posted 02-11-2004 02:46 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by swamp gas:
Any doubts now, Wolfie and Lexie?

---

posted 02-11-2004 02:46 PM            

"P20G would launch secret operations aimed at "stimulating reactions" among terrorists and states possessing weapons of mass destruction, meaning it would prod terrorist cells into action, thus exposing them to "quick-response" attacks by US forces. The means by which it would do this is the far greater use of special operations forces.

Responsibility and accountability for the P2OG would be vested in a "Special Operations Executive" in the National Security Council (NSC). The NSC would plan operations but not oversee their execution in order to avoid comparisons to past abuses, such as the Iran-Contra operations run out of the NSC by Oliver North during the Reagan administration. Under the board's proposal, NSC plans would be executed by the Pentagon or the CIA."

I posted an article on the P2OG group a while back.

posted 02-11-2004 03:05 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:
Funny how all the people with cool "inside information" have Hotmail and other free, anonymous, throw-away accounts and never seem to appear on Google searches outside of conspiracy sites.

---

Boomer is right about you and Wolfie..Black and White..Good and Evil..Repulican..Democrat..Conspiracy..Coincidence. I have hotmail, MSN, my own server, all kinds of email. What does having a hotmail account prove? You are scraping the bottom of the barrel, just like Old Dumbya trying to explain his 4 days getting paid by the National Guard out of 4 years.

quote:

---

by Wolfie

Keep in mind that WTC 7 burned for 7 hours before it collapsed.
Further, through one of the stupidest blunders of pre-911, the city had installed an above ground emergency generator fuel tank on the first floor of that building. The fuel form that and other tanks in that building burned for weeks.

The fire department elected to let it burn because

1) The water mains were damaged from the tower collapse

2) They were still in "rescue mode" and were trying to find their lost men, as futile and sad as that turned out to be.

---

What Mech's link states is very clear.the US has and will provoke war, because some people are simply incapable of any thought process other than war.

posted 02-11-2004 03:13 PM            

The Military-Industrial Complex...

...the same complex the GLOBALISTS stand to gain from.

posted 02-11-2004 03:26 PM            

http://www.ny911truth.org/
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/08/ING944OQSP1.DTL

posted 02-11-2004 03:43 PM            

Well worth visiting!

posted 02-11-2004 04:11 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boomer Chick:
Swampie, you're too cool! Thanks for your cogent commentary!

---

Just call it the way I see it, Boomer.

When you take yourself off the Commerical "Grid", things simply start lining up, and you don't have to try as hard to force an opinion, as Lexie, Wolfie, and the Government apologists do.

posted 02-11-2004 04:21 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by swamp gas:
You are scraping the bottom of the barrel, just like Old Dumbya trying to explain his 4 days getting paid by the National Guard out of 4 years.

---

That is NOT 4 years!
George W Bush was only AWOL for 6 months and ten days during 1972!

(Please note that over 30 days AWOL?UA is "desertion" punishable by death)
Except for the son of a Congressman with a lifetime's CIA service to account for special privilege.

quote:

---

Originally posted by swamp gas:

What Mech's link states is very clear.the US has and will provoke war, because some people are simply incapable of any thought process other than war.

---

posted 02-11-2004 04:23 PM            

What more could Letxa possibly want from Gordon?

Possible questions:

Is what you said true?

Were you really there?

Are you an actual person?

Hehehe!

Then what?

Well, prove to me you're a photographer! Send me your pics!

Now, how do you know the hub-bub was about pulling the building? Couldn't it have been about something else?

Now, just why do you post on this site?

How come you have hotmail and not some other costly e-mail address?

Hehehe!

Sorry -- I just can't believe the chutzpa sometimes!

Not to mention the shear lack of boundaries!

Should we all contact all people posting on the internet? Is this research? I ask you -- what is the purpose of useless questions? Shouldn't question-asking be an art involved in finding not only credibility but also attaching larger picture constructs?

If one hasn't the larger picture even in mind how can one connect dots? There are only two dots in the smaller picture but let's say ten dots in the larger one!

Just had to vent!

bc

posted 02-11-2004 04:30 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mech:

[b]"In the Los Angeles Times, the military analyst William Arkin describes a secret army set up by Donald Rumsfeld, similar to those run by Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger and which Congress outlawed. This "super-intelligence support activity" will bring together the "CIA and military covert action, information warfare, and deception". According to a classified document prepared for Rumsfeld, the new organisation, known by its Orwellian euphemism as the Proactive Pre-emptive Operations Group, or P2OG, WILL PROVOKE TERRORIST ATTACKS which would then require "counter-attack" by the United States on countries "harbouring the terrorists". [/B]

---

Thanks, Mech! Great pic and point! P & P!

For you, shatoga!

posted 02-11-2004 04:42 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boomer Chick:
So true! I hear ya! What more could Letxa possibly want from Gordon?

---

How about corroborating evidence that substantiates such a charge.

I swear, it's fun to read these stories. They read like science fiction novels. I love how he even makes sure to touch on the details of facial expressions and jestures made along the way over a decade after it happened. It's written to pull you in just like the talks on Art Bell are spoken in such a way as to pull you into their world and make it hard to switch stations or turn it off during a commercial.

I do admit, it's fun to read (and listen to, in the case of Art Bell).

quote:

---

Possible questions:
Is what you said true?
Were you really there?
Are you an actual person?

---

I had the same problem.. didn't know what to ask. I was thinking maybe of asking for a resume which I could then verify with some phone calls. Certainly he wouldn't mind me doing so so as to establish his credibility.

quote:

---

Then what?
Well, prove to me you're a photographer! Send me your pics!

---

Hey! That's NOT a bad idea, thanks! I'd be intersted to see if his pictures of the WTC are substantially different from some pictures some friends of mine took at the WTC 3 weeks before 9/11.

quote:

---

How come you have hotmail and not some other costly e-mail address?

---

Costly email address? Most users that login to the Internet are provided with an email address that comes with their account. It is more tied to their identity, though, so many people choose not to use it. But considering free email accounts are also called "anonymous" and "disposable," you'd think someone making such an earthshattering claim would add some credibility to it by at least using an email address that, at some level, is tied to them. Or, maybe not.

quote:

---

Should we all contact all people posting on the internet? Is this research?

---

When it comes to claims such as the ones he is making and claims like Parish's which were discredited when I made a simple phone called to his supposed former employer, YES! Contact people! Make phone calls! These are serious accusations being flung around. An email or a few phone calls is the very least you should do before spreading this stuff.

quote:

---

I ask you -- what is the purpose of useless questions? Shouldn't question-asking be an art involved in finding not only credibility but also attaching larger picture constructs?

---

Larger picture constructs are fine as long as you have validated that the constructs are built on solid information. And that's where contacting people, via email or by phone, comes in. VERIFY SOURCES, just like real reporters do.

That's also probably why you don't see this stuff in the traditional media. It's not because anyone is scared to report it, but because they can't even verify a single source let alone corroborate it. Basically, no sane publisher would publish because it's effectively unsubstantiated.

quote:

---

If one hasn't the larger picture even in mind how can one connect dots? There are only two dots in the smaller picture but let's say ten dots in the larger one!

---

The thing is, if each dot hasn't been validated, what's the point of connecting them? I tried calling "the dots" earlier in this thread and never got a response from the author (LeBreont or whatever) and confirmed that Parish didn't work for who he said he worked for... Am I to understand that I should still connect these dots to something other than the trash can?

posted 02-11-2004 04:45 PM            

I don't look at it that way. It makes me SICK, F*N OUTRAGED AND PISSED OFF!!!!!!!!!

OBVIOUSLY YOU DONT SEE HOW SERIOUS THIS IS!!!

posted 02-11-2004 04:50 PM            

Over 4 years trying to get some truth past the rightwing media's filters.

posted 02-11-2004 06:03 PM            

To connect dots takes an alternative vision FIRST a big alternative picture, like in CSI (to bring it down to comprehensible levels) and then find the proof to connect the dots! In the case of questionable and conflicting preliminary evidence the broader thinker always makes the best investigator -- proof in Sherlock Holmes and forensic science!

Nothing is how it seems nor is it as simple as the explanations given especially concerning governments!

Hotmail? Hotmail is cheap and can be just one of many e-mail sites people subscribe to. No big evidence of anything there. Because the guy doesn't have a website, doesn't mean he lacks credibility, either.

Sifting the chaff from the wheat is definately important -- via any source of information including radio shows and interviews, but to throw the baby out with the bathwater is unwise.

Did you find that Gordon responded? I don't remember reading that. ?

And what WERE your illustrious questions?

bc

posted 02-11-2004 07:16 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boomer Chick:
Sherlock Holmes would have loved you! (she says with sarcasm!)

To connect dots takes an alternative vision FIRST a big alternative picture, like in CSI (to bring it down to comprehensible levels) and then find the proof to connect the dots! In the case of questionable and conflicting preliminary evidence the broader thinker always makes the best investigator -- proof in Sherlock Holmes and forensic science!

Nothing is how it seems nor is it as simple as the explanations given especially concerning governments!

---

"APB on the wife" was dectectives initial response, while the man lay dying.

I thought:
If she didn't do it, they are making two victims of one crime.

They only wanted to put 'somebody' behind bars.
Easier to convict the grief stricken spouse than to look for the actual killer.

911, was the same symptiomatic simplicity:
Follow the easy road to convict possibly innocents
rather than a difficult search for those who actually committed the crime.

Sometimes, simple logic prevails;
Regardless of who committed the crime;
exploxive demiolition could save lives by keeping a tall tower from falling over and spreading fire and flaming debris widely over the city.

Firemen know the difference between 15 blocks of flaming debris and hundreds of blocks of flaming debris.

Too simple for anyone?
Massive loss of life/ vs/ limited losses.

posted 02-11-2004 08:54 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boomer Chick:
To connect dots takes an alternative vision FIRST a big alternative picture, like in CSI (to bring it down to comprehensible levels) and then find the proof to connect the dots! In the case of questionable and conflicting preliminary evidence the broader thinker always makes the best investigator -- proof in Sherlock Holmes and forensic science!

---

I'm not against thinking about things "outside the box." But, still, I seem to be finding a lot of things where the individual claims that support the outside-the-box view don't seem to hold up to a little bit of research. Case in point, LeBreont that in all honesty doesn't seem credible and hasn't answered my mail from, what, almost two weeks ago. Case in point, Parish who apparently did not work for the company he claimed to where he was supposedly privy to information that raised a question regarding explosives in WTC. Case in point, radar anomalies where experienced radar operators contradict the claims of RadarMatrix...

If it were just an isolated case, ok, an occasional error is to be forgiven and understood. But when time after time the conclusions are based on facts or "testimony" which, when verification is attempted, are unsupported or outright discredited, one has to start asking questions about whether or not the "big alternative picture" is really an accurate premise or not.

quote:

---

Nothing is how it seems nor is it as simple as the explanations given especially concerning governments!

---

Again, I have no problem questioning everything and everyone. I do it daily! (as many have seen). I have no problems questioning the government, Bush, or whoever. My problem is when there is an assumption of guilt before the questions are asked and when the answers turn out to be inaccurate, the person is still assumed guilty.

I think it should be very bothersome to you guys when a story like the Parish story that Mech posted to start this thread is discredited with a simple phone call to his previous employer. That is not trivial. It really ought to make people stop and wonder just how much of the information they are reading--especially supposed first-hand testimomy--is accurate.

Instead I was told that it doesn't really matter whether or not it (the Parish article) was true, that it still gave someone another possible explanation for 9/11. That statement blew me away. It's here in this thread, I'd have to see who it was, but the fact that it was said just blew me away.

quote:

---

Hotmail? Hotmail is cheap and can be just one of many e-mail sites people subscribe to. No big evidence of anything there. Because the guy doesn't have a website, doesn't mean he lacks credibility, either.

---

Perhaps. I've been on the Internet long enough to still have the perception that "legitimate" users have legitimate (non-free, non-throwaway) email accounts. This comes from the day when Internet users were either at established companies or at universities and there was a lot more seriousness.

Companies such as AOL and Hotmail came along and all the sudden everyone and their grandma had a free email account. And that's good! But I still am stuck with my early 90's Internet experience where everyone had a "real" email address.

Perhaps that attitude is obsolete. But in my dealings I've found it still to be accurate. The emails I get on my technical website (nothing to do with 9/11, chemtrails, etc.) seem to be a lot more intelligent when they come from EDUs or established companies compared to when they come from AOL or Hotmail/Yahoo addresses.

Your mileage may vary.

quote:

---

Sifting the chaff from the wheat is definately important -- via any source of information including radio shows and interviews, but to throw the baby out with the bathwater is unwise.

---

As long as one has the ability to sift the chaff from the wheat, yes, it's good to hear it all. If one doesn't have that ability, hearing the chaff to find an occasional grain of wheat is dangerous, even if it causes them to miss the occasional wheat.

quote:

---

Did you find that Gordon responded? I don't remember reading that. ?

---

Just checked. No response as of yet. No response from LeBreont nearly 2 weeks later, either.

quote:

---

And what WERE your illustrious questions?

---

That I asked of Gordon? I just asked to verify that he (the owner of that email account) is in fact TS Gordon and if he could verify that the story circulating on the Internet with his name on it is correct. If/when he replies I'll ask him more serious questions.

posted 02-11-2004 09:56 PM            

If only the same could be said for you. No offense but the monotony can be mind numbing.

posted 02-11-2004 10:12 PM            

This blog was too cute!

And this is the best campaign blog I’ve seen yet!

posted 02-11-2004 10:17 PM            

quote:

---

Lexta: I do admit, it's fun to read (and listen to, in the case of Art Bell).

Know-This: If only the same could be said for you. No offense but the monotony can be mind numbing.

---

posted 02-11-2004 10:30 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by KNOW-THIS:
If only the same could be said for you. No offense but the monotony can be mind numbing.

---

It reminds me of an album on a stereo where the needle is stuck in a groove, making the same repeated noise, going round and round, yet getting nowhere! It's enough to make a sane person insane!

posted 02-11-2004 10:54 PM            

Frankly im TIRED of your accusations stating "no one is giving me answers" BULL$#!+.

MANY people here have been giving you MULTIPLE answers and you are outright REJECTING all of them but the ones YOU idetify as "agreeable".

Go elsewhere if you want more answers...stop making FALSE accusations.