Cost Of War

[7 VII 7]

pwned

11+ characters

[Guest 850T-5]

let's try a different approach

can you explain Operation Northwoods and PNAC?

Why did our Government propose blowing up our own aircraft as a pretext for war with Cuba in 1962 approved to the highest level until rejected by Kennedy? This is an actual document available from the CIA's website.

Why did a neo-conservative thinktank in a documented titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses", call for a "New Pearl Harbor" and a "Catalyizing Event" prior to 9/11? You can go to PNAC's website and get this document as well. People from our own Government were also documented members of PNAC.

Let's here it since you are so certain false flag terrorism is just not possible.

[7 VII 7]

dude!

you are changing the subject...

[s70turbo1998]

let's try a different approach

can you explain Operation Northwoods and PNAC?

Why did our Government propose blowing up our own aircraft as a pretext for war with Cuba in 1962 approved to the highest level until rejected by Kennedy? This is an actual document available from the CIA's website.

Why did a neo-conservative thinktank in a documented titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses", call for a "New Pearl Harbor" and a "Catalyizing Event" prior to 9/11? You can go to PNAC's website and get this document as well. People from our own Government were also documented members of PNAC.

Let's here it since you are so certain false flag terrorism is just not possible.

That has to be the fifth time you have brought that up. Come up with something on your own.

And I had no idea that we are still concerned about things that happened in 1962.

[Guest 850T-5]

dude, no sh**

I'm not going to sit here and but heads with people who can't understand certain aspects.

Are you still stuck on me? I don't know what you want. You want to know what I do for a living, personal information, DOB, a DNA sample, my SS? don't believe me then, actually not "me", these are documented facts I have discussed here. like I said go research the information out there, stop worrying about me, I can care less what you think about me or my credibility.

come up with something on your own?

what do you want me to come up with on my own? these are documented facts.

how about you explain it since your calling me a nut and saying false flag terror isn't /wasn't possible?

have no idea what the Northwoods 1962 Government document has to do with anything?

uh, well if the Government, the Pentagon proposed blowing up U.S. Airliners as a pretext for war with Cuba, uh well what happened after 9/11, did we not go to war? If this was proposed back in '62, it couldn't been happening now, right?

[7 VII 7]

dude, no sh**

I'm not going to sit here and but heads with people who can't understand certain aspects.

Are you still stuck on me? I don't know what you want. You want to know what I do for a living, personal information, DOB, a DNA sample, my SS? don't believe me then, actually not "me", these are documented facts I have discussed here. like I said go research the information out there, stop worrying about me, I can care less what you think about me or my credibility.

come up with something on your own?

what do you want me to come up with on my own? these are documented facts.

how about you explain it since your calling me a nut and saying false flag terror isn't /wasn't possible?

and your rebuttal is here...

but your websites say basically that a plane did not hit the WTC because no steel structure has collapsed because of fire...

by saying that and OBVIOUSLY being wrong,

it shows doubt that other facts on the website are wrong

which then shows that your site's characters are questionable

which then shows that your links and theories are questionable.

[Guest 850T-5]

uh, that is NOT a rebuttal to

can you explain Operation Northwoods and PNAC?

Why did our Government propose blowing up our own aircraft as a pretext for war with Cuba in 1962 approved to the highest level until rejected by Kennedy? This is an actual document available from the CIA's website.

Why did a neo-conservative thinktank in a documented titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses", call for a "New Pearl Harbor" and a "Catalyizing Event" prior to 9/11? You can go to PNAC's website and get this document as well. People from our own Government were also documented members of PNAC.

Let's here it since you are so certain false flag terrorism is just not possible.

but ok, if that works for you. This is obviously not working for some people. we can just call it a crazy coincidence then and leave it at that.

[s70turbo1998]

dude, no sh**

I'm not going to sit here and but heads with people who can't understand certain aspects.

Are you still stuck on me? I don't know what you want. You want to know what I do for a living, personal information, DOB, a DNA sample, my SS? don't believe me then, actually not "me", these are documented facts I have discussed here. like I said go research the information out there, stop worrying about me, I can care less what you think about me or my credibility.

come up with something on your own?

what do you want me to come up with on my own? these are documented facts.

how about you explain it since your calling me a nut and saying false flag terror isn't /wasn't possible?

Yea because I'm sure your identity is worth figuring out...

Do you work, have a family? or do you sit around fapping away on infowars because it gives you something to do?

And no shit we have documented facts about Operation Northwoods and PNAC. But guess what, they didn't happen. They were theories, speculation. Everything and anything government has been documented. Asides from commando missions in Nam, but do I really care? nope. There is a reason the government isn't openly publishing everything. Nutjobs read up on it and believe they're on to something.

[7 VII 7]

uh, that is NOT a rebuttal to Northwoods or PNAC as I asked, but ok if that works for you.

This is obviously not working for some people. Unfortunately, some people just don't get it and probably never will.

it was not a rebuttal for Northwoods or PNAC becuase I did not change the subject.. YOU did because you could not back up the swisscheese fact websites you posted

I am still waiting to hear you support how these websites (cause everything on the internet is true) on everything being FACT

the fact that you think a missle hit the Pentagon proves that your facts are crap

[Guest 850T-5]

come on man.

I posted the websites because you asked for resources, I thought I'd give you some to check out to get started.

Do I guarantee the accuracy 110%, no of course not, NOT even the mainstream media can do that and in fact have been less credible than lots of information on the internet today.

I guess thought people were smart enough to sort out and confirm fact but maybe I was wrong and it was irresponsible to put websites up that might not tell everything they want to know including the meaning of life.

you say PNAC and Northwoods, never happened.

Just a crazy coincidence huh, that such things did happen later right? and no doesn't prove anyone in our Government would even think of or plan such things? silly me. I'm sorry.

[USMC850T]

hahaha, ok. aviation experts don't know what they're talking about and you do. no one said they couldn't do a low fly pass but a Boeing 757 was not designed to fly a couple feet off the ground at over 500MPH, the ground effect (that pillow) of air and turbulance underneath the plane (yes I know what it is) you refer to would keep pushing the plane up and make it unstable. That Airbus certainly isn't traveling at 500+ MPH, which is the speed combined with flying a couple feet off the ground in question and certainly not 2 feet of the ground.

You are calling the facts and the overwhelming evidence to the contrary incredibly thin?

Aviation experts understand the ground effect, as do I. You, however, still do not. If you fast forward this video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69DXf5_hB3c ) which I've already posted to around 25 seconds, you will see the airbus go by at 500 mph, 30 or so feet above the ground. Did the ground effect keep pushing that plane up and up in the air making it unstable?

NO - because it's just one of many forces acting on an aircraft in flight, which is in turn balanced by another force. You know T-5, the magnitude of the lift force exerted on the plane is astronomical compared to the magnitude of what the ground effect would be doing at that altitude. Maybe you should tell your conspiracy theory buddies that LIFT is the reason a 757 couldn't have crashed into the pentagon

The whole argument I've seen you put up is based on your misunderstandings and manipulations of facts, not actual facts. These aviation experts understand what they're talking about, and would probably tell you the exact same thing I've tried to convey. What these conspiracy theory groups have done is take FACTS and manipulate them, or just through plain misunderstanding (like you and your aviation "knowledge"), and spin so they fit into some convoluted conspiracy.

[Guest 850T-5]

that airbus was not traveling 500MPH and it certainly was NOT 2 feet off the ground traveling over 500MPH, riding flat to the ground as the official story claims. you are comparing apples and oranges. come on.

I've already said, so let's say it was a plane that did hit . . . .

you would then have to claim that we have no anti-aircraft defense around the Pentagon to intercept right? which would be a crazy conspiracy theory right there and that plane should have been intercepted.

if people need to believe in fairytales to make them feel safer, that's fine.

[theForgottenone]

a joke for who? the illegals?

I love the fact that I pay only $150 a month for total complete healthcare

$100 ER visits, 10$ co-pays, and dental and eye are well taken care of also

I do not even have to wait a month to get into to see a good Dr

so it is great for me

It's always about just you and you only.

I'm sure all of these are illegals immigrant based on your generalization

http://www.cdc.gov/Features/Uninsured/

A person was defined as uninsured if he or she did not have any private health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), state-sponsored or other government-sponsored health plan, or military plan. A person was also defined as uninsured if he or she had only Indian Health Service coverage or had only a private plan that paid for one type of service such as accidents or dental care.

My organization provide charity through community outreach, service and care /financial assistance/uninsured write off ..etc for those in needs last year alone is ~$130 millions just for Oregon region.

Reasons for increase in health care cost?

http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

[Che'_Moderator]

Look!

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm

The moon landing was faked

http://www.elvislives.net/

Elvis is alive!

you would then have to claim that we have no anti-aircraft defense around the Pentagon to intercept right? which would be a crazy conspiracy theory right there and that plane should have been intercepted.

if people need to believe in fairytales to make them feel safer, that's fine.

LOL. Ever been stationed at a RDF base? Aircraft do no sit loaded with ordnance and fuel idling on the flight line.

[Guest 850T-5]

no, the Pentagon, the United States military HQ, didn't have any type of surface to air anti-aircraft defense.

why would we? we would never think about being attacked by planes, even given "Pearl Harbor".

no, and you're right and in fact, we have no national defense or ability to intercept aircraft from our own aircraft either.

in fact, we never had any national security at all? I just didn't realize

no there wasn't plenty of time for an air intercept, fighters unloaded, running, ready or not.

Getting back to reality, here is another good site, they are just reporting the facts, 9/11, the complete time line.

Draw your own conclusions. Complete 9/11 Time Line

All these former Government, Military Officials and PHD's all must be crazy too

Patriots Question 9/11 - Former Military, Government Officials, PHD's

Paul O'Neil - Secretary of the Treasury under George W. Bush - Iraq was U.S. goal since 1998

Warning: Yes it is on youtube but this is an actual 60 Mintues, mainstream media interview.

Mainstream Media - Since that is all anyone seems to want to listen to, Iraq was on the table days after Bush took office

His says U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was not a reaction to the attacks of September 11, but was instead a campaign in the planning stages ever since Bush took office, with potential oil spoils charted in early documents.

Rather than denying his allegations, Bush officials attacked O'Neil's credibility, while answering that regime change in Iraq had been official U.S. policy since 1998, three years before Bush took office. However, O'Neil's claims called into question the relationship of the Iraq occupation to the post-9/11 War on Terrorism.