A Message to any Jew hating lurkers

[radioilluminati]

What about the lizardmen?

They are shapeshifters. Just start searching for what reality is and you will discover most of what you believe is based on an illusion.

I have been "awake" to reality for 8-9 years now. It still makes my head spin sometimes.

My suggestion is to start with something easy like 9/11. That woke me up.

How can anyone believe an airplane hit here(Pentagon) and what happened to it. Did it burn up and leave no trace?



Movie about it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrXgLhkv21Y

New World Order was behind it and they are an enemy to everybody incl. Israel.

They use divide and conquer to play humanity against each other and keep Israelis very occupied and isolated from the world because Jews true mission is to spread global shalom.

Most people would not believe the last part if they are brainwashed by the western media.

[bararallu]

Personally I am very much aware of the baking goods they sell in Amsterdam. Sometimes they make me see and hear funny things. One time I had to flush a perfectly happy and healthy African snail down the crapper because I thought I heard it flap it's lid in morse code. I'm not saying it actually did, but it was uncanny and I wont handle one again, or eat that odd tasting peanut butter cookie I got not to far from Anne Franks house. I still have the napkin with the message, and I've been dreading to transcode it to English, Swahili or Dutch.

[radioilluminati]

Personally I am very much ware of the baking goods they sell in Amsterdam. Sometimes they make me see funny things. One time I had to flush a perfectly happy and healthy African snail down the crapper because I thought I heard it flap it's lid in morse code. I'm not saying it actually did, but it was uncanny and I wont handle one again, or eat that odd tasting peanut butter cookie I got not to far from Anne Franks house. I still have the napkin with the message, and I've been dreading to transcode it to English, Swahili or Dutch.

Well, a person have to eat lots of those cakes to make an airplane fit in this tiny hole at pentagon

[Djinn]

I was about to start this post by apologizing for derailing, but this thread is sufficiently bizarre that I don't believe such an apology is necessary.

The airplane that purportedly struck the Pentagon was a fully-loaded Boeing 757-223 that was last seen on radar flying eastward at a low altitude in the Washington D.C. metropolitan area, heading in direction of the Pentagon.

If that plane did not strike the Pentagon, then it would have had to change headings, or fly out over the Atlantic. If it landed at another airport, it would have been tracked by both official and amateur radar. If it crashed on land, the crash would have been impossible to conceal. If it flew out over the ocean at low-altitude, it would have been detected by hundreds of radar-equipped sea vessels. If it crashed into the ocean, thousands of pieces of debris and flotsam would have washed ashore.

So if the plane didn't hit the Pentagon, how did Flight 77 vanish into thin air over Washington D.C.?

I realize I'm trying to be logical with a person who professes the existence of shape-shifting aliens. Indulge me.

[radioilluminati]

I was about to start this post by apologizing for derailing, but this thread is sufficiently bizarre that I don't believe such an apology is necessary.

The airplane that purportedly struck the Pentagon was a fully-loaded Boeing 757-223 that was last seen on radar flying eastward at a low altitude in the Washington D.C. metropolitan area, heading in direction of the Pentagon.

If that plane did not strike the Pentagon, then it would have had to change headings, or fly out over the Atlantic. If it landed at another airport, it would have been tracked by both official and amateur radar. If it crashed on land, the crash would have been impossible to conceal. If it flew out over the ocean at low-altitude, it would have been detected by hundreds of radar-equipped sea vessels. If it crashed into the ocean, thousands of pieces of debris and flotsam would have washed ashore.

So if the plane didn't hit the Pentagon, how did Flight 77 vanish into thin air over Washington D.C.?

I realize I'm trying to be logical with a person who professes the existence of shape-shifting aliens. Indulge me.

I can't answer your question, because I don't have all the pieces of information yet. For now it is a mystery.

I am glad you can think logically. As you and I can see, something is fishy here. The hole is from Pentagon and an airplane should have hit it.

This is from the other side:


We have to eat lots of those famous Amsterdam cookies to make an airplane fit in there.

It is not the only strange thing that happened. Building 7 was not even hit by a plane and this is what happened to it the same day:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T2_nedORjw

[Djinn]

I can't answer your question, because I don't have all the pieces of information yet. For now it is a mystery.

I am glad you can think logically. As you and I can see, something is fishy here. The hole is from Pentagon and an airplane should have hit it. ...

Therefore, I must accept one of two possibilities:

a) The airplane was far-from intact when it reached the Pentagon, and therefore made a hole smaller than it would have made had it been a direct collision.

b) The airplane disappeared without a trace over a highly populated region that included some of the most heavily monitored airspace in the country.

Evidence strongly suggests that the airplane was coasting on the ground well before it reached the Pentagon, tearing up concrete, asphalt, grass, knocking over telephone poles, etc. This would have seriously compromised the hull integrity, and it would have decreased the eventual impact speed.

This would have resulted in a relatively wide-spread wreckage, but a comparatively small impact hole at the Pentagon itself, making scenario a note only plausible, but probable.

If you're game to present an alternate scenario that accounts for the missing plane, I'd like to hear it.

[radioilluminati]

Therefore, I must accept one of two possibilities:

a) The airplane was far-from intact when it reached the Pentagon, and therefore made a hole smaller than it would have made had it been a direct collision.

b) The airplane disappeared without a trace over a highly populated region that included some of the most heavily monitored airspace in the country.

Evidence strongly suggests that the airplane was coasting on the ground well before it reached the Pentagon, tearing up concrete, asphalt, grass, knocking over telephone poles, etc. This would have seriously compromised the hull integrity, and it would have decreased the eventual impact speed.

This would have resulted in a relatively wide-spread wreckage, but a comparatively small impact hole at the Pentagon itself, making scenario a note only plausible, but probable.

If you're game to present an alternate scenario that accounts for the missing plane, I'd like to hear it.

As long as we don't have enough solid evidences at this time, it is better not to make a conclusion what happened.

I use this tactic:


Every dot is information. When we have enough information, we will understand the bigger picture.

For now it is a mystery. Lets look at some of the other information that happened that day. Did you check building 7:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T2_nedORjw

Building 7 was not hit by a plane and it mysteriously collapsed like it was a controlled demolition:

[Djinn]

As long as we don't have enough solid evidences at this time, it is better not to make a conclusion what happened.

What you are proposing is unscientific. The way science works, you use available evidence to put together the most plausible conclusion. This isn't to suggest that such a conclusion is "perfect," but it's the best one at the time. When the evidence supports an alternate conclusion, then it's time for a review. However, taking potshots at a theory is not the same as formulating a comprehensive depiction of events.

At this time, we are discussing the whereabouts of the airliner that may or may not have struck the Pentagon. Unless you suspect that the collapse of Building 7 is directly related to the disappearance of Flight 77, then the subject is irrelevant.

To repeat myself - taking potshots at a well-supported (albeit not perfectly supported) theory is not a scientific approach. Come up with a plausible theory that:

a) Accounts for a majority of material evidence
b) Accounts for the hole in the Pentagon
c) Accounts for the fate of Flight 77

If you can't do this, I'm afraid you have nothing.

[radioilluminati]

What you are proposing is unscientific. The way science works, you use available evidence to put together the most plausible conclusion. This isn't to suggest that such a conclusion is "perfect," but it's the best one at the time. When the evidence supports an alternate conclusion, then it's time for a review. However, taking potshots at a theory is not the same as formulating a comprehensive depiction of events.

At this time, we are discussing the whereabouts of the airliner that may or may not have struck the Pentagon. Unless you suspect that the collapse of Building 7 is directly related to the disappearance of Flight 77, then the subject is irrelevant.

To repeat myself - taking potshots at a well-supported (albeit not perfectly supported) theory is not a scientific approach. Come up with a plausible theory that:

a) Accounts for a majority of material evidence
b) Accounts for the hole in the Pentagon
c) Accounts for the fate of Flight 77

If you can't do this, I'm afraid you have nothing.

Building 7 is related to the Pentagon attack and it is important to view more information, before we come to a conclusion. We simply don't have enough facts at this time, to understand the bigger picture yet.

This is probably why the science world got fooled, because as you said, it is not how it is done normally.

Scientists have found traces of nano termite in the WTC site.

Danish scientist I often communicate with is speaking about it on Danish mainstream news

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o

[bararallu]

We dont have enough facts to support the existence of gravity either, really...

[Djinn]

Building 7 is related to the Pentagon attack and it is important to view more information, before we come to a conclusion. We simply don't have enough facts at this time, to understand the bigger picture yet.

This is probably why the science world got fooled, because as you said, it is not how it is done normally.

Again, you're sidetracking and losing focus. This is why you can't come up with a cohesive theory.

• Nanothermite has nothing to do with Flight 77 or the Pentagon.
• Building 7 has nothing to do with Flight 77 or the Pentagon.

If you want your theories to be respected, you have to make them respectable. And that means taking the pieces, and putting them together in the best arrangement possible. And if you can't find all of the pieces, then you must make do with what you have.

Otherwise, your fringe theories will be forever relegated to such venues as "YouTube."

[Djinn]

We dont have enough facts to support the existence of gravity either, really...

Sure we do. We don't have enough to "prove" it beyond the shadow of a doubt, but that's acceptable since science has nothing to do with proofs. Even Wikipedia gets this one right... try searching for the phrase "scientific proof" on wiki, and see what happens.

Science is about evidence; not proofs. And with regard to your subject, gravitational theory is currently the best-supported.

[radioilluminati]

Again, you're sidetracking and losing focus. This is why you can't come up with a cohesive theory.

• Nanothermite has nothing to do with Flight 77 or the Pentagon.
• Building 7 has nothing to do with Flight 77 or the Pentagon.

If you want your theories to be respected, you have to make them respectable. And that means taking the pieces, and putting them together in the best arrangement possible. And if you can't find all of the pieces, then you must make do with what you have.

Otherwise, your fringe theories will be forever relegated to such venues as "YouTube."

I believe it was a missile that hit the pentagon, as it looks like in this video:

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvi...RIKE_PENTAGON/

When we look at the other dots(information) everything points towards a group in the US doing it to it self. In military terms it is called "false flag operations"

[Djinn]

I believe it was a missile that hit the pentagon, as it looks like in this video:
...
When we look at the other dots(information) everything points towards a group in the US doing it to it self. In military terms it is called "false flag operations"

Ok, that's one piece. Now go back to post #23, and you'll see what you need to make it a cohesive theory. A missile satisfies the hole in the wall. However, if does not account for the airplane debris scattered across the Pentagon lawn, and it does not explain the disappearance of a fully-loaded, populated airliner.

Again, if you are satisfied that your theories exist only on YouTube and fringe conspiracy sites, then nothing more is required. But if you expect the mainstream to accept them, you must make your theories more cohesive and presentable.

[radioilluminati]

Ok, that's one piece. Now go back to post #23, and you'll see what you need to make it a cohesive theory. A missile satisfies the hole in the wall. However, if does not account for the airplane debris scattered across the Pentagon lawn, and it does not explain the disappearance of a fully-loaded, populated airliner.

Again, if you are satisfied that your theories exist only on YouTube and fringe conspiracy sites, then nothing more is required. But if you expect the mainstream to accept them, you must make them more cohesive and presentable.

The debris was probably placed there to make it look like a plane hit the Pentagon and there where no plane involved in the attack. It has probably landed on an airbase. (US was behind it)

I don't like to go down the speculative road.

If we instead of focusing on the Pentagon attack and move on to the solid evidence found of nano Thermite, I have something mainstream scientists can accept as evidence:

BYU Professor Steven E Jones WTC Lecture UVSC
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?...34652002408586