world history 101

[ericg]

go to www.myspace.com/ericguinn and select the 'par - green to gold' blog. scroll down to 'zeitgeist' and 'empire of the city' or 'ring of power' to get your history on. they're pretty interesting. or here:

zeitgeist - skip to 10, 37, or 111 mins.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5547481422995115331

ring of power one

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4675077383139148549

ring of power two

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1158343264447729869

[EN[i]GMA]

Zeitgeist is a load of shit. Trust me.

It's just full of things that are not true.

[ericg]

are you talking about a specific thing in it maybe? i wouldn't underrate it. this is the second time i'm watching it and it's spot on in a lot of ways, especially the history of our economics and wars etc... what didn't you like about it exactly, or have you watched it?

i know there's some speculation about the religious side of it which is the first chapter of it. but the rest is in like flynn.

[EN[i]GMA]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist,_the_Movie#Critics

I mean, maybe all those people are wrong...

But I sort of doubt it.

[ericg]

like i sed, you have to be more specific. even the critics give many 'parts' of it weight. again, the religious part is probably the part not taken so well. so what are you talking about? i don't know where you've been but there's a lot more people for it than against it. you just don't see it if you don't get out there. then you'ld know what i mean.

of course there's going to be critics - there's a critic for everything, especially on something that questions so much. most have there own little world and don't want to know about it all. you know what i'm saying?

[HAL 9000]

With Zeitgeist - obvioulsy the parts on religion and 9/11 are bullshit. The economics stuff is less easy to see through for most people, this website may help

http://conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-one/#part_two

[EN[i]GMA]

like i sed, you have to be more specific.

I haven't actually watched the film -- due to the fact that large parts of it are made up and I have no desire to watch another 9/11 conspiracy video.

That said, the link I provided is full of documentation of a accredited sources pointing out specific inconsistencies in the movie such as its facile and just false intepretation of ancient mythology, history, and language.

even the critics give many 'parts' of it weight.

As I understand it the religious part is total bullshit, the 9/11 part is bullshit, and other claims it makes (like about Pearl Harbor) are bullshit.


again, the religious part is probably the part not taken so well. so what are you talking about? i don't know where you've been but there's a lot more people for it than against it.

Maybe on the internet forums you visit, but not in the popular press or in academic circles.

It's not a scholarly source.


you just don't see it if you don't get out there. then you'ld know what i mean.

of course there's going to be critics - there's a critic for everything, especially on something that questions so much. most have there own little world and don't want to know about it all. you know what i'm saying?

I know exactly what you're saying. That's what makes it ironic.

You're so skeptical of religion, of financial institutions, of history, etc. but you're not very skeptical of this movie, it seems to me.

Just apply equal skepticism to both.

I think if you did that, you'd find that the people who know what they're talking about (professional historians, professional economists [even left-leaning ones], etc.) reject many of its claims.

Maybe that's because they're all part of some vast conspiracy to fool you and the 20,000 other people on the internet who believe this movie.

Or maybe the movie just gets a lot of stuff wrong because it peddles in speculation.

[ericg]

it makes more sense, is watermarked or mark twained more than most of what you see on tv today. i'd rather go with the professionals on this one than the bush regime and its counterparts.

good luck with your world view.

[EN[i]GMA]

it makes more sense,

It doesn't matter if something makes sense if it isn't true, and parts of Zeitgeist (key details) are based on bad research:

http://tektonics.org/copycat/osy.html

As much is it pains me to quote Tektonics and JP Holding, he has this one right.

I don't, of course, expect you to acknowledge this fact, or other shortcomings in this movie, but I just like to make you aware of it.

is watermarked or mark twained

What does this mean?

more than most of what you see on tv today. i'd rather go with the professionals on this one than the bush regime and its counterparts.

good luck with your world view.

My world view doesn't contain "what you see on tv today" or "the Bush regime and its counterparts".

Of course you know this, but you're looking for any lazy excuse you can come up with to discount what I've presented to you.

That's your prerogative, and your world view.

[ericg]

whatever clever.
'i've been around you know' - al pacino, and believe what i believe.
there's your lazy excuse.
don't work yourself on this one. i'm out.

[EN[i]GMA]

whatever clever.
'i've been around you know' - al pacino, and believe what i believe.
there's your lazy excuse.
don't work yourself on this one. i'm out.

You've been out a lot longer than this.

[ericg]

'and back again so don't touch me 'cause i'm electric, and if ya touch me, ya get shocked...'

what have you to say about all of it though? can't you talk specifically about what is being sed in the docs besides just denouncing it all? it would help me to understand where you're coming from.

like when it says the planes were going faster than anatomically possible - suggesting a military craft i think instead of the 'it was an illusion' theory. what about the freefall of the buildings? what about the itineraries that were never made for those planes? what about bush working for securacom - the security for the towers? what about fake elections? what about the stocks on those airlines that were cashed in? what about the.. there's so much evidence 'i can't stand it'. what about the stand down of military aircraft and norad? what about all the scientists, engineers and architects etc..? ... talk to me brothers and sisters.

what about the federal reserve being private etc..? how about this ongoing war and the profits that have and are being made by distruction..?

[ericg]

what about thermite and thermate being found at the centers?
what about the bombs people heard and taped in new york city?
what about center 7?
what about the pentagon?
...

i can't let you off that easy. this is the beastie boy website fools.

[HAL 9000]

All these things have been debunked a million times over, but I will do one easy example. The claim is often made that people were short-selling shares of American and United airlines (using put-options) ahead of 9/11 (indeed you mention this above).

Here is the real reason

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-78127985.html

American had just issued a profit warning. Easy.

If you want to discuss these things it is best to pick one and look at in detail, rather than just thowing out a big list that noone will bother to debunk. From the list you said, try choosing your best one and taking it from there.

Or dont bother, all this stuff is discussed to death all over the net.

[ericg]

ahh... your mom's been dubunked a million times over and discussed to death all over the net... ( : you gotta do better than that - it's not really saying anything again. while that's one little convenient piece.. i still say next. you haven't even touched the tip of the ice burg.

just go with the first one. not the one you think has been debunked.

[HAL 9000]

Like I said, they have all been debunked.

Your first one was that the planes went faster than anatomically possible and were therefore military. I presume you mean Flight 77 as the others are seen on camera and are clearly Boeings.

Flight 77 crashed at 530mph (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm)

The cruising speed of a Boeing 757 is 530mph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757#Specifications) - top speed is listed as 610, but presumably more is possible in a kamikazee dive.

The point is, that you can do this research for your self, I have given you two. Why dont you challenge yourself to do the rest if it is of interest to you? I am not going to get dragged any further into a conspiracy theorists delusions tonight!

[ericg]

no, all of them crashed at cruising speed. i think they are military planes disguised as boeings. in the pictures and video, the planes have a fusalage in the middle suggesting they were not boeings. at the speed they were going, the plane would not have held together at that elevation. that's a fact.

[EN[i]GMA]

well i think they are military planes disguised as boeings. in the pictures and video, the planes have a fusalage in the middle suggesting they were not boeings. at the speed they were going, the plane would not have held together at that elevation. that's a fact.

So a built-to-purpose Boeing plane would not hold together but a "disguised military plane", presumably with extra shit attached to make it look like a passanger plane would?

How does that make any fucking sense? Attaching parts to a military plane to make it resemble a passenger plane would be more structurally sound than AN ACTUAL PASSANGER PLANE DESIGNED ACCORDING TO RIGOROUS SAFETY STANDARDS BY THE BEST AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERS ON EARTH?


All planes have a "fuselage" in the middle of them -- do you know what a fuselage is?

Just because some random website you went to says the aircraft were going faster than was possible doesn't make it so.

[ericg]

precisely.
it had a bigger fuselage than a boeing.
BOEING said their planes couldn't survive it.

[EN[i]GMA]

precisely.


it had a bigger fuselage than a boeing.

So a plane with a bigger fuselage than a Boeing (and therefore more wind resistance, etc.) is likely to go faster at a lower altitude than a smaller, nimbler, more aerodynamic plane could?

???


BOEING said their planes couldn't survive it.

Really?

I bet you could easily provide me with a source for that statement, in some official capacity from Boeing.

[ericg]

'do you understand the words that are coming out of my mouth?!'
call them yourself buddy.

[EN[i]GMA]

'do you understand the words that are coming out of my mouth?!'
call them yourself buddy.

So the plane that hit the Twin Towers was NOT a Boeing 767 Passanger jet.

But it WAS a Boeing 767 tanker disguised as a passanger jet.

The Boeing 767 could not have been used in the attack because it cannot fly at that low altitude, therefore the Boeing 767 was clearly NOT a Boeing 767 but rather a Boeing 767 disguised to look like a Boeing 767. This explains why it was able to fly at a low altitude.

Right?

[ericg]

i think you have to revise that statement a little. but yes, it was a special aircraft used that could fly at that elevation i believe. what else i ask you? that might explain why the tip of it was able to fly through the other side of the tower like it did instead of blow up.

[EN[i]GMA]

i think you have to revise that statement a little. but yes, it was a special aircraft used that could fly at that elevation i believe. what else i ask you? that might explain why the tip of it was able to fly through the other side of the tower like it did instead of blow up.

Everyone sensible knows the videos were faked, there was no plane, and that the bombs were planted by the reptilians.

Come on ericg, don't be naive!

[ericg]

you're the one being naive. now, in your last breath, you're lashing out with nonsense. quit that bullshit. conserve your air. next.

[Bob]

this is all very simple, i'm not sure why you're arguing. the obvious truth is that they strapped wings and a fuselage onto two cruise missiles to make them look like boeings. true, the conpsirators probably had access to real life actual boeings that they could have used and that would have worked but that would be too simple and we're dealing with some devious motherfuckers here

[ericg]

ah, you're more or less talking about the so called plane that hit the pentagon. where's the footage from the camera's surrounding that area? why were there no plane parts anywhere?

[Bob]

oh no, i'm talking about the WTC. what are you, a sheep? you really believe that they were planes?

[ericg]

'i will kill you where you stand' - year one

[Bob]

great

[EN[i]GMA]

When I first saw this thread I had eric on my ignore list, but it'd been so long I forgot why, so I removed him and decided to respond since I knew that Zeitgeist was patent bullshit.

It didn't take me long to realize why he was on my ignore list to begin with.

[ericg]

that's right.. at this point, if you know what's best for you you'll put me back on ignore. comin' with that shit. i oughta take you out back with a rubber hose.. but i digress.
peace

[EN[i]GMA]

that's right.. at this point, if you know what's best for you you'll put me back on ignore. comin' with that shit. i oughta take you out back with a rubber hose.. but i digress.
peace

You're at least more entertaining than I recall.

That's always good.

[ericg]

where'd ya go hal?
and everyone else for that matter. i want answers.
playin' stink finger with betty sue or johnny be good i bet.
'everybody get down'
'feed me'

[Burnout18]

what the fuck happened in here?

[ericg]

i gotta admit.. the antichrist talk (2.08 mins) around the end of 'empire of the city' is the only thing i'm not totally on board with (he could be that evil if he wanted to be perhaps in a one world government), but i wouldn't let it sway you from the rest. i still think it knows what it's talking about on the whole. i mean it almost makes too much sense huh. you know what i'm saying?

everybody gotta think for themselves though. it's still an underground or grassroots production.

[Bob]

what the fuck happened in here?

the TRUTH happened...nothing more

[ericg]

krs one in cali celebrating hip hop appreciation week with www.wacla.org - we are change la - 911 truth

[yeahwho]

krs one in cali celebrating hip hop appreciation week with www.wacla.org - we are change la - 911 truth

I clicked the above link. The web site design is so fucked up it's laughable. It looks as if the site is just a place for the author to vent in between medication. Why is it those who really think they've figured it out usually have the worse production values?

The mainstream media delivering daily news is plenty frightening enough for me, I don't need vomit inducing graphics to enhance/expose the collective corporate take on the planet.

If it's a difficult and incomprehensible story to tell, why would somebody trash it up with crap graphics?

Keep it Simple.

[ericg]

judging the book by its cover is dumb.
the site works just fine for me.

[yeahwho]

Unfortunately that is a website and the only way to get through any message is to also put up with crass symbolism. So I am definitely going to judge it as a website.

It would be a horrible book. There are many greatly written blogs and websites out in the virtual world, why would anybody think of re-visiting a web site that looks like crap?

If a person has some important conspiracy news to offer I strongly suggest to not include a hodgepodge of youtubes and shit graphics in your message.

Just a heads up, G.

[ericg]

again, it works for me.
i am not bothered by it.
have a nice day.

[yeahwho]

ok (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg&feature=related)

[ericg]

it kinda reminds me of the beastie boy's old page with the youtubes...
yeah there's not many people here except you and me. everyone else doesn't want to deal with most of you people hence the dead board, but people are checking my threads out anyway 'so fuck you my man.'

[kaiser soze]

swearing makes you look bad, ok (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1T8VB_ElkY&feature=channel)

[ericg]

'and if you don't like it then hey fuck you'

[ericg]

'you cannot quit me so quickly
there's no hope in you for me
no corner you could squeeze me
but I got all the time for you, love
...' - the space between, dmb

[ericg]

so on with the show.. who's got an ounce of sense about it all?
who can answer my questions here?

[ericg]

i thought you could debunk this. now you're out with no clout.
what's up with that fools?

[ericg]

for all of you up to speed on this, go to http://cms.ae911truth.org/index.php/home.html and sign their petition.
peace

[Dorothy Wood]

ha, dmb

[ericg]

well, the bilderberg group is meeting up again this year.. i'll keep you updated...

[ericg]

"... Hearst, a timber tycoon, who started the Spanish-American War with propoganda via his newspaper, also machinated a case against marijuana - a formidable resource to timber as new hemp processing technology was being invented - which would've bankrupted him. He and his cohorts (gulf oil..) finnagled and mislead the congress, where finally in 1937, hemp was made illegal (hemp: virtually no 'thc' - like making a poppy seed bagel illegal) - undermining centuries of extremely resourceful uses in food, materials, medicines, and energy. The DEA was created by and for the same people who had hemp banned. Since, wars have and continue to be wrought by those who profit from them and drug trade, while many are enslaved and using them. Control of the American people in life with fear by manipulating/ exploiting religion, resources, taxes etc... (hempfarm.com etc.)

"Money merchants and private interests (oil, timber etc... still the most corrupt and polluting industries today..) decided they wanted 'profits and control' of the banking and commerce in the US but did not want the responsibility for the collection of taxes. Money merchants had to get the US Congress to amend the US Constitution to give them the power to print and regulate money based on no real value and also to tax the people, rather than to tax commerce. Amendment XVI, which was not even legally ratified, was done in direct violation of the Constitution as the Constitution states that this power is to be Congress's, not private entities. This secured the wealthiest family's on earth the power to control the world's economics.

Money merchants coined the term Federal Reserve System, which is actually private and quite counterfeit all considered, not to mention the ill wrought practices of their usurious member banks who seemed to have started a trend in global "market failure" practices ie Great Depression, NOW... This literally sold our Constitution and America's monetary system to private interests. The US Congress retained the responsibility for the collection of taxes. However, Federal Reserve member banks loan money on paper to the public at rates between 5% to 26%. The United States Government does not receive any interest payment from the funds it has on deposit in the Federal Reserve banks. The US Treasury (citizen's) pay all the expense, and the money merchants take all the profit. If Congress fails to collect enough taxes, the United States Treasury has to borrow the deficit from the twelve privately owned Federal Reserve banks. The Federal Reserve Board of Governors determines the amount of money the United States needs. This need is based on their opinion and nothing more. Abraham Lincoln saved the United States billions of dollars in interest during the civil War because he did not borrow money to fight the war and, therefore, did not issue money against debt. Lincoln did not borrow money from the money merchants, he just printed money and issued money directly to the public. He was assassinated. Kennedy also suffered the same fate for much the same reasons. The 1929 bank and stock market failure was caused by Federal Reserve banks. Too much ill-wrought change to our banking, commerce, and tax laws in too short of a period of time. The Federal Reserve banks had control over all of the United States economy and were incapable of determining what would be built, who would build it, who would get it, and who would pay the tax on what was built. The money merchants who own these unholy and unethical banks control the US economy, most multinational corporations, and the three branches of the US Government. Money merchants take their profits and buy stocks and bonds. One percent of the population owns 50% of the US stock market, and four percent of the population owns 35% of the US stock market. In other words, 5% of the population own 85% of the US stock market. Fifty five percent of the population own 15% of the US stock market. That leaves 40% of the population without any interest in the US stock market. Henry Ford, Sr. said, concerning the FRS, "It is well enough that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system for, if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." In January of 1999, the Federal Reserve banks were authorized to print an additional $50 billion worth of Federal Reserve notes. The reason given was to have additional cash on hand to prevent a run on the banks if a Year 2000 crisis occurs. The real reason was to keep the president in office and to create money to implement a new plan. Congress was considering placing the administration of the security industry and the insurance industry under the administration of the FR Board of Governors. This is when the war with Iraq and Katrina happened to occur. This means that seven men control the banking, commerce, insurance, and the securities industries in the United States… Just as Jesus ran the money changers out of the temple, money merchants must be controlled by legislative action. It is interesting to note that 95% of the population works for either a privately owned company or a corporation, compared to 5% in 1900. The world has become economic slaves. The United States Congress should pass a Nationalization Bank Act and nationalize the twelve Federal Reserve banks' stock and their member banks' stock. The money merchants who created the twelve Federal Reserve banks did not give monetary consideration for the United States Government banking rights, except in the form of bribes. They should have no future rights or membership in the Federal Reserve System. The only change to the Federal Reserve banks should be Federal Government ownership, and the only changes to the member banks should be a national usury law enacted by Congress and the return of capital for the stock they own in the Federal Reserve banks. This would free the United States Government and people from the unethical and unholy debt-generating system that the money merchants have place on this nation.
Today there is currently more than six billion people in the world. At this rate, the world estimates a billion people every ten years and this gap is closing fast. "Currently the world uses 14.4 trillion watts. This is expected to double in the years ahead at a minimum. We need to account for 10 terawatts right now." (Nobelity) There is plenty of space and technology. However, without a government mandate, citizens of wherewithal must stock benign/ free energy thereby collapsing this unholy empire/ liquidate polluting industry and reconstitute America's values and agenda. A myriad of applications exist regarding benign energy that should be constructed into formal grids in every city now. Free (0-point) energy systems, oceanic/ water/ salt, magnetic, solar, bio-fuels, and many more exist and need to be utilized. "Farming only six percent of continental US acreage with hemp could end America's dependence on fossil fuels. This could return billions of dollars worth of natural resource potential back to farmers and bring millions of jobs back to America's heartland. The production of paper and other hemp products would dramatically decrease deforestation."' (Hempfarm.org) The solutions are very simple once people get in gear. Conversion and production of benign vehicles must be mandated now as they account for much of the CO2 in the atmosphere..."


i wrote this before an inconvenient truth came out, but it's still the same shit.

[ericg]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iUiugzGjlU&feature=player_embedded

bilderberg group revealed to the european parliament.

[ericg]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg6se9gWZQY&feature=player_embedded

american free press covers bilderberg 2010

[ericg]

here; i'll do like jack herer. i'll give 100 bucks to anyone who can debunk my claims - to my satisfaction.
peace

[yeahwho]

This response alone is worth $50.00 - to my satisfaction.

[HAL 9000]

In this thread alone, that would work out at about 10c per claim. I'd get better money from AQA.

[ericg]

still talkin' trash with fucked up math.
i pity the fool who comes here like that.

[afronaut]

Goddamn bro, if you want someone to debunk your shit so bad, just use google. Its all over the place.

http://conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/

http://www.debunking911.com/

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842

http://www.jod911.com/

etc etc

you know, you're probably right though. I'm sure a youtube movie is a lot more reliable than people who actually know what they're talking about.

[ericg]

weak, weak, weak, and wack.
that's what you're going to put up here?
those are the sorriest debunking sites i've ever seen.
can't you just debunk things yourself?

i can put up just as many sites that are for 911 truth. you gotta put some energy into this one.

[afronaut]

Actually they're pretty thorough. Everything you've brought up in this thread is pretty well debunked. And why should I put energy into debunking a movie that's already been debunked to hell and back? It doesn't matter though, because you believe what you believe and you believe in what agrees with what you already believe in. And what is important is what you believe, not that which is factually accurate. Which is cool. Good luck with that, buddy. At least you're not apathetic.

[ericg]

actually they're not. i'm a reasonable person. just bebunk shit here without bogus websites. easy. right?

[afronaut]

Okay, how about this. Debunk the debunking.

what about thermite and thermate being found at the centers?
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

what about the bombs people heard and taped in new york city?
http://www.debunking911.com/explosions.htm

what about center 7?
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

If you're so certain that the site is weak, then tell me the exact points where it fails to present a logical alternative to the conspiracy theories, and why those points are not valid.

And I'll debunk something "myself" when you present a conspiracy that you've formed "yourself". Or at the very least, articulate an argument, because so far you've only listed off conspiracy theory talking points without going into any detail whatsoever. I mean really, all of your theories come from bogus websites and videos you've seen, so why should I be expected to do my own independent research?

[yeahwho]

afronaut is correct, ericq is at least not apathetic. Coming from a point of relaxed sanity is much more effective, one pebble at a time builds the fortress.

The format for most of these conspiracy theories come from such an alarmist state that the site issuing the conspiracy is already beyond "fight or flight" psychology. The websites are in the stage of hysteria. Hysteric's are incomprehensible, awkward and dramatized to the point of parody.

Science is not about incomprehension and hysteria, it is the exact opposite of incomprehension and hysteria. A good example of science at work is the Climatologist's currently compiling data on Global Warming.

Throwing links up will not stop the current war(s) or banks from stealing our future. It just keeps us further and further behind the 8 ball.

That said, I'm still completely at a loss as to why the citizens of the USA are so ignorant over the some of the great heros of the past 3 years, like Elizabeth Warren (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=elizabeth%20warren&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=nws:1&source=og&sa=N&tab=wn&fp=c401d881a5ff002f).

[ericg]

the burden of explaining exact points is on you. please stop passing me off to lame webpages that don't explain shit. they are obtuse... 'couldn't it be this or that'. no, the fact is my points are legit. anyone who's been paying attention can tell 911 truth is on the money. if you can't explain shit yourself, then i'm not going to continue this chat.

[ericg]

and yeahwho - you never make any goddamn sense. stop patronizing me.

[ericg]

and how many times do i have to tell you it's ericg, not ericq. get that shit right man. i know you do that shit on purpose. motherfucker.

[yeahwho]

So in your sense of correctness and all things exposed criticism is not tolerated?

Elizabeth Warren or others such as Bob King just don't register?

Who is your example of someone with ideas and solutions living today in the USA?

ericq I think you've told me 5 or 6 tmes.

[yeahwho]

It's an honest mistake, if the g were to be enlarged say like this ericg (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/10/opinion/10herbert.html?ref=bobherbert), it wouldn't blend in and confuse the underlying hook of the g. This ericg (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?p=1738420&posted=1#post1738420) could go either way, not that there is anything wrong with that.

[Schmeltz]

Why in the hell are you guys humouring this clown?

[ericg]

fuck off schmuck. you apparently have nothing to say either.


The fact that Barack Obama is nothing more than a corporate sock puppet, a completely hollow vassal being used and manipulated by his globalist controllers to carry out their agenda, has once again been emphasized with the revelation that corporate media mogul and Bilderberg luminary Mortimer Zuckerman wrote one of Obama’s political speeches.

“Well I voted for Obama, I helped write one of his speeches,” Zuckerman told Fox News’ Neil Cavuto yesterday.

Asked which speech he helped write, Zuckerman responded, “I’d rather not go into that.”

Zuckerman is listed as the 147th wealthiest American. He is the owner and publisher of the New York Daily News and is also the current editor-in-chief of U.S. News & World Report.

Zuckerman is a regular attendee of the annual Bilderberg Group meetings and is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. As we reported at the time, Barack Obama was likely anointed by the Bilderbergers in favor of Hillary Clinton when the two secretly attended the globalist confab in northern Virginia in June 2008.

Zuckerman was identified by John Mearsheimer, political science professor at the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt, academic dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, as a a member of the media wing of the “Israeli lobby” in the United States. Zuckerman responded to the charge by stating he was “proud” to be part of the Israeli lobby.

Mearsheimer and Walt’s work revealed that Zuckerman was part of “a vast network of journalists, think tanks, lobbyists, and largely Jewish officials” who “have seized the foreign policy debate and manipulated America to invade Iraq.”

The fact that one of the most powerful globalists in America helped write one of Obama’s political speeches goes to the heart of how Obama is, in the words of author John Pilger, “a corporate marketing creation,” who is being used by his controllers because of his race to act as a conduit for “seductive tools of propaganda” in selling the globalist agenda.

Obama’s rise to the White House was completely engineered by third parties pulling his strings from behind the scenes. Obama’s political career was launched from the living room of Communist revolutionary and domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, the man who wrote the majority of Obama’s acclaimed book, Dreams From My Father.

Obama is exalted and idolized by the media as a powerful icon of change, and yet he is perhaps the most servile and obedient stooge ever to take residence in the Oval Office. Obama knows who his masters are and he knows his job amounts to nothing more than employing his slick acting skills and being skilled in reading a teleprompter.

Obama’s complete fealty to the globalists who control him explains why the agenda for world government is racing ahead at lightening pace, and only through seeing he men behind the curtain who pull his strings can we ever come to grips with the real enemy.

[yeahwho]

The Mortimer Zuckerman conspiracy would make much more sense if he was backing Obama today.

Obama Is Barely Treading Water (http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/mzuckerman/articles/2010/07/02/mort-zuckerman-obama-is-barely-treading-water.html)
By Mortimer B. Zuckerman
Posted: July 2, 2010

The promise of economic health that might salvage industries and jobs, and provide a safety net, has proved illusory. The support for cutting spending and cutting the deficit reflects in part the fact that the American public feels the Obama-Congress spending program has not worked. As for the healthcare reform bill, the most recent Rasmussen survey indicates that 52 percent of the electorate supports repeal of the measure—42 percent of them strongly.

It is clear that the magical moment of Obama's campaign conveyed a spell that is now broken in the context of the growing public disillusionment. Obama's rise has been spectacular, but so too has been his fall.

The "Publisher" of the New York Daily News and "Editor in Chief" of US News & Report has been trashing Obama within his own publications.

Looks like Mort has buyer's remorse.

[afronaut]

the burden of explaining exact points is on you. please stop passing me off to lame webpages that don't explain shit. they are obtuse... 'couldn't it be this or that'. no, the fact is my points are legit. anyone who's been paying attention can tell 911 truth is on the money. if you can't explain shit yourself, then i'm not going to continue this chat.

So in other words, you can't. Also, I'm fairly positive you've made zero points, you've just mentioned thermite and people hearing explosions etc.

I'll totally humor you though and "explain shit myself," you just have to make some kind of a point to respond to.

[ericg]

'and back again so don't touch me 'cause i'm electric, and if ya touch me, ya get shocked...'

what have you to say about all of it though? can't you talk specifically about what is being sed in the docs besides just denouncing it all? it would help me to understand where you're coming from.

like when it says the planes were going faster than anatomically possible - suggesting a military craft i think instead of the 'it was an illusion' theory. what about the freefall of the buildings? what about the itineraries that were never made for those planes? what about bush working for securacom - the security for the towers? what about fake elections? what about the stocks on those airlines that were cashed in? what about the.. there's so much evidence 'i can't stand it'. what about the stand down of military aircraft and norad? what about all the scientists, engineers and architects etc..? ... talk to me brothers and sisters.

what about the federal reserve being private etc..? how about this ongoing war and the profits that have and are being made by distruction..?

no. in other words you can't. that's just a few. i'll give you some more when you're done.

[ericg]

what about the terrorism insurance on the towers that got cashed in? what about trade center 7? what about the pentagon? don't say 'what about them'.

[HAL 9000]

like when it says the planes were going faster than anatomically possible

what about the stocks on those airlines that were cashed in?


Ericg - when you posted this before, I pointed out that the planes were flying at their cruising speed. I don't understand why you seem to think it was impossible for planes to fly at the speed they are designed to fly at?

Also I pointed out earlier that the shares in airlines were sold because of a profit warning that was released before the attack - I even showed you a copy of that profit warning.

I only point this out to observe why people dont like to debate with you- the points you raised have been conclusively debunked in this very thread. But you ignored it and repeated the claims. So what is the point of discussing this with you?

[ericg]

and i pointed out that the planes could not have travelled that fast at that elevation. boeing confirmed that. nothing's been debunked where i'm concerned. why are you ignoring the rest of my points?

[HAL 9000]

Cool - so all you need to do is provide a link to Boeing confirming that their planes break apart at the speeds and altitudes involved and I will accept that point.

I await your link.

PS please dont tell me to find it - I have searched and can not.

[afronaut]

what about the terrorism insurance on the towers that got cashed in? what about trade center 7? what about the pentagon? don't say 'what about them'.
Man, you're just listing the names of stuff. At least give me an explanation or some kind of link or citation that explains the theories involved.

Terrorism insurance: This conspiracy is believable only if you choose to blindly believe that it is based upon any sort of fact. The towers were covered against terrorism in 1993, because the bombing of that year cost insurers so much.
nsurers paid out $510 million after militants bombed the World Trade Center in 1993...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34211,00.html

The insurance industry did not apply specific terrorism exclusions in the first place. "Even after the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 and the
Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, insurers in the United States did not view either
international or domestic terrorism as a risk that should be explicitly considered
when pricing their commercial insurance policy, principally because losses from
terrorism had historically been small and, to a large degree, uncorrelated. Thus,
prior to September 11, 2001, terrorism coverage in the United States was an
unnamed peril covered in most standard all-risk commercial and homeowners’
policies covering damage to property and contents"
http://grace.wharton.upenn.edu/risk/downloads/05-03-HK.pdf
"Some leading U.S. and European insurers say that the destruction of the World Trade Center was not an act of war, and therefore covered under most insurance policies. If other insurers
take the same view, that means insurance companies around the world will have to pay out the $30 billion or so in claims expected by industry experts from the attack...

Claims would not likely be disallowed under terrorism exclusions either, Porro said. ``Terror damage has to be covered because insurance polices, especially in the United States, do not mention this as a rule,'' he said"
http://www.sure-net.com/board/messages/480.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_insurance.html

There is no reason to believe that terrorism coverage would be at all unusually, especially considering that the WTC had been subject to terrorism in the past. There is no reason to believe that "the ink wasn't even dry" on the contract when the towers fell, or to believe that getting terrorism insurance would even be necessary right before the attacks considering that they were already insured against terrorism and had been for some time. Furthermore, it doesn't even make sense that Silverstein would wait until just before they pull odd their big complex conspiracy to get terrorism insurance. I mean really. We're not talking about some old lady offing her husband to collect some life insurance here.

World Trade Center 7: Okay, I'm just going to take a wild guess as to what you're talking about, but I'm going to say that you're referring to the fact that WTC 7 wasn't hit by airliners and had only a few fires yet collapsed anyway.

Well, here's one probable way as proposed and illustrated by some experts
http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

Some also try to say that Silverstein's comment on a PBS special that he decided to "pull" WTC 6 is also proof of controlled demolition, claiming that "pull" is demolition terminology for blowing up a building.

-First off, "pull" is not demolition terminology for blowing up a building.
-Building 6 was literally pulled with cables which is why they said "We're about to pull building 6" in a PBS special.
- Silverstein say "they" made the decision and not Silverstein
-They made the decision to pull the rescue operation out.
- The fire commander's statements agree with Silverstein's statement
- Many firefighters said they were pulled away from building 7 because they feared the building would collapse.
http://www.debunking911.com/quick.htm

Building 7 had significant structural damage that caused it to collapse.
- The firefighters put a transit on the building and concluded the building was going to collapse
-There was a very large gash in the building which ran from the top floor to at least the tenth floor
-Firemen said there was a 10 story hole in the middle of the building
http://www.debunking911.com/quick.htm

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/Cruthers.txt

"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - Lieutenant William Ryan

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/Ryan_William.txt

"Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7?

Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didn’t know exactly what it was, but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site.

Firehouse: How many companies?

Boyle: There were four engines and at least three trucks. So we’re heading east on Vesey, we couldn’t see much past Broadway. We couldn’t see Church Street. We couldn’t see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty."

"A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag...e/gz/boyle.html
(Broken Link Cached here: http://www.webcitation.org/5IuRwM61d )



WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]

Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged." [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]

Heavy, thick smoke rises near 7 World Trade Center. Smoke is visible from the upper floors of the 47-story building. Firefighters using transits to determine whether there was any movement in the structure were surprised to discover that is was moving. The area was evacuated and the building collapsed later in the afternoon of Sept. 11.

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi

I'll get back to the pentagon, i've gotta smoke some drugs after all that shit.

[Schmeltz]

I can't see what ericg says (which is the position the rest of you will eventually adopt), but I can predict his response to the above post almost word for word:

"That shit is weak. Y'all can't debunk shit. What about the Jews? What about Atlantis? What about the Rothschilds? Sneakin out the hospital"

I left the spelling errors out.

Point being: you guys are wasting your time. This nutjob isn't worth any effort.

[ericg]

you're an idiot. make some sense.
how 'bout you all just watch the documenteries and get back to me.

[ericg]

and afronaut, you got worked. i don't know what you're going on about but that shit is laughable.
and hal, go call boeing yourself.

[ericg]

you guys are just looking for any excuse aren't you?

[afronaut]

cool, thanks. have a good one.

[HAL 9000]

and hal, go call boeing yourself.

Ok, can you give me the number which you rang to get this information in the first place?

Or if not explain how you satisifed yourself that Boeing had confirmed that its planes would immediately disintegrate if flown at 500mph under 1000 feet.

[Bob]

Ok, can you give me the number which you rang to get this information in the first place?

Or if not explain how you satisifed yourself that Boeing had confirmed that its planes would immediately disintegrate if flown at 500mph under 1000 feet.

just watch the documentary and get back to him, i don't see what's so confusing about this

[Sir SkratchaLot]

just watch the documentary and get back to him, i don't see what's so confusing about this

Or better yet, watch The King of Kong. Talk about conspiracies! Fuck that Billy Mitchell.

[ericg]

hal -

i don't think the speed and elevation point is in zeitgeist or empire of the city. i don't think it's in loose change either. or any of the other documentaries on this. architechts and engineers for 911 truth will know though. how 'bout you visit their page and ask them?

411's all automated now with ads and shit. what happened to getting a person on the other end? fuck. so i can understand that you can't find the number. i was in seattle at the time like 5+ years ago when i called. there's a boeing plant there. ask yeahwho for the number. he lives there. you just need to speak with an engineer.

also, there were some google and youtube accounts of this as well. it looks like they've all been erased though.

let's move to another point in the meantime. your choice.

[yeahwho]

There is a Billy Mitchell element to ericg and this thread. Point taken.

[ericg]

'i took it as a compliment, no matter what they meant, could've been belligerent, could've been half percent, could've been wanting ...' -311

'i got more songs than you do...' -dmc

( ;

[afronaut]

206-655-2121 - Boeing phone number.
+1 206-766-2910 - James F. Albaugh, executive vice president of the Boeing company.

Somebody should definitely call one of those and ask if 9/11 was an inside job.

And if you need to talk to anyone else, here's a list of people and their numbers
http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/aboutus/execprofiles/index.html

[Bob]

his secretary wouldn't put me through. i asked her point blank about it and she pretended she didn't know what i was talking about and hung up but i'm pretty sure i was on to something

[Sir SkratchaLot]

his secretary wouldn't put me through. i asked her point blank about it and she pretended she didn't know what i was talking about and hung up but i'm pretty sure i was on to something

I looked up her family history. Jewish and related to Dick Chaney as well. Clearly a shape shifting alien.

[Guy Incognito]

* finishes reading thoroughly entertaining thread*.

i thought it was ericg too

[ericg]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkYjXF25KuU&feature=related

how 'bout this?

[ericg]

www.911inplanesite.org

[Guy Incognito]

do you want to be david icke or summat? christ, give it up luv.

[ericg]

really? i'm just pointing shit out- forgive me if it's all a bit much for you

[Guy Incognito]

really? i'm just pointing shit out- forgive me if it's all a bit much for you

shit being the operative word

[ericg]

whatever clever.
super duper pooper scooper.

[ericg]

http://buildingwhat.org

[ericg]

the obama deception.. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCN5NzKLE0A&feature=player_embedded)

i finally got around to seeing this. it's actually alot of old stuff but a very new take on it.. all.

as far as global warming goes, i think their take is a little closed minded. i mean i agree with it as far as it pointing out new taxes and cheating the economy.., but don't close your mind to man made environmental destruction altogether. it's rather naive.

i love ron paul but he does the same thing.