grufty jim
|
Re: 9-11 self inflicted?
Apr 24, 2006, 22:20
|
|
Sounds like a job for Buffy. She'd sort it all out.
|
Lupus
|
Re: 9-11 self inflicted?
Apr 25, 2006, 11:25
|
I'll wait for your 16th to be sure.
:=D
|
tucker lyons
|
Re: Garbage
Apr 27, 2006, 14:35
|
aye...and therein lies the rub....it is quite possible for a regime such as bush's to believe that human belief system would not allow such an event to be accepted as other than a plain old terror attack...
look in google video for 911 loose change
make sure its the 121 minute version....come back to me then and see where illuminati can go quite bedhoppingly mad about this world changing event....
lets just say that it was just a plain terror attack...i would actually find the level of imcompetence and downright retardedness of the sitting government and its agencies downright frightening...the best in the west?
fuckoff mr bushman...
tucker
|
tucker lyons
|
Re: 9-11 self inflicted?
Apr 27, 2006, 14:36
|
do you know that the Spanish bomb attackes were EXACTLY 911 days AFTER th original 11/9
(i refuse to say 911)
ooops
tucker
|
grufty jim
|
Edited Apr 28, 2006, 01:02
Re: 9-11 self inflicted?
Apr 28, 2006, 01:01
|
>
> do you know that the Spanish bomb
> attackes were EXACTLY 911 days AFTER
> th original 11/9
>
Except they weren't. Though it *is* pretty weird.
The Madrid bombs were on March 11th 2004. This is actually 912 days after September 11th 2001. But 2004 was a leap year, interestingly enough.
My speculation (for what it's worth) is that the bombers fully intended to carry out their attack 911 days after September 11th 2001. Doesn't need to be a "mystical" thing. Just a way of publicly acknowledging the link between the two attrocities.
But they screwed up and forgot the leap year. Doh!
Something tells me that's not the sort of mistake "The Illuminati" would make. They surely have a whole office block filled with people just analysing significant dates and nothing else. Right?
|
tucker lyons
|
Re: 9-11 self inflicted?
Apr 28, 2006, 13:27
|
right!
cept theyre not in offices. we - erm - they live in self contained units up in beacon fell and work from underground. the pillar signpost can be used to open the main entrance by touching 7 signed locations in the proper sequence...
tucker
|
nigelswift
|
Re: 9-11 self inflicted?
Apr 28, 2006, 19:46
|
we - erm - they live in self contained units up in beacon fell and work from underground
Not all of us - erm - them.
Some shapeshift into pure energy and inhabit wires in a northern seaside town that I can't divulge. They are the Blackpool illuminati.
|
postyesterdayman
|
Re: Garbage
Apr 30, 2006, 05:47
|
|
I think a more feasible and, very possibly, correct theory is that the US govt. knew of the attacks being planned and allowed them to happen to give them an excuse to carry out their plan of simultaneously taking out the 'muslim problem' and vying for control of the pitous few remaining oil strongholds. The fact that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the attacks probably, and correctly as it turned out, didn't bother them too much as they knew that a majority of angry Americans only knew that Iraq was 'over there somewhere' and populated with brown people (so they must've been in on it). But, no, I don't believe any explosives were set off and I don't believe it was our idea but I think I do believe it was an oppurtunity that they've seized as to do what they wanted.
|
grufty jim
|
Re: Garbage
Apr 30, 2006, 14:34
|
jordy writes...
>
> You are aware that the Pentagon is surrounded by NORAD
> missile silos designed to take out incoming air attacks aren't
> you? I take it they were out of order that day!
>
The Pentagon may well be surrounded by "NORAD missile silos" for all I know. But I doubt it somehow, given that "NORAD missile silos" are launch sites for intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and are usually situated some distance from densely populated areas.
Quite how ICBMs can be designed to "take out incoming air attacks" is something you'll have to explain to us, jordy.
Air defences are not located in "silos". Also, US air defences need top-level clearance to destroy commercial air traffic. That such clearance was not received could *easily* be a case of incompetence and miscommunication.
|
grufty jim
|
Edited May 01, 2006, 13:09
Re: Garbage
May 01, 2006, 01:51
|
>
> "take out incoming air attacks"
> This IS what NORAD is designed to do, NOTHING ELSE.
> I suggest you do some homework!
>
And I suggest that you do some. So it's homework all round.
I was taking issue with your use of the phrase "missile silos". Not your use of the acronym "NORAD". Please re-read my message.
"Silos" are large, permanent missile facilities used for the storage, maintenance and launch of ICBMs.
Anti-aircraft defences for specific locations are ground / vehicle based short-ranged missile units.
It's the difference between strategic and tactical installations.
I tend to get irritated by conspiracy theorists who misuse technical terms in order to make their argument sound more convincing, and have a habit of picking them up on it.
You might also want to avoid shouting your mistakes. The "NOTHING ELSE" part of your comment is completely incorrect. By simply reading the Wikipedia link (that you yourself posted) you can learn about the multiple roles of NORAD (beyond merely "taking out incoming air attacks").
|
