Al Oadea's next Target - Page 2

island911 · 08-02-2003, 03:32 PM

Yeah, and the moon landing was an elaborate hoax too.

Yeah, really . . i have links to prove it.

The biggest proof is in the last link. . .check that one out, for sure. (excellent presentation)

http://www.primeline-america.com/moon-ldg/

http://a1.nu/moon-landing-hoax/

http://galactic-guide.com/articles/8S12.html

http://www.dc8p.com/html/moonhoax.html

350HP930 · 03:45 PM

Hmm, I guess you prefer to believe Bush and his cronies who claim that the government had no idea any such thing could happen instead of the various field agents and other honest people in our government who have risked their careers to come forward to say they did there best to stop this in its tracks when they saw it coming from a mile away, only to be stopped by their superiors in washington.

You can believe anything you want if it makes you feel better at night, but it doesn't make you any less of a dupe.

island911 · 08-02-2003, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 350HP930
. . .
You can believe anything you want if it makes you feel better at night, but it doesn't make you any less of a dupe.

Ah, name calling. Brilliant.

You seem awfully certain that I've been duped. (was it the "moon landing hoax thing?)

So what makes you so certain that I've been duped, but not you!? . . .something you read? . . .something someone told you!?

I'll tell you something strange; the word "gullible" has been left out of EVERY dictionary . . . really, try to find it. I bet you can't find it.

350HP930 · 08-02-2003, 04:26 PM

Gee, is calling someone a dupe the same as name calling? To me it just clearly describes any person who thinks that leaders within their government are above comitting criminal actions for the purpose of protecting their benefactors.

Quote:

dupe ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dp, dyp)
n.
An easily deceived person.
A person who functions as the tool of another person or power.

I would assume by your sad attempt at dismissing news and opinion articles concerning this subject that it was a good term for the situation at hand.

It is a fact that bush was briefed multiple times about the al-qaeda hijacking threat after he was in office and despite this his administration still thwarted multiple investigations into saudi linked terrorists. Concidering the treatment of Moussaoui after he was caught and the other 9/11 terrorists being legally allowed into the US despite their known terrorism ties I am left to assume that these scumbags were getting the same protection until the events of 9/11 occured.

If you disbelieve all these facts how is it that all these strange events occured? Coincidence? Inept desk jockys in washington?

If you are above being a dupe what is your explanation for what the whistleblowers are telling us?

Perhaps you just believe they are all disgruntled workers wanting to make their bosses look bad?

island911 · 08-02-2003, 04:31 PM

have you ever considered the concept stemming from the words "historical revisionist" ?

350HP930 · 08-02-2003, 04:48 PM

So I take this as you rather criticise facts you can't deal with instead of come to a logical conclusion based on such information?

All I can say about myself is I will trust information from a person like Coleen Rowley who along with other hard working agents almost managed to stop 9/11 from happening if not for the actions of her superiors and then risked her own career by blowing the whistle on her superiors who were lying to the american public that they had no idea that this could happen.

So you prefer to believe the likes of bush, ashcroft and the heads of the other jokes we call our security apparatus instead?

Well, I have already said enough about what I think of people who take that view about things.

Aurel · Aurel's Garage

To me, the greatest proof that something had been cooked about 9/11 was when the investigators found the passport of one of the hijackers on the smoking rubble of the WTC. Or when one of the hijackers forgot his bag with a coran and other proof that he was a terrorist in his rental car. Really, how dumb do they think we are ? This has nothing to do with revisionism. But trying to have Dr. Island admit that he is not always right, or even take an other perspective at facts, is like asking him to understand french. BTW, what does gullible mean ?

Aurel

dougcl · 08-03-2003, 09:07 AM

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=gullible

Aurel · Aurel's Garage

Okay then, I beleive that the vast majority of americans are gullible in beleiving that the melting point of leather is higher than that of stainless-steel.

For a reminder of the FACTS, check here:

http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2001/09/16/story23866.asp

Aurel

Mike Feinstein · Mike Feinstein's Garage

Man, I didn't want to get drawn into this but you've all overlooked one obvious fact. GWB was only in office 8 months when 9/11 came. It's been widely reported that the attack was the result of years of training and planning. It was Bill Clinton that said "no thanks" to Binladin's head on a platter. It was Bill Clinton in the oval office during the most fundamental development of global terrorism in modern history. This guy sold our security to China to ensure his reelection. This guy was in power when our most critical nuclear secrets simply disappeared one day. He simply looked the other way when BinLadin took out our ship in Yemen. You telling me that his administration had no clue that the US was a terrorism target? The list goes on. If there was a government conspiracy (which I doubt), there's only one American president to look at....and it ain't GWB.

Aurel · Aurel's Garage

Bush...Clinton...who`s responsible really is not the issue, because both are not in charge, in the greater scheme of things. The only difference is that Bush is a poor dumb bunny, so its easier to blame things on him. But really, if you want to look at where power is, it simply is where money is. Period. Oil. Now, would anyone answer my question about the melting point of leather, please ?

Aurel

bell · bell's Garage

leather melts between 500-550f depending on the quality

Aurel · Aurel's Garage

LOL. Thanks Bell, you answered my question. Did you notice your bunny looks like a french ? LOL.

Aurel

bell · bell's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by Aurel
LOL. Thanks Bell, you answered my question. Did you notice your bunny looks like a french ? LOL.

Aurel

not MY bunny.......and only because he has pancakes on his head.........
kind of silly really.......like this thread

Aurel · Aurel's Garage

This just reminded me there are some pancakes left from this morning, I am gonna have one, then go to bed. Goodnight.

Aurel

tabs · 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Aurel
But really, if you want to look at where power is, it simply is where money is. Period. Oil. Aurel

Money is the reason why GW is pushing so hard to thwart Terrorism...the monied interests have lost their shirts...Bill Gates richest man in the world worth 100 Billion is now worth half that...and the list goes on...with the collapse of the Stock Market Trillions dissappeared over night... Money represents the status quo..it loves stability.

Bin Laden represents a free radical...he doesn't give a flying fk about money...he's a TRUE RELIGIOUS ZEALOT...thats why he lives in a cave in Pakistan..He's out to upset the status quo...He wants to return the Arab world back to being a Theocracy as in the 14th century...He represents INSTABILITY...get it.

The policy of the USA is to get a handle on Terrorism by controling the region...by getting rid of ANY REGIMES that support instability which in turn threatens the Status Quo. Your right it is all about MONEY and the financial system of which oil is only (a part of) the lubricant of the Global Economy. Oil is not the whole picture but a piece of the puzzle...Think Macro not Micro...

Aurel · Aurel's Garage

I get yout point Tabs.
The only problem I see is that you cannot blame all the problems of the economy on El Quaeda and 9/11. Remember that the internet stock collapse started before that, and Bill Gates did not lose his money because of 9/11. Consider also the the foreign policy of stabilizing the middle east was decided way before 9/11. One of the documents describing this policy is dated of sept. 2000, and called `rebulding americas defenses`. Do a search if you want. Hence the idea that 9/11 arrived at a perfect time for those who decided these policies.

Aurel

tabs · 08-04-2003, 12:08 PM

Stock Markets usually trade 6 months in advance of what is perceived to be happening in the futher. The US Stock Market topped in March of 2000.. Roughly 6 months before the election...the Market wanted to see which political direction the country was going to go...as it was too close to call...after the election it was the Dot Com bubble that burst, then just as the economy and market was firming up 911 hit...then early in 2002 Enron, Global Crossing was played up as being so terrible.fpr political purposes...not that it wasn't bad but it wasn't a hugh crisis...as the hedge fund that the Federal reszerve had to bail out in 1994...that one woulda broke the $1 standard for Money Market Funds..now. thats big...Then the 2002 midterm elections again the country wanted direction...and the Democrats were trounced...then the market rallied in November and December....then the war with Iraq dragged the market down..but once a direction was established the markets have risen.... So no 911 wasn't the whole ball of wax...there were alot of things that came home to roost all at once. But now Terrorism is the biggest cloud hanging over the market.

350HP930 · 08-04-2003, 12:43 PM

Enron wasn't that bad?

Don't you live in california Tabs?

I would think that the people caught in the middle of the phony energy crisis and the billions it sucked out of that state would have a slightly different outlook on the corrupt actions of that corporate FOB.

If I am correct about your location what is your electric bill like now that california is locked into some overly inflated energy rates?

I would be one to argue Enron did more to damage the economy when it was in business as usual as compared to the measly several billion it set back the economy when its house of cards collapsed.

tabs · 08-05-2003, 09:48 AM

Which has more impact on the economy?

1. Breaking the $1.00 standard for Money Market Funds...that means a $ in doesn't mean a $ out + interest. Thats like saying your Bank Account or Checking Account won't be worth the money you deposited so you can pay your bills..

2. Enron...which granted wiped out a lot of retirement savings of people who weren't diversified, hit quiet a few mutual funds hard because they had portfolios that included Enron stock. Put a few thousand people out of work, and CA had Grey Davis in collusion with Enron...after all he took campaign contributions from them. In his infinite wisdom decided to lock in electricity prices at an exorbitant rate, which Enron and other power companies were price gouging on.

So which sceniro really strikes at the root of our financial system. The Federal Reserve action in these two cases will give you the answer, and thats the viability of Money Market Funds...end of story... If you can't agree with that it's useless talking to you.

Now why in the scheme of things does Enron Stick in the minds of people as being this hugh earth shattering fiasco. And what CAUSED IT TO HAVE FARTHER REACHING EFFECTS ON THE ECONOMY THAN IT OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE?

1. The media played it to the hilt...why it had all the making of a story that would make good RATINGS...Greed, corruption and incompetance.

2. The Democratic Party was trying to tie a tin can around the tail of GW and the Repblican Party so they could win in the 2002 Mid term elections.

3. No body even remembers that hedge fund going under...why because it was too serious of a matter for the media to fk around with, it could have caused a panic, and a run on the banking system. And the Democrats were in power and they weren't rocking the boat...cause it would have made them look bad.