Disinformation and shills

Discussion in '9/11' started by RtWngaFraud, Jun 26, 2011.

  1. 10aces

    10aces New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    829
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No...you got what the government tells you is evidence.

    Unfortunately too many people are happy with just that,...it makes life easy.
     
  2. DDave

    DDave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Where's Woodward and Bernstein when you need them? You know . . . Watergate? A lot of the kids here are probably too young to remember that.

    If the government was lying or covering something up, you would think some enterprising reporter would have outed them by now. Or Wikileaks or something.

    Hmm . . . maybe there is nothing to find.
     
  3. 10aces

    10aces New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    829
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nixon was a (*)(*)(*)(*) up. What happened to him is what happens when you don't follow the plan.

    A plan like 9/11.
     
  4. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    :lol: I still come on here every once in a while to watch the truthtards swing on the falacies of their own beliefs, but this one was just too rich to pass up.

    So 9/11 was followed to the letter and that is why nobody has uncovered it? Except, of course, for the true "brainiacs" who see all the "discrepancies" they like to pretend is some grand conspiracy. :lol:

    This is a perfect example of circular truthtard logic: The plan was executed so perfectly that no enterprising reporters or members of society with an IQ above room temperature has discovered it, but we, the mighty truthtards, know the truth because of all the flaws in the plan.

    Here's more excellent truthtard falacies:

    All the evidence comes from the government.

    Really? All the workers at Shanksville including the local coroner and all the civilian volunteers are really federal government workers? All the firefighters at ground zero were really federal government workers? All the eyewitnesses in NYC who saw the planes go into the buildings with their own eyes are really federal government workers? All the people who trained the terrorists to fly the planes were really federal government workers? All the people in Washington who saw Flight 77 fly into the Pentagon were federal government workers? WTF! Is EVERYONE but truthtards federal government workers?!? No WONDER they think everything is a conspiracy!
     
  5. DDave

    DDave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    LOL, so true.

    On another note . . . hey Scott, if you ever come back, here's a video about the Pentagon you should watch.

    http://www.youtube.com/user/RKOwens4#p/u/24/t1wQ2BJsgx0
     
  6. 10aces

    10aces New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    829
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Patriot911 :lol: I still come on here every once in a while to watch the truthtards swing on the falacies of their own beliefs, but this one was just too rich to pass up.

    9/11 was a plan, I never said it was a good plan.


    You don't see me circling...****head



    The civilians who don't know the diffeence between a crushed beer can and a crushed jet part.


    The firefighters who reported very little fire at the alleged crash site.

    1000s of gallons of jet fuel and a little bitty fire...hmm.


    Yup, they saw some jets, no doubt about that


    The same people who reported these guys to the feds who in turn reported the findings to their superiors and were told to stand down

    If you painted a can of Red Bull with the Coke logo, could you tell it was Red Bull instead Coke if it went flying by at 500 mph?

    I doubt it




    This is what you guys get when you call in reinforcements?

    Weak
     
  7. candycorn

    candycorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Still waiting for that progress report on the truth movement.

    Surely you can point to some progress in 10 years can't you?
     
  8. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,839
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I keep posting this info that shows the press is controlled and you people keep ignoring it and trying to bury it so you can bring up the same point again (see post #275). Your strategy seem to be to bury the evidence that you can't refute deep in the thread.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At about the 30 minute mark of this video a scientist says that science fraud is common.
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3626298989248030643#

    Scientists at the Rand Corporation say that depleted uranium is safe.
    http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/b04151999_bt170-99.htm

    There are other scientists who say the opposite.
    http://www.google.es/search?q=depleted uranium&tbs=vid:1

    It's clear that the government can find scientists willing to sell out and lie.

    Here's a scientists who say that it's impossible to get something published in a science journal if it goes against the official version.
    Origins of Man Bonus Evidence II Part 2 - YouTube
    (00:16 time mark)

    This means that if there's a scientist who thinks they never went to the moon, he'd have a hard time getting his opinion known.

    If someone tried to blow the whistle, the press would ignore him or her.
    http://www.thismodernworld.org/arc/1993/93short-attention-span.gif
    http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=chomsky+media&aq=f
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=Wi5h3vZl6uo
    http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=William+Schaap++-+The+Media,+CIA,+FBI+&+Disinfo.+&aq=f
    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/MediaControl_Chomsky.html
    http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199710--.htm
    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/media_watch.html
    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Propaganda/Propaganda_page.html
    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media_control_propaganda/Media_Control.html
    http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/official_culture.htm
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=trWcqxrQgcc
    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman /Propaganda_System_One.html
    PsyWar - Wake UP! - YouTube

    Here's some evidence that it might even be downright dangerous to try to come forward with the truth.
    Thomas Baron and astronauts killed to keep Apollo program - YouTube
    Sacrifice On Pad 34. - YouTube
    Mysterious Deaths of 9/11 Witnesses (MUST SEE) - YouTube

    We are lied to about history.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/history-past-politicians/149071-american-imperialism.html

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Americans are lied to about news, history, and science. If an enterprising reporter were to try to publish some inside job evidence, his editor would probably transfer him to another section. No inside job evidence would get past the editor of a mainstream newspaper.

    This video is about witnesses. Witnesses can be bought and stories about what they say can be manipulated.
    Here's a list of the witnesses.
    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=10632

    Here's some of the evidence I've posted before that you seem to be trying to bury.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/193865-disinformation-shills-32.html
    G FORCES - Scene From 9/11: ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON - YouTube
    http://able2know.org/topic/177268-1#post-4782975
     
  9. DDave

    DDave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Your strategy seems to be to repost the same bogus bull(*)(*)(*)(*) time and time again AS MANY TIMES AS POSSIBLE and ignore the evidence that you can't refute.
     
  10. candycorn

    candycorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nobody cares.

    Any word yet on why the supposed plotters involved the lightpoles when there was no need to involve them and the platoons of operatives to plant them?

    No?

    Carry on into insignificance.
     
  11. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,839
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I've only posted this about ten times.
    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=9632

    See post #1 of that thread.
     
  12. DDave

    DDave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Yeah, yeah, yeah, we've seen that. :bored:

    I think what he was asking for was something along the lines of ACTUAL proof or eyewitness accounts that they were planted.

    Not "could have been", "made to look like", "perhaps" or other speculative horse manure.
     
  13. candycorn

    candycorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You know the rules, get cracking....remember; we're looking for WHY the light poles were involved at all given your reasons for attacking the Pentagon in the first place.

    We'll get to why they hiajcked AA77 and didn't use it later on.

    I don't think it's fair to throw up another insurmountable hurdle at you when you failed so miserably at the first one--explaining the poles. Now it's just fun to watch you squirm.
     
  14. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, it was your ignorant claim that it was because they stuck to the plan that no reporters figured it out ala Watergate. If you can't even keep up with your own arguments, maybe you should think them through a little more first.
    Sure I do. It isn't my fault truthtards can't even see the fact they run around in circles making fools out of themselves. Now that your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) claim of "no reporter figured it out because the government followed the plan unlike Nixon" has fallen apart, why not respond to the fact no reporter has uncovered the 9/11 conspiracy, a conspiracy thousands of times larger than Watergate, even though they've had over ten years and hundreds of truthtards "helping" them uncover the "truth".
    Yet we're suppose to believe some unknown hack like you is suppose to know better than the people who were there. :lol: That's so (*)(*)(*)(*)ing rich! So first you claim all evidence is from the government. When shown your claim is nothing but a fetid pile of (*)(*)(*)(*), you try and pretend the civilians are too ignorant to understand anything, so should be ignored. :lol: That's rich coming from a group who hold up people with a completely different story from everyone else as credible. BTW, those civilians came up with a lot more than crushed jet parts. They came up with human body parts, luggage, and all the other stuff that accompanies a plane crash.

    And that proves what, exactly? You have some fire fighter reports from below the fires that claimed there wasn't much fire, yet, if one is going to be honest, one can see raging fires going on in both towers. I suppose you're going to ignore that evidence as well as the fact that none of the firefighters buy into your bull(*)(*)(*)(*)? It is one thing to try and claim a report of very little fire is proof of a conspiracy, but are you honesty trying to say none of the fire fighters believe planes hit the buildings and that fires caused the collapse?

    A good portion of the fuel from the south tower crash exited the other side of the building in a huge fireball. Or are you trying to pretend that didn't happen either? I just love it when truthtards want us to ignore all the video evidence of the explosion and fires and just trust them that one report from the 72nd floor overrides any other evidence of the size of the fires. How (*)(*)(*)(*)ing moronic is that?

    Really? You're not going to try and pretend they can't tell the difference between a jet and a missile or some other seriously (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up excuse? So what happened to the jet? One minute it was flying towards the south tower, the south tower exploded and no more jet. Was David Copperfield around? That was an amazing trick! Please tell us how they did it!

    So which is it? You believe there were terrorists and planes or you believe the bull(*)(*)(*)(*) you were just trying to sell us? Pick a story and stick with it if you want anyone to believe you.

    I would know it was a can. It is the truthtard bull(*)(*)(*)(*) claim that no plane hit the Pentagon. Now you're trying to pretend it WAS a plane, but something else? Bad news, junior. The Pentagon is right next to Reagan International Airport with tons of experts in aircraft recognition. It was inevitable that several of them witnessed the crash and correctly identified the plane as a 757.

    You doubt lots of things. Doesn't mean (*)(*)(*)(*), though, does it. ;-)

    Call in reinforcements? That's a laugh! I just thought I would speak up and point out some of the incredible bull(*)(*)(*)(*) you've been spewing. A child could dismantle your arguments in such a way as to leave you babbling in a pool of your own drool. Nobody here needs me to help them. They do a fine job of making the truthtard bowel movement look like the joke it is. You did such a fine job of making me laugh that I thought I would reward you with a little pinch of reality. Sucks, doesn't it. ;-)
     
  15. 10aces

    10aces New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    829
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    3 attack sites and 1 crash site, you need to break it down so you won't continue to be confused.
     
  16. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,839
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/06/why-they-didnt-use-757-to-hit-pentagon.html

    http://killtown.911review.org/flight77/theories.html#5

    Here's more-
    http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/11/where-pentagon-was-hit.html
    http://killtown.911review.org/flight77/claim.html

    I'd better keep posting this link to the light pole info so candycorn can't bury it.
    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=9632

    Here's a link to more info.
    http://able2know.org/topic/177268-1#post-4782975
     
  17. candycorn

    candycorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, you'd better keep posting links to avoid writing down another crazy koo-koo land theory where "could haves" and "maybes' are the only things you have.

    No, you'd better keep posting links to avoid answering the very pertinent questions put before you:

    Why involve the light poles at all when it wasn't necessary given YOUR REASONS for attacking the Pentagon in the first place.

    See what I do is cut through your nonsense and make you state things. You don't like doing that because you can't squirm away. You've learned the harsh lesson of trying to debate with me and now you're regressing back to your silly tactics of using message boards as your source material; likely your own posts. You may as well be citing comic strips for all the good it is doing you or your truth movement which has zero progress to report in 10 years.

    I've owned you since you got here. You know it so now you're running yet again.

    C'mon back when ever you want another helping of humble pie.

    :winner:
     
  18. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,839
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    If there are downed light poles, it makes people mistakenly think that a 757 knocked them down. I thought this was self-evident.

    You say the light poles prove a 757 came in from that angle. Some alternative scenarios are shown in this link.
    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=9632

    If there are alternative scenarios that would explain the light poles, they can't be used as proof that a 757 hit the Pentagon. This is a very basic point. You'd get laughed out of the debating hall for they way you're ignoring those alternative scenarios.

    Start watching this at the 5:00 time mark....
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSX4p6i1qR4

    ...and then watch the rest of it. You can read this too.
    http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2170
     
  19. candycorn

    candycorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wow...see, when you go off script and can't just cite a link, you step in it; big time. I force you to write your garbage scenarios down. :winner:

    So when there is a plane crash, there are always light poles involved? Oh my goodness. All the plotters would have to say is that the plane didn't fly at a low enough angle to hit the poles so you don't have those potential loose ends of people:

    1. Planting poles on the road
    2. Planting poles on the grass off the street
    3. Damaging a cab on purpose to say it was hit with light poles (why add that into the mix...you certainly didn't need to have a damaged car ON TOP OF having poles that didn't need to be hit
    4. You said the car "maybe" was towed to the scene. So now if you don't add in the taxi (which you don't need) and don't add in the light poles (which you don't need), you don't need to add in the towing truck, the guys to unload the truck (which you don't need either).
    5. You said there "could have been" plants on the highway as well. You never quite explained why there would have to be these plants but...hell, its your fantasy. You don't need to include them either.
    6. You said that if they had reported--the plants which you wouldn't need if you didn't involve the poles, the taxi, and the tow truck which they didn't need--you wouldn't have to buy off the press either since the stories wouldn't have ever been told to start with

    So that was your explanation for the poles being involved, to make people think that there was a plane wreck; as if the radar tracking (which you haven't explained in your own words) wasn't enough, as if the multiple eye witnesses from twoofer sites (which you haven't explained in your own words) wasn't enough, as if the aircraft wreckage that you say was planted, get this, before or after the explosion at the Pentagon wasn't enough...now you're adding in light poles for some reason, a cab for some reason, a tow truck to take the cab there for some reason, guys to plant the poles, for some reason...okay.

    Before we go further, please confirm that this is where you stand;

    Someone fired a missile at the Pentagon, staged the light poles, the cab, and the wreckage to make us think the country was under attack and to make us think that AA77 hit the pentagon. That is your stance; is it not?


    I have some follow ups but I want to force you to stand by the mountain of bizarre garbage scenarios you have formulated.

    The above writing in red; does that accurately depict what you say happened on that day (we haven't gotten to the tracking, the witnesses and a few other zingers)?

    Just a simple yes or no will suffice.
     
  20. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nice response. Just the kind of cut and run chicken(*)(*)(*)(*) I expect from the truthtard camp. :lol: Can't respond without exposing the magnitude of the crap in your claims. Have fun running!
     
  21. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You had hundreds of eyewitnesses who saw a plane hit the Pentagon. Very few of them knew anything about the light poles and it had no bearing in what they saw. Your argument is null and void. Nobody is going to mistake a small missile for a large passenger jet no matter HOW many light poles were broken.
     
  22. 10aces

    10aces New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    829
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Plesae elaborate on the magnitude of my crap claims.
     
  23. DDave

    DDave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    :mrgreen: killtown :mrgreen: What a huge load of horse manure. :mrgreen:

    That statement would "get you laughed out of a debate hall" as you like to say.

    Proof is proof. The fact that someone can make up a crazy story about what they think might have happened doesn't change the fact that it is proof.

    You drop an apple and it falls. Proof of gravity. Saying that the apple might have been made of steel and there might have been a magnet under the apple when it was not dropped does not change the fact that falling apple is still proof.

    Unless you can prove the apple was made of steel or that it was dropped on a magnet.
     
  24. candycorn

    candycorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Tick tock...we're waiting scott.
     
  25. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,839
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    My stand is that whatever hit the Pentagon was too small to be a 757.
    http://www.bcrevolution.ca/911_part_iii.htm

    Truthers have put forth several theories. One is that a 757 overflew the Pentagon and landed at the airport behind it and a missile came in from the angle that's consistent with the poles getting knocked down.

    Another theory is that a 757 overflew the Pentagon and a figher-sized plane came in from that angle and fired a missile just before it crashed into the Pentagon.

    Another theory is that the above photo and this one...
    http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg

    ...which were provided by the government were doctored and were released just to cause confusion and that a 757 flew over the Pentagon and a bomb was detonated as it flew over.

    I'm not entirely sure which theory is the correct one but I'd bet the small plane theory is it. The crash site seems to be consistent with a missile having been fired by a small plane just before it crashed.
    http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticlesMeyer3March2006.html
    http://www.physics911.net/missingwings

    The pictures released by the government make it pretty clear the craft wasn't a 757.
     

Share This Page