Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Frozen Fish, Pentagon and Above Top Secret.com

Postby apeguia » Thu Mar 23, 2006 9:53 am

<br>Hi, for those of you who did read the original 'Frozen Fish' article ( <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://abovetopsecret.narod.ru/Above_Top_Secret_article.htm">abovetopsecret.narod.ru/A...rticle.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> ), you may want to go and have a look at this blog for an update of events:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://laura-knight-jadczyk.blogspot.com/2006/03/abovetopsecretcom-exposed.html">laura-knight-jadczyk.blog...posed.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>It appears that the guys from AboveTopSecret.com - you know, some 'regular seekers of truth' who have a forum website as a 'hobby' - hired a lawyer to take action vs the article which contradicts ATS's claims in favour of the official Pentagon story.<br><br>Whatever happened to civilized discussions?<br><br>More details in the link above.<br><br>A. <p></p><i></i>
apeguia
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 2:33 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Frozen Fish, Pentagon and Above Top Secret.com

Postby NewKid » Thu Mar 23, 2006 10:35 am

Conspiracy sites with swanky law firms like MoFo. Business must be good. <br><br>It's extremely likely there were at least 2 different planes flying over Washington at the time of the Pentagon crash. That's about as confident as I can get with the story. But Flight 77 actually wasn't tracked at all for pretty much all of its return from Ohio until it got near Washington. That's one of the things that's so weird. I'm not certain at all that what was flying over Washington even actually was flight 77. <br><br>As for the cell calls, at least on flight 77, they're extremely weak. There are only two people -- a flight attendant and Babs Olsen. Ted Olsen's story is so full of holes, and despite the fact that there should be something to prove at least some sort of call came into him from the flight or a cell phone, no evidence has ever been presented. He's changed his story and contradicted himself so much that it's reasonable to assume he's lying at least at some level.<br><br>As for the flight attendant, that story is fairly weak and I'm not satisfied at all that the call ever took place, although I suspect it might have. But I seriously doubt it was the flight attendant talking. The easiest explanation is that Dov Zhakeim's firm or some other electronic warfare contractor called her up sometime before the flight (or perhaps followed her) and tape recorded a voice sample. From there, you're off to the races. Once they have that, they can easily make her voice say whatever they want it say. (And with Babs, she appeared on tv all the time as a pundit, so obtaining a voice sample for her would be relatively effortless.)<br><br>Another explanation is that it was an imposter. I'm actually a decent voice impersonator and I've fooled my friends on the phone before into thinking I was one of their friends (and in one case an old teacher) before. And that wasn't under the stress of any kind of incident and I had a clear connection. <br><br>But I if had to guess, I'd go with the voice sample explanation. It's safer and not very difficult to do. In fact, I'm pretty sure a decent team of civilian private investigators (who don't have access to state of the art voice manipulation equipment) could have set up not only the calls on flight 77, but the other flights as well. Remember in the 92 presidential campaign, the whole fake Larry King call. Mandy Grunwald or whatever her name was played on Larry King live a fake call of Larry saying things he never said in order to prove Jennifer Flowers calls were fake. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=newkid@rigorousintuition>NewKid</A> at: 3/23/06 8:18 am<br></i>
NewKid
 
Posts: 1036
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 1:57 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Frozen Fish, Pentagon and Above Top Secret.com

Postby Dreams End » Thu Mar 23, 2006 12:43 pm

Nice of Laura to take some time off from channeling aliens to involve herself in 9/11. I can't believe you people criticizing Qutb about "evidence". Holy hypocrites, batman. I wasn't even following this thread but I clicked on it and realized that the original article is in reference to a flash animation put out by her and her "sign of the times" productions. <br><br>If you guys really care about evidence, you'll find other sources of information. Un-freaking-believable. <br><br>I've posted about her before. I admit, it's a bit tough to get a handle on her because all of her articles are so long and discursive. <br><br>So let's be clear.<br><br>This lady is a rip-off, cult leading, con artist. <br><br>More info here:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.vincentbridges.com/cassIntro.html">www.vincentbridges.com/cassIntro.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>I am just absolutely flabbergasted that THIS is the source of this particular thread in which Qutb is derided thusly:<br><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Would it be too much to ask that you accompany your bold and confident statements with some supporting evidence? Or maybe just a source so we could evaluate it for ourselves?<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br><br>You mean other than the OTHER 20 page thread??? And you make this "challenge" on a thread based on info from the Cassiopeians? <br><br>On the first page was this polite warning from 'fatladysings'<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Hi all: I would urge everyone to very carefully investigate information coming from signs-of-the-times.org. I'm not accusing anyone of anything but rather suggesting due dilligence before accepting what is posted there. I'm also not trying to single out the person who started this thread--I've seen others link to them as well. Just consider this a friendly tip. Honestly.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Too subtle, I guess.<br><br>Here's the beginning of a long and comprehensive overview of the Cassiopeian cult by a former member from the website linked above. I doubt anyone here will read it, because "just because she's a cult leading, scam artist, well that doesn't mean EVERYTHING she says is wrong." Or, " you can't disprove that she's channeling aliens from the future." Well, I can't disprove Santa Claus either, but I don't turn to him to find out how the intelligence agencies work, now do I? <br><br>This no plane thing is some kind of weird disinfo game (I don't mean by people on this thread...I mean by many putting out the "slick" presentations about it). Maybe I'm wrong...but if so, those who believe in this theory would be very well served by staying as far away from sources like this as possible. In my view, the whole purpose of such groups putting out such material is (if not simply $$$) to allow mainstream media sources to use THEM as examples of 9/11 truth. <br><br>(Side note...I like Dave McGowan...in fact he's been very influential on me. But he has some just plain wrong stuff on his site...like his post on the Mars Probes. Still, for some things, he's the only game in town who puts all the pieces together. His recent post on the Cheney shootings...well, there's just no one like Dave...go read those)<br><br>her story goes deeper...and we can credit her finding of true love to George Soros...but that's another story, mentioned by me on another thread that I'm sure I have no idea where it is now. Here's the beginnings of just one section of the website linked above.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>My name is Vincent Bridges and I am a former member of the Cassiopaea Cult. This is the story of how I got sucked in, was brainwashed and, once I was no longer useful, ended up being the scapegoat for the cult and its leaders. I went from being the only other person who truly understood what the Cassiopaeans had to say to the anti-Christ himself in just six short months.<br><br>Why? Well that is the plot of my story…<br><br>Soon after I returned from France in the spring in 1999, a friend told me about this strange lady posting channelled material about Rennes-le-Chateau and its mysteries on an egroup discussion list. Seemed that she was onto some of the same threads, alchemists in the Pyrenees and what not, so I began an email exchange with her.<br><br>This was Laura Knight-Jadczyk and her channelled material came from a mysterious source: "We transmit "through" the opening that is presented in the locator that you represent as Cassiopaea, due to the strong radio pulses aligned from Cassiopaea, which are due to a pulsar from a neutron star 300 light years behind it, as seen from your locator. This facilitates a clear channel transmission from 6th density to 3rd density."<br><br>These beings apparently communicated with Ms Knight-Jadczyk through the means of a Ouiji board and with the help of another individual, Fred Irland, whose name, curiously enough, can be found nowhere in the published Cassiopaean material. At first, the communications were the ordinary sort of thing expected from ouiji aliens. But as they got better at it, the answers began to take on a life of their own.<br><br>And then, the ouiji aliens provided a real miracle. Dr. Ark Jadczyk, theoretical and mathematical physicist, answered one of Laura’s posts on an egroup, and suddenly, they were soul mates. For a while, Laura and Fred kept track of Ark by means of the ouiji aliens, and then Ark made it to the USA, married Laura, and everything changed. Not overnight, but slowly and steadily.<br><br>What once was a fairly harmless hobby of two esoteric minded people became, with the addition of Ark, the beginning of a serious doomsday cult.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>If anyone wants to keep me amused today and try to defend these folks, please feel free. Candy and babies and all that.<br><br>Just so we are clear...I and Qutb happen to accept that there is a level of complicity in the US government for the events of 9/11 though I think neither of us, compared to some on this site, find exactly HOW all this works to be self-evident. Personally, I think the easiest way to pull off 9/11 whether organized by "muslim extremists" who are influenced and infiltrated by CIA agents, or whether ordered by Karl Rove himself, would be to get some guys to get on the planes and take them over and crash them into stuff. If they get caught...they are muslim extremists, so who cares. If they screw up and hit the wrong target, who cares. Every layer of complexity added onto that introduces huge possibilities for error. So there'd have to be extremely compelling reasons to, for example, attempt to fly something other than a plane into the Pentagon in such a tourist laden city as DC. Maybe none of those witnesses are credible, but there would simply be no way to control what other witnesses would be able to see and record those events. Very risky.<br><br>Personally, I'm going with the MC/cult aspect to much of this. I think that many cults have been experiments in mind control and have been put to use to create "fanatics" such as were involved in 9/11. that's probably what they are up to now at Abu Ghraib...traumatize not to get info, but to make the subject more susceptible to suggestion. It's easier if you start with kids, but Americans are nothing if not problem solvers!<br>But I can't prove that. (I'm interested in the behavior of these alleged religious fanatics as reported (I think) by Hopsicker who seem anything BUT religious.)<br><br>Qutb and I disagree about the potential for CD. I don't claim, like many of the illustrious physicists on this board (falling faster than gravity, atoms are like little solar systems...etc), to be expert enough to say I can PROVE CD. In fact, I'm agnostic about it. It's primarily the weird coincidence of three buildings collapsing like that. Instinctively, I feel there has to be more to it...but that's not the same as evidence. And I'm sorry, despite my feeling that Qutb is too accepting of the official version I think he's thoroughly kicked the asses of those he's debated here. In fact, when I weighed in a little on the last thread in support of CD, he kicked my ass too. I stated one thing that was incorrect and another thing that had only one source...a source that I would now not quote to support the theory of gravity, much less CD. But THIS MAKES MY RESEARCH BETTER..not WORSE. The last thing I want to do is embrace elements of a theory that are poorly supported or factually inaccurate. <br><br>Oh, and obviously I think the no plane at the Pentagon theory is not very solid.<br><br>This uncritical acceptance of anyone who puts forward a conspiracy view of 9/11 makes people ripe for manipulation and disinfo. We all need to be MORE critical of radical theories with which we agree...even moreso than with theories we disagree with. You can start by going to the bookmark of the "sign of the Times" site, and hitting the delete key. <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

Re: Frozen Fish, Pentagon and Above Top Secret.com

Postby NewKid » Thu Mar 23, 2006 1:45 pm

DE, I don't disagree with anything about Laura Knight whatever her name is, but have you intensely studied the flight 77 hit the pentagon arguments? They're pretty damn weak. Now I have a couple of problems with the no plane theory too, and I'm officially agnostic on it, but if you really get into what people are putting out as "proof" it's pretty lame. I've yet to see any hard affirmative evidence that it is actually flight 77. I've looked at the purported witness statements; their very weak. That's really all there is. The forensic arguments aren't convincing at all to me and at best, they merely show it's possible that it hit. There's a whole bunch more that should be there that just isn't. <br><br>Where I think people give up too soon is they think about Occams's razor and they can't figure out why you wouldn't just remote control a 757 into the pentagon. That's a good point, but the more I look at this, I'm starting to suspect something went wrong on game day and some sort of a plan B was implemented. I really do think this is pretty big mystery as to what happened here and we just have to see the all tapes to know for sure. Another point that's mysterious is that the non-Pentagon surveillance tapes almost certainly should show this, but DOJ has officially stated that they don't. They're excuse on why they won't release them is Moussaui prejudice in the death penalty face, itself lame and something they probably don't have standing to assert, but it makes no sense not to release tapes that don't show anything hitting. <br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Personally, I think the easiest way to pull off 9/11 whether organized by "muslim extremists" who are influenced and infiltrated by CIA agents, or whether ordered by Karl Rove himself, would be to get some guys to get on the planes and take them over and crash them into stuff. If they get caught...they are muslim extremists, so who cares.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I think this is a common assumption as well. There's just too many insurmountable problems. You don't just put Muslim crazies on a plane and take them over. No one planning the operation would give the operation any likelihood of success. We've discussed in the air defense thread the virtual impossibility of Hanjour or any other hijacker taking over flight 77 from Burlingame and the co-pilot. Plus, there's no evidence Hanjour's even on the plane. He's not on the surveillance cameras at all and it's likely he didn't even have a ticket. So I just don't see how it could have possibly gone down that way. And even if it were possible, it's so far fetched and cartoonish that nobody would try it. It would be much much easier to just incapacitate the passengers and remote the plane. <br><br> <br> <p></p><i></i>
NewKid
 
Posts: 1036
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 1:57 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Frozen Fish, Pentagon and Above Top Secret.com

Postby Dreams End » Thu Mar 23, 2006 1:59 pm

I know no one will believe me...but having researched the Cassiopeians before, even though their "channeled material" reminded me very much thematically of other such material that usually ends up with Jewish world domination theories, I didn't actually find out that...<br><br>yep...<br><br><br>ole Laura is a Protocols believer. What a surprise. But the fact that I suspected it before I found it shows that there's a certain pattern of belief here that can help you sort out where folks like this are coming from even when they don't spell it out. Of course, she DOES spell it out in a long tract about how Jews are victims because they are actually the oppressor. Or something like that. <br><br>Anyway, here's a bit that should impress you with her reasoning ability if nothing else. The basic argument, as far as I can tell is this:<br><br>1. The Protocols are forgeries. <br><br>2. They are believed, however, by many people.<br><br>3. The reason they are believed is that the Jews really are a nasty little race running the world, or at least trying to.<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>We may seek further clues to Gentile receptivity to the fictitious Protocols due to Jewish identity itself and the inevitable expressions, in day-to-day life with the goyim through history, of Jewish supremacy and domination.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Oh...my bad. This article is not by Laura. She just painstakingly and approvingly pulls very large quotes from this article which originally appeared in that fine scholarly journal, Jewish Tribal Review. The original title of the piece had a subtitle which Laura failed to mention:<br><br>When Victims Rule. A Critique of Jewish Pre-eminence in America.<br><br>Here's JTR's site:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/index.html">www.jewishtribalreview.org/index.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>and to the full "book"<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/wvr.htm">www.jewishtribalreview.org/wvr.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Oh, DE, so now you are saying that anyone who buys the no planes hypothesis is anti-Semitic? Just thought I'd anticipate that rather silly question.<br><br>No...my point is that there is a social and cultural milieu in which certain the no plane hypothesis is popular. There is some weird occult/cryptofascist nexxus that puts out a lot of this type of stuff. Doesn't mean everything they say is false. But that makes it worse, not better....as then any facts are tainted by the distortions. For example, let's just pretend the no pentagon plane theory is true. Now, I've come here, earnest seeker of truth, and find this thread. I go to the site, get intrigued and look around, only to find a discourse about how Jews are victims because they are the oppressors and how the Protocols, despite being forgeries, are really pretty accurate. So, again, at the very least, I'm suggesting that using such sites for support for such theories is bad p.r. <br><br>Now, it's not my intention to get this firepitted...in fact, Jeff can even move this post if he wants, with a suitable explanation if he wants to keep the thread focused. But the larger point is that this is a really poor source of information.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

Re: Frozen Fish, Pentagon and Above Top Secret.com

Postby Dreams End » Thu Mar 23, 2006 2:10 pm

Newkid...that last wasn't a response to you....just a continuation.<br><br>As for putting guys on planes being implausible. Well, add in a remote control, if you want. It's still a plane. Not a fish....but not a missile. In fact, you'd want to have some Arab types on the plane as passengers if nothing else. <br><br>Personally, I don't think the guys could possibly have been good enough pilots based on their alleged flight training to have pulled off the Pentagon hit. They either had other training, or there was a remote involved. But, that's a side issue to this discussion as it assumes there was a plane involved. <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

Re: Frozen Fish, Pentagon and Above Top Secret.com

Postby NewKid » Thu Mar 23, 2006 2:11 pm

Don't disagree with any of that. I think there are weirdos all over 9-11 truth stuff. The CD stuff is like a cult. It's been totally infested with all sorts of shit. But I don't see that as impacting the arguments on the merits on plane/no-plane. Jim Hoffman is loud on CD, which I think is very sketchy, and he's very loud on flight 77 hitting, which I think is equally as sketchy. Why the goddamn certainty. It just isn't certain at all. That's what I don't get about all this. Why are people so certain about what happened? We're so far away from anything like proof on any theory that's offered on 9-11, whether official story or conspiracy of some kind. <br><br>The other problem I have with LIHOP theories is that this is the big moment, this is the time when everything's going to change. Trillions are on the line. It needs to go off right. You can't just keep having people try to hijack planes until you get your desired result. You'll be waiting a long time. If you look at Atta, and Hanjour and all these guys from what we've seen, these aren't guys you'd rely on to make a baked potato. You'd need a special forces trained crew like the old red cell or Seal Team 6 types who'd be prepared to die and even then, you'd need inside help with the FAA and Norad to ensure it would have any serious chance at all. <br><br> <p></p><i></i>
NewKid
 
Posts: 1036
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 1:57 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon

Postby NewKid » Thu Mar 23, 2006 2:16 pm

Didn't see your last post before mine went up. Sorry. <br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>As for putting guys on planes being implausible. Well, add in a remote control, if you want. It's still a plane. Not a fish....but not a missile. In fact, you'd want to have some Arab types on the plane as passengers if nothing else. <br><br>Personally, I don't think the guys could possibly have been good enough pilots based on their alleged flight training to have pulled off the Pentagon hit. They either had other training, or there was a remote involved. But, that's a side issue to this discussion as it assumes there was a plane involved.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br><br>Definitely arabs on the plane and indeed likely everyone but Hanjour was on who was supposed to be. The guy on the tape is somebody ekse, maybe that Mosear Cenad name or whatever that got taken off the list. <br><br>There's an outside possibility that flight 77 crashed at some point over Ohio, Kentucky or even West Virginia. I think it was Indianapolis control thought that for awhile and there's some early stories I think where people were saying that. <br><br>There's also a mysterious scramble of fighters over the Atlantic that makes no sense and hasn't been adequately explained. The real 77 could have been shot down there. <br> <p></p><i></i>
NewKid
 
Posts: 1036
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 1:57 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Frozen Fish, Pentagon and Above Top Secret.com

Postby thoughtographer » Thu Mar 23, 2006 2:22 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>We're so far away from anything like proof on any theory that's offered on 9-11, whether official story or conspiracy of some kind.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Good point. This is exactly why people should be concerned about even a minor focus by the corportate media on alternate 9-11 narratives. When Joe Citizen has his interest piqued by seeing Charlie Sheen (or anyone else) on television, and he goes to look into the matter further -- what does he get? The "truth"? I don't think so. <p></p><i></i>
thoughtographer
 
Posts: 724
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 12:12 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Frozen Fish, Pentagon and Above Top Secret.com

Postby Dreams End » Thu Mar 23, 2006 2:22 pm

I don't know about all that. While hitting the towers and Pentagon was significant psychologically, the whole "show" of hijacked planes crashing into NYC would allow them to set most of their agenda into action. Now, if it was absolutely critical that the Towers be destroyed....but I don't know that it was...<br><br>But, anyway, it could go much further than LIHOP without magical missing planes needing to be involved. Even if they were special forces...(or my pet theory of Manchurian candidates), and even if there was a stand down (which there certainly seems to have been) and even if the FAA didn't contact the military as they should, and even if someone did destroy the air control tapes....that has nothing to do with no plane theories. Interesting to ME, however, is the fact that all of the above is far better supported by the evidence than no plane at the Pentagon.<br><br>In other words, no plane at Pentagon is a distraction to confuse and discredit those trying to figure this out.<br><br>And Hoffman...well, I don't know the major players in all this very well. But given all the eyewitness testimony that came forward and how this all unfolded, even IF the no plane theory was true, I wouldn't fault even a pretty skeptical person for not buying into it. So much media live at the time...so many people interviewed, etc. <br><br> <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

Re: Frozen Fish, Pentagon and Above Top Secret.com

Postby NewKid » Thu Mar 23, 2006 2:34 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I don't know about all that. While hitting the towers and Pentagon was significant psychologically, the whole "show" of hijacked planes crashing into NYC would allow them to set most of their agenda into action. Now, if it was absolutely critical that the Towers be destroyed....but I don't know that it was... <br>But, anyway, it could go much further than LIHOP without magical missing planes needing to be involved. Even if they were special forces...(or my pet theory of Manchurian candidates), and even if there was a stand down (which there certainly seems to have been) and even if the FAA didn't contact the military as they should, and even if someone did destroy the air control tapes....that has nothing to do with no plane theories. Interesting to ME, however, is the fact that all of the above is far better supported by the evidence than no plane at the Pentagon.<br><br>In other words, no plane at Pentagon is a distraction to confuse and discredit those trying to figure this out.<br><br>And Hoffman...well, I don't know the major players in all this very well. But given all the eyewitness testimony that came forward and how this all unfolded, even IF the no plane theory was true, I wouldn't fault even a pretty skeptical person for not buying into it. So much media live at the time...so many people interviewed, etc. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Oh sure. 77 disappearing from radar for the whole journey back is why I'm suspicious. But you're right, it's not necessary at all for something more than LIHOP. <br><br>But "all the eyewitnesses" is something you really need to look at. It's much more illusory than people think. I believe they saw a plane or something resembling a plane, and I think there was a second plane as well. Whether you believe it was the C-130 or not I don't know, but I do think people saw a second plane. Remember a lot of people in traffic had their views blocked by their cars and alot of people were running away at the time. <br><br><br>I've seen much better witness statements in pre-trial and depositions completely fall apart on cross at trial. I'm telling you, these witnesses are weak. I 'm pretty sure USA Today and others embellished quotes. And a lot of them don't even have quotes around them. I'm not confident some of the people said what they the media says they say. We need the witnesses themselves under oath and subject to cross to know. <br><br>As for Manchurian Candidates, Burlingame himself would be the best choice. If anyone could do that flying, he could. There was at least one other AA ex pilot who was fighter pilot on board and they're may have been yet another Vietnam pilot on board as well, I can't remember. <br><br>Plus I don't think you could EM assault or manchurian somebody in making them a great pilot, so I think for that theory to work, you need somebody who already knows how to fly that type of plane under strained conditions. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=newkid@rigorousintuition>NewKid</A> at: 3/23/06 11:47 am<br></i>
NewKid
 
Posts: 1036
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 1:57 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Frozen Fish, Pentagon and Above Top Secret.com

Postby Dreams End » Thu Mar 23, 2006 2:52 pm

You can mc someone who is trained...or you can mc them and then train them to be a pilot. There are allegations, even by members of this board, that they receive all kinds of training in mc programs. And there's other kind of mind control/cult type stuff where the person doesn't need a separate identity who does the mission...just uncritical acceptance of commands from higher ups. <br><br>Again...all of that is a side issue as it still assumes a plane...which is the topic of this thread. I like the MC angle because no one will ever believe it, if somebody gets caught. Look at Sirhan for example. <br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

Re: Frozen Fish, Pentagon and Above Top Secret.com

Postby NewKid » Thu Mar 23, 2006 2:55 pm

The bottom left guy is the guy you'd pick if not Burlingame for Manchurian. <br><br>Unless others unknown were on board. (I don't see the patch guy being the one.) <br><br><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/flight77/passengers/passengers.jpg" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--> <p></p><i></i>
NewKid
 
Posts: 1036
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 1:57 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Frozen Fish, Pentagon and Above Top Secret.com

Postby thoughtographer » Thu Mar 23, 2006 2:56 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>You can mc someone who is trained...or you can mc them and then train them to be a pilot.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br>Or you can pay, bribe, coerce and train them. <p></p><i></i>
thoughtographer
 
Posts: 724
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 12:12 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Frozen Fish, Pentagon and Above Top Secret.com

Postby NewKid » Thu Mar 23, 2006 2:59 pm

I think's a bit farfetched to train some Muslims to fly in secret with mind control, but who knows. <p></p><i></i>
NewKid
 
Posts: 1036
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 1:57 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to 9/11

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests