Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

General of all American Intelligence:


  • Please log in to reply
431 replies to this topic

#46    atom286

atom286

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts
  • Joined:27 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wolverhampton

Posted 17 July 2009 - 01:20 PM

expandmymind on Jul 7 2009, 01:55 AM, said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daNr_TrBw6E

is this guy reliable? who is he?


Nobody is asking what concrete the Penatgon is constructed out off.

It may be military grade with composites in it to withstand attacks.


#47    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 17 July 2009 - 01:43 PM

Q24 on Jul 16 2009, 02:27 PM, said:

Scott G on Jul 16 2009, 03:03 PM)


So many points, so little time, lol :-). I may get around to it :-p.


Ok but if you want to claim there was no plane then it is very important to address those points.


I think I've already made a fair amount of good points, but I'll address the first one in your post 20, concerning the "Over one hundred witnesses claim to have seen an airliner at the scene". Aldo Marquis, one of the members of CIT (Citizen's Investigation Team), who created thepentagon.com site, and a contributor over at Pilots for 9/11 Truth, wrote up a very good post concerning the 104 alleged witnesses. What he reveals is quite interesting I believe. You may wish to take a look:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=10632


Q24 on Jul 16 2009, 02:27 PM, said:


So many points, so little time, lol :-). I may get around to it :-p.


Ok but if you want to claim there was no plane then it is very important to address those points.


I think I've already made a fair amount of good points, but I'll address the first one in your post 20, concerning the "Over one hundred witnesses claim to have seen an airliner at the scene". Aldo Marquis, one of the members of CIT (Citizen's Investigation Team), who created thepentagon.com site, and a contributor over at Pilots for 9/11 Truth, wrote up a very good post concerning the 104 alleged witnesses. What he reveals is quite interesting I believe. You may wish to take a look:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=10632


QUOTE (Q24 on Jul 16 2009, 02:27 PM, said:


So many points, so little time, lol :-). I may get around to it :-p.


Ok but if you want to claim there was no plane then it is very important to address those points.
rum//index.php?showtopic=10632" target="_blank">http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=10632


QUOTE (Q24 @ Jul 16 2009, 02:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
There is no sense in a theory that hides from half of the facts.


There's a large difference between not having the time and hiding from facts. Unlike the official investigators who were payed for their time, no one is paying me to go digging for links I remember seeing.


#48    Valdemar the Great

Valdemar the Great

    Commander in the Secret Space Fleet

  • Member
  • 24,547 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Sea of Okhotsk

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 17 July 2009 - 02:15 PM

Scott G on Jul 17 2009, 02:16 PM, said:

However, if the head of all army intelligence states that, given the evidence he -did- have, it's clear that a plane didn't hit the pentagon, I'm inclined to take his word seriously.

Considering that this Head of All Army Intelligence was also a leading light in Project Stargate and all that wackiness, you're still inclined to take him as entirely trustworthy?

Quote

Or the plane never crashed into the pentagon at all, instead flying over it as explosions rocked the pentagon, making it -look- like a plane crashed into the pentagon to all but one or at most a handful of observers that were close enough to witness the deception.

Why? Why go to all these incredibly complicated lengths? Why not just fly an actual plane? It'd be whole lot easier, really it would.

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

H. P. Lovecraft.


Posted Image


#49    The Silver Thong

The Silver Thong

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,167 posts
  • Joined:02 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary Alberta Canada

Posted 17 July 2009 - 02:51 PM

atom286 on Jul 17 2009, 07:20 AM, said:

Nobody is asking what concrete the Penatgon is constructed out off.

It may be military grade with composites in it to withstand attacks.



Why are you using such technical terms  tongue.gif  Reinforced concrete, what is military grade concrete ?


Eye witness reports don't jive with the official govenment release of the trajectory of the plane. Why is that?


Sittin back drinkin beer watchin the world take it's course.


The only thing god can't do is prove he exists ?

#50    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 17 July 2009 - 10:30 PM

merril on Jul 17 2009, 08:18 AM, said:

And, as for the apparent sudden conversion of Q24 to anything approaching the realistic historical facts of 9-11...we have to wait on that one.

There are only one set of facts but history can vary and I think that is where we differ.


Scott G on Jul 17 2009, 01:36 PM, said:

It shows damage, but I see no evidence that it was caused by a plane wing. Perhaps more importantly, I see no evidence of a wing.

Well the damage runs adjacent to the main impact location in a line across three columns and has fairly consistent width and depth.  Therefore we could say the impact mark seems to have been made by a large linear object attached to the body of whatever hit the Pentagon.  It sounds very plausibly like a wing to me.

What do you propose caused this damage if not a wing?

I don’t find it surprising there was no recognisable physical evidence of the actual wing itself.  Impacting reinforced concrete at such speed there will be little left except very small pieces of debris, much of it inside the building as the wing broke and was forced back.

What do you expect to be able to see of the wing after such an impact?


Scott G on Jul 17 2009, 01:51 PM, said:

I've seen their past videos and have begun to see their new video. Why not see it for yourself? Within the first few minutes, there are points enough I believe:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5296595694237574426

Although I’m not hopeful of seeing anything new, I will watch the video and respond to anything interesting this weekend.


Scott G on Jul 17 2009, 02:16 PM, said:

I was never claiming he had all of the photographic evidence. However, if the head of all army intelligence states that, given the evidence he -did- have, it's clear that a plane didn't hit the pentagon, I'm inclined to take his word seriously. I think it highly unlikely that the head of so many intelligence organizations would make a statement with such enormous implications lightly.

General Stubblebine was retired from army intelligence long before 9/11.  This means he would have only the same photographs as are available to the rest of us.  Pictures of the Pentagon event were/are somewhat limited in detail, the majority taken from a distance and/or obscured by smoke.  Based on the common photographic evidence prior to 2003, like Stubblebine, I would also conclude there is no evidence of wing impact damage.

I think the first time most people would really notice the wing impact damage was with the release of the Pentagon Building Performance Report in 2003.  Within the report there are three pictures that show the damage but still only two sentences describing it – they should have emphasised this area more perhaps.  It’s only much more recently that I became aware of the photographs.

Is it possible that Stubblebine studied the evidence and came to his conclusion prior to 2003?


Scott G on Jul 17 2009, 02:16 PM, said:

And yet no turbulence was experienced by cars that had to have been affected. This isn't even getting into the fact that the plane would have had to have done something like 10gs in order to even get into such a position, which is impossible for such a plane. Then there's the fact that even the official story's data regarding the plane's trajectory would have made it to be flying too high to hit the light poles that were allegedly knocked down by the plane:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html

The plane was extremely low skimming across the Pentagon lawn but if it were higher over the road and nose slightly down (this was no normal landing approach afterall!) then the engine turbulence would not be directed at the cars.  I have yet to hear from an aviation expert who says the aircraft could not structurally handle the manoeuvre.

Ah the Flight Data Recorder that is allegedly from Flight 77, something we can agree on.  The animation from the data released by the NTSB does not match the flight path of whatever impacted the Pentagon – the aircraft is too high and on the wrong bearing.  The Flight Data Recorder serial number has also never been confirmed by the NTSB.  This issue is peculiar and suggests the data was not from the flight that impacted the Pentagon and/or was tampered with and/or the NTSB were supplied with false data.  Of course official story followers will fall back on that reliable excuse of ‘incompetence’.


QUOTE (Scott G @ Jul 17 2009, 02:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Or the plane never crashed into the pentagon at all, instead flying over it as explosions rocked the pentagon, making it -look- like a plane crashed into the pentagon to all but one or at most a handful of observers that were close enough to witness the deception.

It would be sheer madness for the 9/11 plotters to take this unnecessary high risk.


QUOTE (Scott G @ Jul 17 2009, 02:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I think I've already made a fair amount of good points, but I'll address the first one in your post 20, concerning the "Over one hundred witnesses claim to have seen an airliner at the scene". Aldo Marquis, one of the members of CIT (Citizen's Investigation Team), who created thepentagon.com site, and a contributor over at Pilots for 9/11 Truth, wrote up a very good post concerning the 104 alleged witnesses. What he reveals is quite interesting I believe. You may wish to take a look:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=10632

It’s easy to pick at the eyewitness evidence – I’ve done it myself though never really got anywhere.  Some of the accounts are contradictory and some seems to be sensationalised and expanded on beyond reason.  I think this is natural in eyewitness evidence due to human nature.  What a great many witnesses do agree on is that there was a plane present and even your own link indicates that 33 of them saw the plane and impact.


QUOTE (747400 @ Jul 17 2009, 03:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Why? Why go to all these incredibly complicated lengths? Why not just fly an actual plane? It'd be whole lot easier, really it would.

For a change, I agree with you.


QUOTE (The Silver Thong @ Jul 17 2009, 03:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Eye witness reports don't jive with the official govenment release of the trajectory of the plane. Why is that?

What do you think of the explanation at the bottom of this post when you asked on the last page?

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#51    pbarosso

pbarosso

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 999 posts
  • Joined:16 Sep 2005

Posted 17 July 2009 - 11:28 PM

look, what about the flight that american citizens took down. you know the one that has the recording of the guy saying, "lets roll" and then the plane crashes in a field?

perhaps that was all made up too?

the pursuit of knowledge will force you to pick a side. Choose wisely.
                                                --me

#52    pbarosso

pbarosso

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 999 posts
  • Joined:16 Sep 2005

Posted 17 July 2009 - 11:30 PM

Q24 on Jul 17 2009, 10:30 PM, said:

What do you think of the explanation at the bottom of this post when you asked on the last page?


i think that it would hard to get some american suicide bombers.

the pursuit of knowledge will force you to pick a side. Choose wisely.
                                                --me

#53    atom286

atom286

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts
  • Joined:27 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wolverhampton

Posted 17 July 2009 - 11:39 PM

The Silver Thong on Jul 17 2009, 03:51 PM, said:

Why are you using such technical terms  tongue.gif  Reinforced concrete, what is military grade concrete ?


Eye witness reports don't jive with the official govenment release of the trajectory of the plane. Why is that?


High Value Military targets are usually designed to withstand a wide range of attacks.

I would expect the Pentagon to be made from a reinforced concrete capable of withstanding bombs, missles etc, etc like most other nations military assests are.

Can I ask how much the Pentagon cost to build. Is it a few million or something vast like a billion dollars?
If it did then the cement used to make its concrete hasn't come from your average construction company and the steel used will be high grade or may not even be steel at all it could be a tungsten alloy.


#54    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 18 July 2009 - 12:16 AM

atom286 on Jul 18 2009, 12:39 AM, said:

I would expect the Pentagon to be made from a reinforced concrete capable of withstanding bombs, missles etc, etc like most other nations military assests are.

It is an interesting fact that the Pentagon was going through a renovation costing $1 billion which was less than one-fifth complete by 9/11.  This renovation included sprinkler systems, new fire exits, blast-resistant windows and a web of steel columns bolted together to form a continuous structure designed to withstand bomb blasts.  Also due to the renovation work, the area impacted which usually contained around 4,500 employees was only staffed by 800 workers that day.

It just so happens that the aircraft impacted this renovated area.  Now you can say this was luck… or a deliberate minimisation of damage and casualties.  Details were reported in the LA Times article: Pentagon, a Vulnerable Building, Was Hit in Least Vulnerable Spot

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#55    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 18 July 2009 - 09:02 PM

Scott G on Jul 17 2009, 01:51 PM, said:

I've seen their past videos and have begun to see their new video. Why not see it for yourself? Within the first few minutes, there are points enough I believe:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5296595694237574426

Q24 on Jul 17 2009, 11:30 PM, said:


Although I’m not hopeful of seeing anything new, I will watch the video and respond to anything interesting this weekend.

Ok, I watched the whole video and believe I have already addressed everything it has to say.  The scroll text at the beginning, referring to the official story and eyewitnesses to a plane North of the Citgo station, says, “…you must decide which claim you choose to believe because it is clear that both claims can not be simultaneously correct.”  I have shown how both claims can in fact be correct to a degree in my replies to The Silver Thong – there were two planes in the area.

Concerning the alleged Flight 77 ‘flyover’ theory, this seems to come from eyewitnesses who saw the second plane, the C-130, in the area after impact.  I will add yet another quote from the pilot to support this: -

“I took the plane once through the plume of smoke and thought if this was a terrorist attack, it probably wasn’t a good idea to be flying through that plume.”

Of the four eyewitnesses interviewed in the video, Robert Turcios, Sgt. Brookes and Sgt. Lagasse all support the claim of a plane flying North of the Citgo.  I don’t understand at all why they included Edward Paik’s account as he was not at the Citgo station and did not have a view of the Pentagon.  Further, his description of the alleged Flight 77 coming from the South of the Navy Annex actually supports the official flight path South of the Citgo station.  

A statement from the video: -

“This investigation has uncovered a smoking gun showing beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane cannot have toppled the light poles and caused the damage to the building as outlined in the building performance report by the American Society of Civil Engineers.”

This is true – the plane they are talking about, the C-130, cannot and did not topple the light poles and cause damage to the building.

Another statement from toward the end of the video: -

“The notion that all four witnesses are so completely incorrect about such a simple right or left detail during an event of this magnitude is simply not a viable consideration.”

Again true – the witnesses were not incorrect about the simple right or left detail, only about which plane they were viewing from a distance and travelling at speed.

The worst theory from the video: -

“The downed light poles were likely planted hours before or the night before the event.  Five light poles were downed - four out of the five were in inconspicuous areas but one was located right on the road and allegedly speared the windshield of Lloyd England’s taxi cab.”

It seems outlandish that light poles along the roadside could be torn down and planted the night before.  When they run into the problem of the light pole directly in the road (this obviously could not have been planted) they then go on to attack the eyewitness evidence of the taxi driver – I suppose they think he ‘planted’ the damage to his cab too.

The best claim from the video: -

“We aren’t claiming to know all of the details about how this operation was pulled off.”

Very true – they haven’t got the slightest clue.  The details of a flyover, planted light poles and explosives at the Pentagon cannot be corroborated or fit with the full body of evidence we have.  The theory I suggest, in that there were simply two planes at the scene and the alleged Flight 77 did impact the Pentagon, encompasses all of the evidence.

To finish on a positive note, the video does encourage viewers to look into discrepancies of the Flight Data Recorder – I agree there are questions over the authenticity of this data.  Well, the video had to get in something useful along the way didn’t it.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#56    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 19 July 2009 - 11:36 AM

747400 on Jul 17 2009, 10:15 AM, said:

QUOTE ('Scott G' date='Jul 17 2009 @  02:16 PM')

However, if the head of all army intelligence states that, given the evidence he -did- have, it's clear that a plane didn't hit the pentagon, I'm inclined to take his word seriously.


Considering that this Head of All Army Intelligence was also a leading light in Project Stargate and all that wackiness,


I suggest you read Jim Marrs' Psi Spies. I don't consider Project Stargate to have been "wackiness".


'Scott G' date='Jul 17 2009 @  02:16 PM')


However, if the head of all army intelligence states that, given the evidence he -did- have, it's clear that a plane didn't hit the pentagon, I'm inclined to take his word seriously.


Considering that this Head of All Army Intelligence was also a leading light in Project Stargate and all that wackiness,


I suggest you read Jim Marrs' Psi Spies. I don't consider Project Stargate to have been "wackiness".


'Scott G' date='Jul 17 2009 @  02:16 PM')


However, if the head of all army intelligence states that, given the evidence he -did- have, it's clear that a plane didn't hit the pentagon, I'm inclined to take his word seriously.


Considering that this Head of All Army Intelligence was also a leading light in Project Stargate and all that wackiness,


I suggest you read Jim Marrs' Psi Spies. I don't consider Project Stargate to have been "wackiness".


'Scott G' date='Jul 17 2009 @  02:16 PM')


However, if the head of all army intelligence states that, given the evidence he -did- have, it's clear that a plane didn't hit the pentagon, I'm inclined to take his word seriously.


Considering that this Head of All Army Intelligence was also a leading light in Project Stargate and all that wackiness,

I suggest you read Jim Marrs' Psi Spies. I don't consider Project Stargate to have been "wackiness".


QUOTE (747400 on Jul 17 2009, 10:15 AM, said:

you're still inclined to take him as entirely trustworthy?


Entirely is a rather loaded word. I'm sure he can make mistakes, but I don't think he would have made such a far reaching statement without having carefully analyzed the data. There's another issue here, as well. Don't you think that if he were mistaken, there would have been widespread coverage of the fact? And yet.. blank. Conspiracy theories that the powers that be don't like are generally suppressed, not argued against. Oh, I know that the mainstream media has done a rather brief effort of it, and ofcourse NIST droned on quite awhile in its TNRAT (They'll Never Read All That) texts, but if you look at the content seriously, you'll find that it just doesn't hold water. Steven Jones, who was respected well before 9/11 even occurred, pointed out the fallacies of NIST's work in atleast one peer reviewed paper (Why Indeed did the WTC buildings collapse?). And as or what we're speaking of, I strongly recommend you take a look at thepentacon.com's material.


QUOTE (747400 on Jul 17 2009, 10:15 AM, said:

actual plane couldn't have done the amount of damage that was done. Another issue may be that they wanted the damage to be very fine tuned and that this couldn't be achieved with an aircraft. As you may recall, there was renovations, that had just been completed, on the wing of the pentagon that had been hit. Perhaps more than renovations were done- many suspect that explosives were also installed. Atleast one witness believes they smelled cordite. Finally, there's the very real possibility that an aircraft the size of AA 77 would simply have been too large to even get that close; yes, this is suggesting that the plane that flew over th
, no one but the people involved may have previously connected with the plane that landed. They speak of the likely plane candidate on the site too.


#57    atom286

atom286

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts
  • Joined:27 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wolverhampton

Posted 19 July 2009 - 11:45 AM

Q24 on Jul 18 2009, 01:16 AM, said:

It is an interesting fact that the Pentagon was going through a renovation costing $1 billion which was less than one-fifth complete by 9/11.  This renovation included sprinkler systems, new fire exits, blast-resistant windows and a web of steel columns bolted together to form a continuous structure designed to withstand bomb blasts.  Also due to the renovation work, the area impacted which usually contained around 4,500 employees was only staffed by 800 workers that day.

It just so happens that the aircraft impacted this renovated area.  Now you can say this was luck… or a deliberate minimisation of damage and casualties.  Details were reported in the LA Times article: Pentagon, a Vulnerable Building, Was Hit in Least Vulnerable Spot


$1 billion is an although lot for sprinkers and steel columns.

It sounds like armour plating, exotic alloys and cutting edge composites have been used.

Think of the Channel Tunnel because we used similar stuff to this in its construction. The Chunnel walls are a few inches thick yet it can survive a nuclear bomb detonated inside it. The tunnel cost over 30 billion and is only 25 miles long.


#58    Valdemar the Great

Valdemar the Great

    Commander in the Secret Space Fleet

  • Member
  • 24,547 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Sea of Okhotsk

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 19 July 2009 - 11:52 AM

atom286 on Jul 19 2009, 12:45 PM, said:

Think of the Channel Tunnel because we used similar stuff to this in its construction. The Chunnel walls are a few inches thick yet it can survive a nuclear bomb detonated inside it. The tunnel cost over 30 billion and is only 25 miles long.

Ah, that was probably because it was a government prestige project, and you know what they're always like: take the initial estimate and multiply it by 10, because we (i.e. the government) aren't paying for it, they (i.e. the People) are. I'm sure it was just the same with the Pentagon; it doesn't necessarily have to mean that there was some special semi-magical materials used, I dare say.

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

H. P. Lovecraft.


Posted Image


#59    merril

merril

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts
  • Joined:16 Feb 2008

Posted 19 July 2009 - 12:08 PM

Q24 on Jul 18 2009, 01:16 AM, said:

It is an interesting fact that the Pentagon was going through a renovation costing $1 billion which was less than one-fifth complete by 9/11.  This renovation included sprinkler systems, new fire exits, blast-resistant windows and a web of steel columns bolted together to form a continuous structure designed to withstand bomb blasts.  Also due to the renovation work, the area impacted which usually contained around 4,500 employees was only staffed by 800 workers that day.

It just so happens that the aircraft impacted this renovated area.  Now you can say this was luck… or a deliberate minimisation of damage and casualties.


Pentagon- designated Historic Landmark, 1992.

WTC- bombed by crime members of the cult of Islam, 1993.

Pentagon- Renovation planned, with anti-terrorist bomb protection implemented, 1993.

Wedge 1- Renovation started and personnel moved out, 1998.

Wedge 1- Nearly 1 million square feet of space, required major structural demolition, installation of new utilities, and the build-out of tenant areas. A phased move-in of tenants began in February 2001.


No conspiracy. Just the business of the Nation, trying to proceed in normal fashion. Simultaneously, against the tide of foreign, radical ideas and threats to freedom.


#60    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 19 July 2009 - 12:20 PM

Q24 on Jul 18 2009, 05:02 PM, said:

Ok, I watched the whole video


I'm a little behind. I went to my mother's for the weekend (still here in fact) to see her and my sister and 2 nieces who are up for the summer. Because of this, while I have seen their previous videos, I have yet to see this one. From your post, it's clear that some of the material in it has already been covered in their previous videos, but I think I'd better see the whole thing before commenting on what you have to say.

And I see others have commented on what I've said too. A lot of work, laugh ;-).

I must admit it's nice to have people to discuss all of this with in a civilized manner. I'm used to much more insulting fair, in a forum that has since essentially banned such discussion, sciforums.com

I spent a long time there and it hurt when the cut off came; it wasn't even the first time, but this time I felt it more for whatever reason.

Anyway, it's nice to have found this place :-)



Back to Conspiracies & Secret Societies


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users