Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - 9/11 Pentagon Video finally released...
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic Closed9/11 Pentagon Video finally released...

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 18>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
maani View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Founding Moderator

Joined: January 30 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2632
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 02 2006 at 18:07
goo-goo-ga-joob!
Back to Top
Velvetclown View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: February 13 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 8548
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 02 2006 at 14:52
It was a flying Walrus.
Back to Top
maani View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Founding Moderator

Joined: January 30 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2632
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 02 2006 at 12:26
Let me give some examples of how the "conspiracy" mind works:
 
Afghanistan, Unraveling:
 
 
Non-conspiracy:  The U.S. is simply foolish and/or incompetent.
 
Conspiracy:  Why bother with Afghanistan now that we have our pipeline from the Caspian Sea, with the trillions of dollars it will generate for U.S. oil and gas companies?
 
Homeland Security grants are made, with NYC's share declining by 40%:
 
 
NYC is itself blamed for the cuts:
 
 
The Times responds:
 
 
Non-conspiracy:  Well, maybe NYC is to blame.  And, after all, NYC is not the only place that is a target.
 
Conspiracy:  Since 9/11 was a staged event, there was never any real increase in the danger to NYC, so it never really needed a higher level of grants.  And now the Administration can make those grants "pork" for its friends in other States.
 
And then there is the matter of bin Laden never having been captured, despite "dead or alive" and "smoke him out."
 
Non-conspiracy:  He was too deeply rooted in a remote area so we simply could not find him.
 
Conspiracy:  He was simply a lesser "player" - the "scapegoat" - for the staged event that was 9/11, so we made a half-hearted attempt to find him in order to satisfy the public's bloodlust, and then "re-directed" their attention to Saddam and Iraq.
 
---
 
That's just three.  I will add others as they arise.
 
Peace.
Back to Top
maani View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Founding Moderator

Joined: January 30 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2632
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 28 2006 at 23:08
MtS:
 
I made no judgment, I was simply stating facts and observations.  Remember, I am a minister, and the One whom I follow tells me: "Judge not, lest ye be judged in equal measure," "He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone," and "Take the log out of your own eye before you take the splinter out of another's."
 
Peace.
 
(And happy Memorial Day to you too...)


Edited by maani - May 28 2006 at 23:08
Back to Top
marktheshark View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: April 24 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1695
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 28 2006 at 20:07
maani quote:

"Even if I were to take that site, and all of its info, at face value, that does not change the fact that no country has the right to simply go into another sovereign country and overthrow its leader. Period. After all, there are quite a few countries whose leaders support terrorism in various ways - including our friends Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Should we overthrow their leaders, too?"

Ok maani, what I seem to be getting from you is that you feel is that we, as a people, are not allowed to make any judgements. Whether it be Hitler, Saddam or that bozo in Tehran. And that we should question any evil that could be among our own actions. Fair enough, I don't have much of a problem looking in the mirror occasionally. But keep in mind, it is judgements that define us. We judge eveyday whether it be who's evil and good, or what time we get up in morning, or what distance it is to next intersection on the drive to work.

These days there has been a fear of judgementalism to the point where people are just down-right scared to make any judgement on anything. The old scapegoat now is starting off every sentence with "In my opinion" or "IMO" which we see here all the time (but not from me!).

You have a good point about Egypt and Saudi Arabia. I'm to the point where I'm just fed up with depending on the ME for oil. The only way the win this war is to tell the ME to take their oil and use it for an unmentionable sex act. Will this ever happen? I don't know.

Anyway, I've had a few beers in me so I guess I'm rambling a bit (actually a lot!). Tomorrow's Memorial Day and I'll be at the local VFW club with the vets saluting those who deserve it. Just remember when you make a judgement, know who you're judging first before you do.

Happy Memorial Day my minister friend!

Back to Top
maani View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Founding Moderator

Joined: January 30 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2632
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 28 2006 at 13:59

Dalezilla:

Thanks!

BB:

You say, "It is a very smart idea to doubt the 'official story.' Suffice it to say that I have not heard a single theory that is as compelling and most reasonable to believe, and has the amount of physical and non-physical evidence, as the 'official story..'

If you are not one of those who is simply dismissing out of hand any alternate theory website, are you certain you have really been doing serious research in this regard? Because I have found that the more research I do - epecially on sites that include truly reputable scientific, engineering and other experts - the more it becomes clear that the science and engineering, etc. do not support the "official story" (most especially re WTC and WTC 7), and, indeed, either clearly refute it or at least raise very serious questions about its accuracy.

MtS:

You say, "I just don't think it's as sinister as you seem to think it is. It looks to me like you're trying relive the Nixonian days just in order to have something to protest because you're just plain bored. Middle aged years are fun aren't they?"

Actually, it has nothing to do with middle age: I've been highly skeptical of "official stories" since my teens!! And my attitude has only become more prevalent - and provenly and supportably so - since then!

Also, you say, "I seriously doubt Saddam is as innocent in the terrorism dept as you say," and sent me to a link that provides alleged evidence of Saddam's backing of terrorism.

Even if I were to take that site, and all of its info, at face value, that does not change the fact that no country has the right to simply go into another sovereign country and overthrow its leader. Period. After all, there are quite a few countries whose leaders support terrorism in various ways - including our friends Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Should we overthrow their leaders, too?

Peace.

Back to Top
marktheshark View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: April 24 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1695
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 28 2006 at 11:54
maani quote:

"In addition, the Bush Administration then used dummied up evidence of WMDs and links between Hussein and Al Qaeda – including “yellow cake” uranium that never existed, mobile chemical warfare trucks that were nothing of the sort, an almost completely phony PowerPoint presentation to the U.N., and pictures of mushroom clouds – to gain public support for an aggressive, unprovoked, pre-emptive regime change and “war” in Iraq. This action had nothing whatsoever to do with protecting U.S. citizens, since Hussein, as bad a man as he may have been, had never even threatened terrorist action against the U.S., much less engaged in it. He may well be guilty of crimes against his own people, but he was the leader of a sovereign nation who the “coalition forces” had no right - under any law – to simply overthrow."

Well if you want to go battle of the blogs, I think you need to check this out.

LINK

I seriously doubt Saddam is as innocent in the terrorism dept as you say.
    
    

Edited by marktheshark - May 28 2006 at 11:57
Back to Top
Dalezilla View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: July 28 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 5113
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 28 2006 at 10:16
Great posts maani!! Clap
Back to Top
billbuckner View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: May 07 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 433
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 28 2006 at 08:44
Originally posted by maani maani wrote:

Bill:
 
Does that mean you have at least some doubts about the "official story" re the WTC, WTC 7 and Pennsylvania?
 
Peace.

I am trying to look at this without personal bias, which of course is just about impossible. It is a very smart idea to doubt the "official story". Suffice it to say that I have not heard a single theory that is as compelling and most reasonable to believe, and has the amount of physical and non-physical evidence, as the "official story".
Back to Top
marktheshark View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: April 24 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1695
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 27 2006 at 22:46
No maani, I'm not brainwashed. Believe me I have lots of issues with the government too. It's bloated beyond extreme and very wasteful and I too think it can be more intrusive then it needs to be. You seem to forget that I'm a conservative. Bush has tossed all that out the window.

I just don't think it's as sinister as you seem to think it is. It looks to me like you're trying relive the Nixonian days just in order to have something to protest because you're just plain bored. Middle aged years are fun aren't they?
    

Edited by marktheshark - May 27 2006 at 22:47
Back to Top
maani View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Founding Moderator

Joined: January 30 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2632
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 27 2006 at 21:37
Bill:
 
Does that mean you have at least some doubts about the "official story" re the WTC, WTC 7 and Pennsylvania?
 
Peace.
Back to Top
maani View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Founding Moderator

Joined: January 30 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2632
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 27 2006 at 21:36

Mark:

 

You are confusing my "spiritual" view with my "temporal" view.  Ultimately, yes, I'd like to see everyone lay down their arms, even unilaterally.  Violence begets violence no matter who starts it.  The cycle of violence is a self-fulfilling prophecy of a world system based on money, power, greed, etc.  In that regard, I personally follow Jesus, Gandhi, King and others.

 

And the history of the United States is not without its blame for creating the very cycles of violence we see today, whether it was the result of imperialism, colonialism, or simply meddling in the affairs of other, sovereign nations whenever we could claim "strategic interests" in or around those countries.  Don't be naive.  The U.S. and Britain – especially - are as much to blame for what is going on in the world as is radical fundamental Islam.

 

However, from a purely "temporal" standpoint, there is no question that a country has the right to defend itself from aggressors, whether internal or external.  It is how we go about that that determines the “rightness” of the method and response.  Even were the “official story” re 9/11 100% true, the way in which the Bush Administration “used” that event goes beyond simple “protection” of its citizens.  As I noted (and, again, assuming the “official story” is 100% true, which I don’t), had the response simply been to attempt to engage Al Qaeda and capture bin Laden for crimes against humanity, from a temporal standpoint I would have supported that.

 

However, that is not what occurred.  Re Afghanistan, we made only a half-hearted attempt to capture bin Laden, Bush’s tough Texas swagger and talk (“dead or alive,” “smoke him out,” etc.) notwithstanding.  We did succeed in routing the Taliban and, to some degree, weakening (or at least dispersing) Al Qaeda.  But given that we “installed” (no better word) a new president who was not only friendly to the U.S., but was a former Unocal oil official whose first action in office was to sign the deal that would allow U.S. oil and gas companies to create a much-desired pipeline from the Caspian Sea, one has to wonder which of the two (routing the Taliban and Al Qaeda or securing the pipeline) was the priority.

 

In addition, the Bush Administration then used dummied up evidence of WMDs and links between Hussein and Al Qaeda – including “yellow cake” uranium that never existed, mobile chemical warfare trucks that were nothing of the sort, an almost completely phony PowerPoint presentation to the U.N., and pictures of mushroom clouds – to gain public support for an aggressive, unprovoked, pre-emptive regime change and “war” in Iraq.  This action had nothing whatsoever to do with protecting U.S. citizens, since Hussein, as bad a man as he may have been, had never even threatened terrorist action against the U.S., much less engaged in it.  He may well be guilty of crimes against his own people, but he was the leader of a sovereign nation who the “coalition forces” had no right - under any law – to simply overthrow.

 

However, as with the pipeline in Afghanistan, the “ancillary” aspects of the regime change in Iraq – enriching the military-industrial complex and war profiteers, control of the third largest oil reserves in the world, billions of dollars in no-bid “reconstruction” contracts to Bush/Cheney friends and cronies - point to the question of what the actual priorities were in this action.  Unlike Afghanistan, however, the entire action in Iraq – even without the ancillary aspects – was insupportable, and did not serve to “protect” U.S. (or British) citizens.

 

Then there is the Patriot ACT, and the many actions – Internet monitoring, illegal wiretapping, random searches, etc. – that not only do not serve to help protect U.S. citizens, but actually erode the very freedoms and civil liberties we claim to be “exporting” via “democracy.”  I know you will argue that it is important to gather information via Internet, phones, etc. for possible protection against future terrorist actions.  Even if I agreed that that was so, there is also the way in which the Bush Administration carried out these things: sub rosa, illegally and without even discussing it with Congressional committees that would have had a right to know about it, even if it had to be kept “secret” from the public so that “the enemy” didn’t know about it either.

 

I could also talk about the way in which the Bush Administration carries out its “war on terror” – giving the president the unilateral discretion to determine who is an “enemy combatant,” and to keep those people isolated and incarcerated without access to their families or legal counsel; engaging in torture that is banned by the Geneva Convention; and basically flouting every international rule, law, regulation and policy that has been agreed to by every other civilized nation on the planet.

 
Temporally, there are legitimate ways in which to carry out operations, actions, intelligence gathering, and other things needed to protect U.S. citizens – and even maintain a large degree of “secrecy” about them.  However, the Bush Administration cannot claim such legitimacy for the way in which it has acted since 9/11.  Indeed, as I have pointed out ad nauseam, the way in which the Bush Administration has acted since 9/11 is unbelievably suspect - if not blatantly dismissive of human and civil rights - vis-à-vis the alleged “protection” of its citizens.

 

I, for one, do not feel “safer” when my government invades a sovereign country under false pretense in order to gain access to oil reserves, and in the process actually increases terrorist activity in that country.  I do not feel safer when my government engages a terrorist government in Afghanistan and routs them, only to install a president who makes it possible for us to create a lucrative pipeline – only to leave and then have the Taliban and other violent elements begin claiming the country again.  I do not feel safer when my government takes the unique and historical global goodwill generated by the 9/11 attacks and squanders it to the point that anti-Americanism is on the rise even in Western countries.  I do not feel safer when my government creates an interest-conflicted panel to whitewash the events of 9/11 – especially when they themselves did not want the panel, and then refused to cooperate with it.  I do not feel safer when my government begins engaging in proto-totalitarian actions under the guise of “protecting” me, when I see my freedoms and civil rights being eroded in the name of an illusory “security” against a never-ending “war on terror.”  I do not feel safer when my government does things in my name with which I do not agree, and with some of which I vehemently disagree.  I do not feel safer in a world in which my government is in bed with transnational corporations who profit from the actions that are allegedly being undertaken to “protect” me.

 

Mark, I don’t know if you are being deliberately obtuse, or whether you are so brainwashed by the system that you have some “angelic” notion about your country and its government, and especially the people currently in power.  I will leave you with the words of Martin Niemoeller, a Protestant minister in Germany just prior to the rise of Hitler.  They are very instructive:

 

“First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out.  Then they came for the Socialists and Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out.  Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out.  And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.”

 

You might also want to check out the following article:

 

http://www.michaelbutler.com/blog/civic/2006/05/27/top-10-signs-of-the-impending-us-police-state/

 

Peace.



Edited by maani - May 27 2006 at 21:41
Back to Top
billbuckner View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: May 07 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 433
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 27 2006 at 21:30
No, Manni, I am not refusing to believe that the Government had the capability to do this. Of course they did. What I refuse to believe is that the plotters managed to fly something other than a 757 plane into the Pentagon, deposit debris and remains onto the site, with a crowd of people watching, and not noticing, while all this could have been avoided if they had not been morons, and had flown a remote controlled 757 into the Pentagon.
Back to Top
marktheshark View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: April 24 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1695
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 27 2006 at 19:32
Originally posted by maani maani wrote:

Mark:


Your rabid hawkishness is clouding not only your judgment, but your ability to read.  When did I ever suggest that we should not do anything "forceful?"  When did I suggest that the U.S. military and intelligence apparatuses should simply "stand down" and do nothing re terrorism?  Did I not agree only two posts ago that Islamic terrorism is indeed something that needs to be dealt with?  Did I not admit that it has been around for some time, that there are those who follow a narrow view of Islam that promotes violence, and that many young Arabs are willing to sacrifice themselves for that "cause?"

 

Why do you put words in my mouth, and ignore the things that I do say?

 

Simply because I believe that 9/11 was a staged event does not obviate the need to fight real terrorism, or to be "forceful" in doing so.  Just because I believe that my government is complicit in the events of 9/11 does not mean that real Islamic terrorism does not exist, or that it should not be fought.  The two things - U.S. government complicity in 9/11 and fighting real terrorism - are not mutually exclusive.

 

Peace.

maani, your views go further back with me then just a couple weeks ago. For almost a year we've gotten into this. Last year you were quoting Gandhi and talking about how we should lay down on this. Now, you're singing a different tune all of a sudden. I'm not going to go dig up old quotes, I'm just too lazy, maybe you can remind me. But it sounds like you're shifting a bit on some things.
    
Back to Top
maani View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Founding Moderator

Joined: January 30 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2632
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 27 2006 at 17:57

Mark:

Your rabid hawkishness is clouding not only your judgment, but your ability to read.  When did I ever suggest that we should not do anything "forceful?"  When did I suggest that the U.S. military and intelligence apparatuses should simply "stand down" and do nothing re terrorism?  Did I not agree only two posts ago that Islamic terrorism is indeed something that needs to be dealt with?  Did I not admit that it has been around for some time, that there are those who follow a narrow view of Islam that promotes violence, and that many young Arabs are willing to sacrifice themselves for that "cause?"
 
Why do you put words in my mouth, and ignore the things that I do say?
 
Simply because I believe that 9/11 was a staged event does not obviate the need to fight real terrorism, or to be "forceful" in doing so.  Just because I believe that my government is complicit in the events of 9/11 does not mean that real Islamic terrorism does not exist, or that it should not be fought.  The two things - U.S. government complicity in 9/11 and fighting real terrorism - are not mutually exclusive.
 
Peace.
Back to Top
marktheshark View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: April 24 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1695
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 27 2006 at 17:41
Now you see, Phil just proved my point. It's this taking the attitude of "Ooh! We better not do anything forceful because we'll might make the terrorists mad!" that's just giving them fodder to keep on with what they're doing.

This pointing the blame finger in the opposite direction just gives them a morale boost which is just as dangerous as giving them military secrets, maani!
Back to Top
Phil View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 17 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1881
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 27 2006 at 17:29
^ Phew! Having followed a little of this thread I just want to say, what a great advert for free speech...I mean that, it would be a poorer world if you/we couldn't debate like this, which is what some of the disaffected individuals behind 9/11 and other terrorist atrocities would like to achieve. Persoanlly, I find myself sceptical of conspiracy theories - human beings are rarely that organised.
 
What I do think (I live in Britain) is that I feel far less safe than I did a few years ago - as the London bombers showed, it wasn't some clever organisation that caused mayhem; it was the action of a few misguided (deranged?) folk who felt out of place with society. I'm not a bleeding heart liberal - I just feel you can't stop people from thinking and acting this way by force, be that military, political, or religious. No, not great times to be bringing my kids up in; 9/11 was an awful atrocity but I fear Bush and Blair have only made matters worse.  Anyhow that's a bit off track...I'm done....sorry folks!


Edited by Phil - May 27 2006 at 17:32
Back to Top
maani View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Founding Moderator

Joined: January 30 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2632
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 27 2006 at 15:53

Mark:

 

You say, "Come on maani! You're trying to rationalize and it's not working. Everytime Al Queda looks at blogs like this, they just rub their hands together with glee and say "Oh goody! Look at these fools fighting amongst each other over what we did. They sure don't have a sense of right and wrong like they did in 1941. What a bunch of confused idiots! Let's take advantage of that! Your idea of an open, honest government is pubicizing weaponary, troop movements and communications that could very well endanger lives."

 

Where is this coming from?  I said nothing about publicizing weaponry, troop movements and communications.  I would not be in favor of that.  But that was not what you asked.  You asked about whether the things we say here - on this site, on this thread, on this issue - might "aid and abet the enemy."  And I suggested that there is nothing we could possibly say here that would have one iota of effect on "the enemy."  What could we possibly say that they could "take advantage of?"  Indeed, what is that we are saying, or suggesting, that is not being discussed all over the world, on Internet sites, in the media, in the public square?  And you talk about me being paranoid!

 

I am not "rationalizing" anything.  Indeed, if 9/11 was not a staged event – especially given how it was deliberately and cynically "used" (Iraq, the Patriot Act, etc.) - it would be an anomaly in history, from the Trojan Horse to the Reichstag fire, from Pearl Harbor to the Gulf of Tonkin incident.  History shows repeatedly that "staged events" are used regularly in order to provide a rationale (one that also seeks to increase public support) for entering into a military conflict - which, in modern times, we know financially benefits the military-industrial complex.  That there were other "strategic" (a cynical euphemism for "financial") goals to be gained - the world's third largest oil reserves, a pipeline from the Caspian Sea, billions of dollars in "reconstruction" contracts that just happened to go to friends and cronies of Bush and Cheney - only adds to the belief that 9/11 was just another "staged event" in a history of "staged events."

 

You (and others here) simply can’t – outright refuse to - wrap your mind around even the possibility that our government murdered its own citizens in order to achieve selfish political and financial goals.  I readily admit it is an incredibly difficult thing even to consider, much less to accept.  And I fully understand and appreciate this.  In fact, it is incumbent upon those who cannot believe this - even as a possibility - to fight tooth and nail to support the “official story” of the events of 9/11, and even to simply dismiss out of hand any attempt to discredit the “official story,” and provide evidence (of any kind) for an alternate theory.  And the fact that some here simply dismiss out of hand any and all websites, reports, etc. that support alternate theories shows the lengths that some will go to support the “official story,” and give no credence whatsoever to alternate theories - even when experts who are just as credentialed, knowledgeable and respected as those who support the “official story” are represented on those websites.

 

This is, of course, to be expected under such extraordinary circumstances.  Although, as Fitz points out, my passion is also clearly evident (LOL), it is not really my goal to make you outright “converts” to any particular alternate theory.  My goal is simply to get you to “think outside the box” – a box into which many of you have willingly and happily locked yourselves - to at least consider what those of us who question the “official story” are saying, and to “do the research” not only to support your own belief, but to see how and why those of us who do not share that belief believe as we do.

 

The difference here – especially re those of you who simply dismiss out of hand any attempt to support an alternate theory – is that many of us who support alternate theories are fully aware of the “official story,” and have read The 9/11 Commission Report, as well as many other articles, websites, etc. that support the “official story.”  It is because the “official story” – especially as represented by The 9/11 Commission Report – is so full of holes, or at least raises as many questions as it answers, that we cannot, in the best of faith, accept it at face value.  On the other hand, many of you who support the “official story” with loaded guns in your hands (LOL) do not make any attempt to step outside your box and learn anything at all about the alternate theories.  It is one thing, for example, to dismiss the idea that a missile hit the Pentagon; it is quite another to dismiss every single piece of evidence or support for every single aspect of every single alternate theory.

 

Unless and until the most severe skeptics – those who believe in “my country, right or wrong,” and would just assume shoot me for holding the views that I do re 9/11 – are at least willing to open their eyes enough to truly do some serious research re “the other side,” their blanket dismissals of everything that does not fit their pre-conceived (or even partly supported) beliefs about 9/11 seem little more than an ignorance of history, and a serious state of denial.

 

Peace.

Back to Top
VanderGraafKommandöh View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 04 2005
Location: Malaria
Status: Offline
Points: 89372
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 27 2006 at 12:10
And you've still managed to avoid everything Maani has had to stay.  You have no reply.

I liken this to the Princess Diana accident.  Yet another possibility of foul play by people who people trust.

What's the difference between the Royal family and an American government covering up things?  Nothing.
Back to Top
Fitzcarraldo View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 30 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1835
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 26 2006 at 20:06
Originally posted by maani maani wrote:

Fitz:

 

I do not discount your position, your belief or the passion that underlies both.

 
 
maani,
 
I think we're both passionate! Wink
 
All the best.
 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 18>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.215 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.