rigorousintuition.ca

FourthBase wrote:How is that crashing a plane into it? It's not. Still waiting.

I believe Harris and Klebold of Columbine school massacre infamy planned to fly planes into the World Trade Center after killing a bunch more people.

FourthBase wrote:Hence, why the hijackers-as-willing-patsies purchased GPS devices? That might have been alibi insurance in case any remote-control evidence materialized. "The hijackers remote-controlled the planes themselves". There's been no practical explanation for their GPS devices, right? I mean, they couldn't have entered the coordinates by hand in the cockpit after hijacking the plane, right? So if the hijackers didn't GPS-program the plane, and if pre-installing remote control equipment in the appropriate planes is an unwieldy proposition...then that leaves remote control via remote computer hacking, right?

This is exactly my thoughts exactly. I tell people "If you believe in CD, then you have to 100% believe those flights were guided in to make sure they hit where they did.

I fully believe the 19 hijackers were a mixture of young mind controlled dupes yet willing jihadists by way of CIA-MI6-BND controlled mosques in London and Hamberg, protected Balkan jihadist/Saudi intelligence assets
and drug running intelligence linked madmen(Mohammed Atta)
All of them I believe died on 9/11.

I've researched the "GPS" angle of 9/11, and while it is possible...and sure, its possible the planes were beaconed in(beacon placed in Fuji Bank, and Marsh and Mclenlan) or electronicly hijacked...
the hijacker's handlers could have told them what coordinates to push in to fly it to their locations.

Then again the media also reported they managed to sneak in guns and bombs, so who knows what really happened...and hence: all the focus on the physical anomaly stuff.

I have yet to this day have one "debunker" challenge me on the topic of how al Qaeda works, and who controls/funds it

Btw, can anyone guess who was in the basement of FAA headquarters?
Ptech and Mitre. Ptech had their PROMIS software on all major government systems, despite being a total al Qaeda front. And Mitre, once chaired by Warren Buffet(whose white plane was allegedly following Flight 93, and who hosted a breakfast the morning of 9/11 at Offut AFB with WTC CEOs, where Bush would touchdown hours later and where war games were being conducted) claim to fame is remote controlled global hawk predator drones.

8bitagent wrote:

FourthBase wrote:Hence, why the hijackers-as-willing-patsies purchased GPS devices? That might have been alibi insurance in case any remote-control evidence materialized. "The hijackers remote-controlled the planes themselves". There's been no practical explanation for their GPS devices, right? I mean, they couldn't have entered the coordinates by hand in the cockpit after hijacking the plane, right? So if the hijackers didn't GPS-program the plane, and if pre-installing remote control equipment in the appropriate planes is an unwieldy proposition...then that leaves remote control via remote computer hacking, right?

This is exactly my thoughts exactly. I tell people "If you believe in CD, then you have to 100% believe those flights were guided in to make sure they hit where they did.

I fully believe the 19 hijackers were a mixture of young mind controlled dupes yet willing jihadists by way of CIA-MI6-BND controlled mosques in London and Hamberg, protected Balkan jihadist/Saudi intelligence assets
and drug running intelligence linked madmen(Mohammed Atta)
All of them I believe died on 9/11.

I've researched the "GPS" angle of 9/11, and while it is possible...and sure, its possible the planes were beaconed in(beacon placed in Fuji Bank, and Marsh and Mclenlan) or electronicly hijacked...
the hijacker's handlers could have told them what coordinates to push in to fly it to their locations.

Then again the media also reported they managed to sneak in guns and bombs, so who knows what really happened...and hence: all the focus on the physical anomaly stuff.

I have yet to this day have one "debunker" challenge me on the topic of how al Qaeda works, and who controls/funds it

Btw, can anyone guess who was in the basement of FAA headquarters?
Ptech and Mitre. Ptech had their PROMIS software on all major government systems, despite being a total al Qaeda front. And Mitre, once chaired by Warren Buffet(whose white plane was allegedly following Flight 93, and who hosted a breakfast the morning of 9/11 at Offut AFB with WTC CEOs, where Bush would touchdown hours later and where war games were being conducted) claim to fame is remote controlled global hawk predator drones.

Exactly. Which is why the question of "how they dun it" is tertiary in comparison to the fact that they obviously did it.

stickdog99 wrote:
Exactly. Which is why the question of "how they dun it" is tertiary in comparison to the fact that they obviously did it.

Well Clinton said "that depends what is is", and it depends who "they" is.

Truthers tell us Bush and Cheney did it. The fringe says the "Zionists" did it.
Some said Saddam did it, others...that Saudi Arabia did it.
Most say "Osama, independent of any country, done it"

Sadly people think too much in the box...they think in terms of national sovereignty and state interests(US dun it, Israel done it), as opposed to truly transnational interests.

Because if you truly look down the rabbit hole, you wont see a "sovereign state" puppeteering 9/11, but transnational interests who hold no allegience to a country...and are able to tap into and proxy all intelligence, not just rogue elements of the CIA.

Sweet Tooth wrote:

FourthBase wrote:How is that crashing a plane into it? It's not. Still waiting.

I believe Harris and Klebold of Columbine school massacre infamy planned to fly planes into the World Trade Center after killing a bunch more people.

Harris and Klebold were artists?

Sweet Tooth wrote:

FourthBase wrote:I would describe the Simpsons, and especially Family Guy and American Dad, as nihilistic more than anti-government.

The Simpsons... nihilistic? Do explain (unless you have already, and I haven't reached that post yet).

Cheers!
YOPJ

Nearly every episode involves corrosive antisocial behavior that gets a laugh. If you're not questioning why I called American Dad or Family Guy nihilistic because you can see why, the Simpsons is nihilistic for the same reasons but slightly less so.

Nearly every episode involves corrosive antisocial behavior that gets a laugh. If you're not questioning why I called American Dad or Family Guy nihilistic because you can see why, the Simpsons is nihilistic for the same reasons but slightly less so.

Gotta disagree about the Simpsons. The show often reinforces the importance of love, family, and kindness. Maybe you haven't watched enough episodes?

....



8bitagent says:




Because if you truly look down the rabbit hole,
you wont see a "sovereign state"
puppeteering 9/11,
but transnational interests
who hold no allegience to a
country...and are able to tap
into and proxy all intelligence,
not just rogue elements of the CIA.




good to know someone's awake


have a healthy & prosperous new year


all the best



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



....




...

professorpan wrote:

Nearly every episode involves corrosive antisocial behavior that gets a laugh. If you're not questioning why I called American Dad or Family Guy nihilistic because you can see why, the Simpsons is nihilistic for the same reasons but slightly less so.

Gotta disagree about the Simpsons. The show often reinforces the importance of love, family, and kindness. Maybe you haven't watched enough episodes?

I've seen 90% of all Simpsons episodes.

A show will often end like that, but most of the show was sociopathic.

I think sometimes how people interpret something, like The Simpsons, tells us more about that person than what he or she is interpreting!

Sociopathic?

A sociopath is a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopath

The Simpsons?

FourthBase wrote: A show will often end like that, but most of the show was sociopathic.

Haha. Here's an idea: how about using words for their actual meaning?

...


FourthBase wrote:

A show will often end like that, but most of the show was sociopathic.

orz:

Haha. Here's an idea: how about using words for their actual meaning?


hilarious





....

theeKultleeder wrote:I think sometimes how people interpret something, like The Simpsons, tells us more about that person than what he or she is interpreting!

Sociopathic?

A sociopath is a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopath

The Simpsons?

orz wrote:

FourthBase wrote: A show will often end like that, but most of the show was sociopathic.

Haha. Here's an idea: how about using words for their actual meaning?

I guess this is like the contention/simple observation that Seinfeld's characters were consistently doing antisocial things. Do you people not watch these shows? Do you not have even a rudimentary moral compass?

"A sociopath is a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience"

And that fails to describe, say, Homer Simpson...HOW?

FourthBase wrote:


I guess this is like the contention/simple observation that Seinfeld's characters were consistently doing antisocial things. Do you people not watch these shows? Do you not have even a rudimentary moral compass?

Are you really that uptight? Do you ever leave the house? Does the magnification of human foibles for comedy/commentary escape you?

Have you ever seen a Shakespeare play, live onstage?

FourthBase wrote: "A sociopath is a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience"

And that fails to describe, say, Homer Simpson...HOW?

In every possible way.


Now POP QUIZ!!!!! Class, who is the one character on the Simpsons that could accurately be described as sociopathic?

Fine, you win. Homer Simpson's behavior is never antisocial and he doesn't lack a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience. But sure, sensai, which Simpsons character is the only regular character on the show who exhibits antisocial, sociopathic behavior? Let me guess: