Airlines,
Truth: Charles Burlingame started working for AA in 1979 and retired from the Naval Reserve in 1996, 4 years before these supposed exercises took place. Source
2. Claim: Investors with prior knowledge of 9/11 made millions buying put options on airline stock.
Truth: Both the 9/11 committee and business journalists investigated this claim and found nothing unusual. Much of the investment also involved purchasing airline stock. Source
3. Claim: Plane crashing into World Trade Center was identified as a windowless cargo plane.
Truth: The man who claimed this, Marc Birnbach, was over 2 miles away at the time. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=3&c=y
4. Claim: An air traffic controller reported that they thought flight 77 was a military plane.
Truth: The full quote was referring to the unsafe way the plane was flying, not that it was impossible for a civilian plane to fly like that. "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane you don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe." Source
5. Claim, Flight 77 managed to tear 5 light poles completely out of the ground,
Without damaging either the wings or the light poles themselves.
Truth: We don’t know that the wings were undamaged, since they crashed into the Pentagon fractions of a second later. There are pictures of the light poles, however, which show them broken and twisted. Source
6. Claim: The official explanation for flight 77 at the Pentagon is that the intense heat from the jet fuel vaporized the entire plane.
Truth: No official has made that claim, and in fact numerous pieces of the plane, including the bodies of the passengers, and the black boxes were found. Source
7. Claim: A spokesman for Rolls-Royce stated that engine parts found at the Pentagon did not belong to any of their engines.
Truth: The spokesman stated specifically that he was not an engineer and was not familiar with the engine in question. Source
8. Claim: Karl Schwarz President and Chief Executive Officer of Patmos Nanotechnologies LLC and I-Nets Security Systems, identified the engine as being a JT8D turbojet engine belonging to an A-3 Skywarrior.
Karl Schwarz is a proven fraud and conspiracy theorist, with no known background in technology or avionics. His companies are shell corporations with no employees or products. Furthermore, the A-3 Skywarrior never used a JT8D engine. The engine in question is consistent with that of the Rolls-Royce RB211 used by the 757. Source and here
9. Claim: Employees at the Pentagon were seen suspiciously carrying away a large box shrouded in a blue tarp.
Truth: The blue tarp was a tent, used to aid in the crash response. Source
10. Claim: The damage to the Pentagon was completely inconsistent with a Boeing 757?
Truth: Studies by NIST, the ASCE and Purdue University, including computer simulations show that the damage was perfectly in keeping with a crashing airplane. Source
A little philosphy may inclineth a man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy shall bringeth men's minds about to religion.
Id legi modo hic modo illic. Vero, Latine loqui non est difficilissimum.
Id legi modo hic modo illic. Vero, Latine loqui non est difficilissimum.
je moet het als leek ook maar aannemen.
Dit vond ik na 10sec googlen, het gaat erom dat je Loose Change niet al te serieus moet nemen, er zijn vele sites die de beweringen van de complot-aanhangers weerleggen, alleen hebben zij geen hippe filmpjes.quote:Op maandag 26 juni 2006 20:43 schreef Toffe_Ellende het volgende:
vind die bronnen nu niet echt van het niveau NYT of WP? je moet het als leek ook maar aannemen.
Volgens mij is deze hele conspiracy, ook gewoon big business voor sommige mensen. T-shirts, DVD's, georganiseerde meetings... etc.
A little philosphy may inclineth a man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy shall bringeth men's minds about to religion.
Id legi modo hic modo illic. Vero, Latine loqui non est difficilissimum.
Id legi modo hic modo illic. Vero, Latine loqui non est difficilissimum.
NOu, die loose change is gratis. Dus hoezo big business? Alle prodcutiekosten waren $2000 (lees: Apple laptop om films te kunnen bewerken).quote:Op maandag 26 juni 2006 20:51 schreef Pracissor het volgende:
[..]
Volgens mij is deze hele conspiracy, ook gewoon big business voor sommige mensen. T-shirts, DVD's, georganiseerde meetings... etc.
Ik heb niet persé over die film.quote:Op maandag 26 juni 2006 20:54 schreef reviewz het volgende:
[..]
NOu, die loose change is gratis. Dus hoezo big business? Alle prodcutiekosten waren $2000 (lees: Apple laptop om films te kunnen bewerken).
A little philosphy may inclineth a man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy shall bringeth men's minds about to religion.
Id legi modo hic modo illic. Vero, Latine loqui non est difficilissimum.
Id legi modo hic modo illic. Vero, Latine loqui non est difficilissimum.
hoeveel weet jij van de 'koude oorlog' en met name de cubacrisis?quote:Op maandag 26 juni 2006 18:41 schreef moussie het volgende:
[..]
dat er al tientallen jaren dingen gebeuren waar het grote publiek geen weet van heeft staat voor mij als een paal boven water .. wat zeg ik, tientallen ? .. maak er maar gerust "al vanaf het moment dat er politiek bestaat" van, de oude romeinen waren d'r ook al heel goed in nl ..
en dat Bush Iraq wou binnen vallen was al langer duidelijk, Iran zit al in de planning sinds de Sjah eruit werd geknikkerd in 79 en het is alleen aan de grotere weerstand in Iraq te danken dat ze nog niet in Teheran zitten imo .. alleen Afghanistan kwam wel heel goed uit ..
maar hoe was de politieke situatie op dat moment ook alweer, aangaande Iraq, de amerikanen die voor de zoveelste keer te horen kregen dat er nog een ronde gepraat moest worden en daar waren ze best boos over als ik het goed heb
idd, het een sluit het ander niet uit .. maar ik heb genoeg van de amerikanen gezien om alles wat ze doen met argusogen in de gaten houden, teveel onduidelijkheden, teveel halve waarheden, teveel gelukkige toevalligheden .. voor de moslims cq het terrorisme werden we in de ban gehouden van het dreigende communisme
hoofdletters kosten teveel tijd
don't avoid pain to gain pleasure
niet iedereen is iedereen
don't avoid pain to gain pleasure
niet iedereen is iedereen
euhm, waarom met name cuba .. ? of bedoel je dat het ook daar ging om "bedreigende wapens" waar iets tegen gedaan moest worden ?quote:Op maandag 26 juni 2006 21:16 schreef zoalshetis het volgende:
[..]
hoeveel weet jij van de 'koude oorlog' en met name de cubacrisis?
maar ja, ik heb het gevolgd vanaf de rozenbergs .. denk dat ik er wel het een en ander vanaf weet
pleased to meet you
vertel eens. wat je weet dan?quote:Op maandag 26 juni 2006 21:58 schreef moussie het volgende:
[..]
euhm, waarom met name cuba .. ? of bedoel je dat het ook daar ging om "bedreigende wapens" waar iets tegen gedaan moest worden ?
maar ja, ik heb het gevolgd vanaf de rozenbergs .. denk dat ik er wel het een en ander vanaf weet
hoofdletters kosten teveel tijd
don't avoid pain to gain pleasure
niet iedereen is iedereen
don't avoid pain to gain pleasure
niet iedereen is iedereen
nou ja zeg .. third degree .. *giechelt*quote:
maar nee, 't is te veel om op te noemen, zuid-amerika en de domino theorie, in welk land hebben ze nou niet gezeten, en schijtsbang voor onteigeningen als ze waren hebben ze in het zadel geholpen en gehouden wie hun goed uitkwam (incluis dictatoriale regimes) .. post-kolonial afrika, waar oude stammenoorlogen aangevuld met nieuwe ideologieën en bijbehorend wapentuig werden/worden uitgevochten, in azië cambodja en vietnam waar het oprukkende communisme gestopt moet worden .. ook toen al afghanistan, maar toen met de russen, en in iran werd de term "communistisch" ook geregeld gebruikt om de nationalisering van de oliebronnen terug te draaien .. en hier in europa blijven bibberen voor de dreiging uit het oosten, het rode gevaar .. cold war in een notendopje .. en en passant hebben ze nu wel een wereldwijd net van militaire basissen
en de sfeer van angst .. die is er nu ook ..
pleased to meet you
Ik mis anders de helft van het dopje.quote:Op maandag 26 juni 2006 23:21 schreef moussie het volgende:
en hier in europa blijven bibberen voor de dreiging uit het oosten, het rode gevaar .. cold war in een notendopje ..
Zelden schryf ik wat ik wil, en nooit wat 'n ander wil.
