3292 replies to this topic

[Babe Ruth]

Hey Kludge, I'm old like you.  You're not talking to a virgin.  I served in the Army and have worked with the FAA in several different jobs.

Though I didn't work for the government long, I know how it works.

Actually, the feds did the right thing.  They took advantage of his good nature, scratched his back and got scratched in return.  He signed the death warrants and changed subsequent statements to the press.  Team player.  I know what it means.  I'm not the best, but I can do it, have done it.

The feds controlled the media on their end, and denied access to 'the site' the feds created after they got Wally to play along.

11 years later, half the country still believes it.  Deception on a sublime level.

[DONTEATUS]

Babe Ruth we need to talk man , You must feel like the entire planet Is gunning for you ? Well sit on down and pull up a chair ! Were going to have a little Heart to Heart ! 911 & Pentagon C.T.  people must have skin of poly-propalatics ! THere so Full of it Almost to a dangerous level .
Can we get to the Bottom of you Idea once and for all ?
Have you ever proven that anything but the Air Liners didnt Hit the Towers,and Pentagon ?
Well The stuff that you have provided is quite lame in the eyes of about 99% of the members in here. Im  just wondering ? Can you Prove without a Shadow of a Doubt that all the things you have said are even worth reading again !
Opp`s there went that bag of worms  again ! Happy New Year to All the U?M members !

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 29 December 2012 - 10:18 PM, said:

Though I didn't work for the government long, I know how it works.

But, many companies, which are not government agencies, have supported the official story based on facts and evidence, not fantasy.

[Kludge808]

Babe Ruth, on 29 December 2012 - 10:18 PM, said:

Hey Kludge, I'm old like you.  You're not talking to a virgin.  I served in the Army and have worked with the FAA in several different jobs.

Though I didn't work for the government long, I know how it works.

Nope, I'm not expecting a virgin.  I wouldn't know what to do with one anyway.  ;-)

Like you, I did time in the service and worked with the FAA now and then when my rather limited expertise was handy.  I did work with a government agency for a while, an experience I really do not want to discuss.  (It's not that I can't - or I don't think there's any such restriction - but that I won't.)  That's one of those things NO one will ever get me drunk enough to admit to.

I think we've all done the "team player" thing somewhere along the line.  It's what happens when the person/people making the "suggestion" hold all the trump.  (Sorry, not a poker player so can't go that route with terminology.  But then, no one ever got shot playing bridge or 500. <G>)  It may or may not be beneficial in the long run but that doesn't mean diddly squat during the immediate situation.

Presuming what you say is true, then Wally was in just such a position and didn't have much of a choice in the matter.

Quote

11 years later, half the country still believes it.  Deception on a sublime level.

Probably more than half with a portion undecided even now.

[DONTEATUS]

I wonder just how Long BR did work for the Man?

[Babe Ruth]

Kludge808, on 30 December 2012 - 08:14 AM, said:

Nope, I'm not expecting a virgin.  I wouldn't know what to do with one anyway.  ;-)

Like you, I did time in the service and worked with the FAA now and then when my rather limited expertise was handy.  I did work with a government agency for a while, an experience I really do not want to discuss.  (It's not that I can't - or I don't think there's any such restriction - but that I won't.)  That's one of those things NO one will ever get me drunk enough to admit to.

I think we've all done the "team player" thing somewhere along the line.  It's what happens when the person/people making the "suggestion" hold all the trump.  (Sorry, not a poker player so can't go that route with terminology.  But then, no one ever got shot playing bridge or 500. <G>)  It may or may not be beneficial in the long run but that doesn't mean diddly squat during the immediate situation.

Presuming what you say is true, then Wally was in just such a position and didn't have much of a choice in the matter.

Probably more than half with a portion undecided even now.

That's my only point Kludge--Wally had NO choice, really.  Who is going to say no to the FBI on such a day?  Certainly not a small town funeral director who happens to be the county coroner.  He did what he did, and it's history.

The feds made the best of a bad situation.  Because of Wally's honest remarks to the media, they had temporarily lost control of the situation.  They went into damage control, and ended up with a tolerable situation, and of course NEVER lost control of the media.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 31 December 2012 - 03:20 PM, said:

That's my only point Kludge--Wally had NO choice, really.  Who is going to say no to the FBI on such a day?

Let's remember, you were the person who brought in Wally Miller thinking that he supported your case, which he did not and as a result, he slammed the 9/11 conspiracist for distorting his remarks.

[Babe Ruth]

skyeagle409, on 31 December 2012 - 04:12 PM, said:

Let's remember, you were the person who brought in Wally Miller thinking that he supported your case, which he did not and as a result, he slammed the 9/11 conspiracist for distorting his remarks.

Let's remember that you were the person who brought a faked video here to UM, and posted it to demonstrate some bizarre point you were trying to make.

Once bitten, twice shy.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 31 December 2012 - 09:23 PM, said:

Let's remember that you were the person who brought a faked video here to UM, and posted it to demonstrate some bizarre point you were trying to make.

Once bitten, twice shy.

How many times have you tried to bite us? We haven't forgotten that P700 anti-ship missile of yours and then, you tried to bite us again with a claim that no wreckage was found at the Pentagon nor near Shanksville?  What's up  with that?!

You can't be too shy considering the many occasions you were taken to the cleaners and bitten by those 9/11 CT websites as evident by the contents of your messages, which of course are false.

Edited by skyeagle409, 31 December 2012 - 09:33 PM.

[Iron_Lotus]

skyeagle409, on 31 December 2012 - 09:29 PM, said:

How many times have you tried to bite us? We haven't forgotten that P700 anti-ship missile of yours and then, you tried to bite us again with a claim that no wreckage was found at the Pentagon nor near Shanksville?  What's up  with that?!

You can't be too shy considering the many occasions you were taken to the cleaners and bitten by those 9/11 CT websites as evident by the contents of your messages, which of course are false.

nukes too.

[skyeagle409]

Iron_Lotus, on 31 December 2012 - 10:52 PM, said:

nukes too.

I heard that!! He ignored the fact there was no evidence of explosions, but then again, he has been ignoring evidence all along.

[Q24]

Kludge808, on 27 December 2012 - 06:49 PM, said:

Ah, LG, that's the beauty of a perfect conspiracy theory.  If there's no supporting evidence then it was all suppressed and it's an automatic win.  If there's anything that could even vaguely be considered evidence in the CTists' minds then it is again a win.

Here here!  Though I must say the unprecedented lack of physical investigation of the airliners, Bush and Cheney’s refusal to testify under oath, destruction of WTC steel members even after they had been marked of specific interest and for further analysis, etc, etc, etc, may all rather be indication of suppression of evidence.   Anyhow, it all seems very one-sided.  Bear with me...

Did you know that during the 70s, a group of Neocons headed by GHW Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and supported by Cheney attempted to exaggerate the Soviet threat?  Team B the project was called, which opposed the NIE’s own analysis with intention to frighten the U.S. public and wider government into supporting more militaristic ideologies.  Where there was evidence for Team B’s conclusions, it was a win.  Where there was not evidence... well, that’s because the Soviets had advanced military covert programs... so they made it up instead.  Of course later, such threats were found to be a Neocon fantasy.

Fast-forward three decades, and we come to the Iraq war on the basis of Saddam’s soon to be realised ‘non-existent’ WMD program.  The same Neocons involved all over again, bar GW Bush now standing in for his father.  And during that propaganda campaign, where there was evidence, it was a win.  Where there was not evidence... well, that’s because Saddam was keeping it super-secret... so they made it up instead.

Now sandwiched between the above two episodes was a certain 9/11.  Again the very same individuals at the helm, who we now know (or at least we should, based on the above) will scare-monger with propaganda and fantasy to further their agendas.  They tell us bin Laden and ‘Al-Qaeda’ is responsible and kindly draw the boundaries of that network for us.  Where there was the evidence of connected individuals, it was a win.  Where there was not evidence that would stand up in court... well, that’s because bin Laden was on the run and hiding so they couldn’t catch him to prove it... so they made it up instead.

So it seems to me, that everything you mention above about the ‘perfect conspiracy theory’ could be likewise applied to the ‘perfect Neocon theory’... or is it that Neocons create ‘perfect conspiracy theories’ which should be equally recognised as such?  I certainly know which is the more dangerous.  It’s just a thought about upon which particular ‘conspiracy theories’ our attentions are best focussed.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 04 January 2013 - 04:23 PM, said:

Here here!  Though I must say the unprecedented lack of physical investigation of the airliners, Bush and Cheney’s refusal to testify under oath, destruction of WTC steel members even after they had been marked of specific interest and for further analysis, etc, etc, etc, may all rather be indication of suppression of evidence.   Anyhow, it all seems very one-sided.  Bear with me.

I might add that there was more than enough evidence the aircraft were the airframes of American 11, American 77, United 93 and United 175. Only a certain number of "200 series" pertaining to those aircraft were built.

Quote

Fast-forward three decades, and we come to the Iraq war on the basis of Saddam’s soon to be realised ‘non-existent’ WMD program.  The same Neocons involved all over again, bar GW Bush now standing in for his father.  And during that propaganda campaign, where there was evidence, it was a win.  Where there was not evidence... well, that’s because Saddam was keeping it super-secret... so they made it up instead.

How many combat troops are currently in Iraq? None! Are we scheduled to pull out combat troops from Afghanistan next year? Yes!

*   Did we invade Iraq after the 1993 WTC1 bombing? No!

*   Did we invade Afghanistan after al-Qaeda bombed our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania? No!

*   Did we invade Afghanistan after the bombing of the USS Cole? No!

*   Did we invade Libya after the downing of Pan Am 103? No!

[Q24]

skyeagle409, on 04 January 2013 - 05:16 PM, said:

I might add that there was more than enough evidence the aircraft were the airframes of American 11, American 77, United 93 and United 175. Only a certain number of "200 series" pertaining to those aircraft were built.

There is enough evidence for the unquestioning mind, though due to the lack of physical identification, there is zero direct evidence that any of the airliners are those stated.

skyeagle409, on 04 January 2013 - 05:16 PM, said:

How many combat troops are currently in Iraq? None! Are we scheduled to pull out combat troops from Afghanistan next year? Yes!

*   Did we invade Iraq after the 1993 WTC1 bombing? No!

*   Did we invade Afghanistan after al-Qaeda bombed our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania? No!

*   Did we invade Afghanistan after the bombing of the USS Cole? No!

*   Did we invade Libya after the downing of Pan Am 103? No!

I don’t see your point.  What is your point?

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 04 January 2013 - 05:59 PM, said:

There is enough evidence for the unquestioning mind, though due to the lack of physical identificationthere is zero direct evidence that any of the airliners are those stated.

Lack of physical evidence? There was evidence all over the crash sites. You can also check the fleet histories of American Airlines and United Airlines and the maintenance checks and flight histories of the affected aircraft.

It doesn't take much to determine what happened to those aircraft because there is black box, radar and yes, even satellite data in addition to ATC communication tapes, and remember, only a certain number of B-757-200 and B-767-200 series aircraft were built. Question is, how are you going to acquire a B-757 or a B-767 and not leave a traceable paper trail thousands of miles long?

Quote

I don’t see your point.  What is your point?

Seems to me you tried to paint the United States as a warmonger that will do anything to start a war.