Quite the opposite..........
going away to bug out location for few weeks so you wont be hearing much from me
Printable View
Quite the opposite..........
going away to bug out location for few weeks so you wont be hearing much from me
If you have people like Richard Gage mirroring the same perspectives I am, and there's mountain of posts all disagreeing with that same perspective, at some point you have to stop and think for a second that something is up somewhere.
She likes hard things but would rather have inanimate objects since she can't have the real thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Serpo
Smokin the good shit over there tonight, are ya?Quote:
Originally Posted by joboo
Speaking of avoiding the hard questions...Quote:
Originally Posted by Cebu_4_2
If you have people like Richard Gage mirroring the same perspectives I am, and there's mountain of posts all disagreeing with that same perspective, at some point you have to stop and think for a second that something is up somewhere.
So which is it? Richard Gage is joo shill as well?
Some bizarro world logic going on here.
People are doing hard work to get the message out, then loony factor ramps up by refusing to really think about it from a complete perspective, and all the hard work of the people who do think about issues from a complete perspective gets lumped in with the fringe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Horn
One step forward two steps back.
You don't think this happens? This is what you call "smoking the good shit"?
Some of you guys have to be paid shills to play out the nutter angle.
I have no idea what you're talking about, and again you're answering a question with another question.Quote:
Originally Posted by joboo
"Smoking the good shit" isn't a question. It's an accusation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Horn
I think you're a paid shill to promote the nutter angle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cebu_4_2
So joboo is a women............not being sexist but goes a long way to explaining the logic...............
you a man or women joboo
{--->)
Shills in this forum paid to promote the crazy 9II angles.
When they get pressed on logic, they attack the messenger.
It's a repeating pattern.
Until you gain an ounce of credibility here no one will take you seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by joboo
Why pretend to be a women if you are a man?
The information speaks for itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Serpo
I'm aligned with Richard Gage on this perspective. He has no credibility either right?
You start more threads than anyone on this forum.
http://i.imgur.com/BCS4ySg.jpg
What's up with the symbolism going on in your avatar?
Ive often wondered about that myself ...any ideas?
Two cameras ,a record and a music player ,is this symbolism to you.....hahahahah
So I take it you are a male
Quote:
Originally Posted by joboo
You corrupt more threads on this forum than anyone.
http://i.imgur.com/zVXCref.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Serpo
http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.50613....1&H=159&W=160
https://lh3.ggpht.com/-Rh2ACqsUobI/T...587722-53.jpeg
In a tawdry display of public indecency, it seems Pattern of Projection Girlhttp://gold-silver.us/forum/attachme...1&d=1361024018 is working herself up towards some sort of explosive climax of PROJECTION!
a few snips of her latest joobospew:
#55#485Quote:
Originally Posted by Pattern of Projection Girl
#486Quote:
Originally Posted by Pattern of Projection Girl
#488Quote:
Originally Posted by Pattern of Projection Girl
#490Quote:
Originally Posted by Pattern of Projection Girl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pattern of Projection Girl
"a repeating pattern" indeed; here's her updated joobospew projection/ad-hom character attack collection where she targets the mental competency/status/"agenda" of everyone whose ideas are not in compliance with those she labors ad nauseum to coerce here-- still VERY MUCH A PARTIAL COLLECTION, mind!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pattern of Projection Girl
WOW:o.
How was it for you, Pattern of Projection Girlhttp://gold-silver.us/forum/attachme...1&d=1361024018??
I thought you were going to answer the Richard Gage question pat?
Did your eyes stop working?
How many Architects and Engineers agree with Richard Gage again?
Be careful of having an opinion around pat, he'll do a big out of context copy, and paste highschool science fair project mural on how to attack the messenger via character assassination complete with sexual preference pictures.
http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.46405....1&H=120&W=160
Pat...Richard Gage wont touch the missiletard angle with a 10 foot pole. He thinks it was an airplane, and that most other 9II skeptics do as well.
Why don't you make one of your science fair murals up for him?
Maybe toss a beanie cap on him, make his nose huge, stuff a bagel in his mouth, then post some random picture, and call it out as his gay lover....you know......your usual.
RE: ^???o)(~:o:|~Quote:
Originally Posted by PatColo
Yes correct, Richard...last name Gage.
You know, the guy you practically made a signature with on every 9II post?
He thinks it was an airplane, and the missile angle is loony toons. The same thing I've been saying.
How's your logic circuitry making out?
If you need me to photoshop a beanie cap on a photo of Richard Gage to help get you started for your next mural project just let me know.
it appears reply 499 ^^ contains Pattern of Projection Girl'shttp://gold-silver.us/forum/attachme...1&d=1361024018 dreaded kryptonite...:o:D:o;D:o
I already answered it a few times.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatColo
You seem to keep wanting to project that on me...haha.
I agree with Richard Gage across the board, top to bottom, inside and out, upside down, and backwards.
You better get working on that big nose, bagel eating, beanie wearing, joo jitsu rabbi pic of Richard Gage Pat. I'm sensing your logic circuits are in dire need of a coolant top up.
from Was America Attacked By Scary Moozlems On 9/11?:
[...]
9. Did DNA Tests Identify Five Hijackers among the Victims at the Pentagon?
Another type of evidence that the alleged hijackers were really on the planes could have been provided by autopsies. But no such evidence has been forthcoming. In its book defending the official account of 9/11, to be sure, Popular Mechanics claims that, according to a report on the victims of the Pentagon attack by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology: “The five hijackers were positively identified.”92 But this claim is false.
According to a summary of this pathology report by Andrew Baker, M.D., the remains of 183 victims were subjected to DNA analysis, which resulted in “178 positive identifications.” Although Baker says that “[s]ome remains for each of the terrorists were recovered,” this was merely an inference from the fact that there were “five unique postmortem profiles that did not match any antemortem material provided by victims’ families.”93
A Washington Post story made even clearer the fact that this conclusion—that the unmatched remains were those of “the five hijackers”—was merely an inference. It wrote: “The remains of the five hijackers have been identified through a process of exclusion, as they did not match DNA samples contributed by family members of all 183 victims who died at the site” (emphasis added).94 All the report said, in other words, was that there were five bodies whose DNA did not match that of any of the known Pentagon victims or any of the regular passengers or crew members on Flight 77.
We have no way of knowing where these five bodies came from. For the claim that they came from the attack site at the Pentagon, we have only the word of the FBI and the military, which insisted on taking charge of the bodies of everyone killed at the Pentagon and transporting them to the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology.95
In any case, the alleged hijackers could have been positively identified only if samples had been obtained from their relatives, and there is no indication that this occurred. Indeed, one can wonder why not. The FBI had lots of information about the men identified as the hijackers. They could easily have located relatives. And these relatives, most of whom reportedly did not believe that their own flesh and blood had been involved in the attacks, would have surely been willing to supply the needed DNA. Indeed, a story about Ziad Jarrah, the alleged pilot of Flight 93, said: “Jarrah’s family has indicated they would be willing to provide DNA samples to US researchers, . . . [but] the FBI has shown no interest thus far.”96
The lack of positive identification of the alleged hijackers is consistent with the autopsy report, which was released to Dr. Thomas Olmsted, who had made a FOIA request for it. Like the flight manifest for Flight 77, he revealed, this report also contains no Arab names.97
[...]
___________________
[...]
92. David Dunbar and Brad Reagan, eds., Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can’t Stand Up to the Facts (New York: Hearst Books, 2006), 63.
93. Andrew M. Baker, M.D., “Human Identification in a Post-9/11 World: Attack on American Airlines Flight 77 and the Pentagon Identification and Pathology” (http://www.ndms.chepinc.org/presentations/2005/266.pdf).
94. Steve Vogel, “Remains Unidentified for 5 Pentagon Victims,” Washington Post, 21 November 2001 (http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/pen...identified.htm).
95. See my discussion in Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory, revised & updated edition (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2007), 268-69.
96. “Ziad Jarrah,” Wikipedia, as the article existed prior to September 8, 2006. On that date, that passage was removed. However, the earlier version of the article, containing the passage, is available at http://www.wanttoknow.info/articles/ziad_jarrah.
97. Thomas R. Olmsted, M.D. “Still No Arabs on Flight 77,” Rense.com, 23 June 2003 (http://www.rense.com/general38/77.htm).
[...]
also from Was America Attacked By Scary Moozlems On 9/11?:
13. Could Hani Hanjour Have Flown Flight 77 into the Pentagon?
The inability of al-Qaeda to have carried out the operation can be illustrated in terms of Hani Hanjour, the al-Qaeda operative said to have flown Flight 77 into the Pentagon.
On September 12, before it was stated that Hanjour had been the pilot of American 77, the final minutes of this plane’s trajectory had been described as one requiring great skill. A Washington Post story said:
[J]ust as the plane seemed to be on a suicide mission into the White House, the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver. . . . Aviation sources said the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm.111But Hani Hanjour was not that. Indeed, a CBS story reported, an Arizona flight school said that Hanjour’s “flying skills were so bad . . . they didn’t think he should keep his pilot’s license.” The manager stated: “I couldn’t believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had.”112 A New York Times story, entitled “A Trainee Noted for Incompetence,” quoted one of his instructors as saying that Hanjour “could not fly at all.”113
The 9/11 Commission even admitted that in the summer of 2001, just months before 9/11, a flight instructor in New Jersey, after going up with Hanjour in a small plane, “declined a second request because of what he considered Hanjour’s poor piloting skills.”114 The Commission failed to address the question of how Hanjour, incapable of flying a single-engine plane, could have flown a giant 757 through the trajectory reportedly taken by Flight 77: descending 8,000 feet in three minutes and then coming in at ground level to strike Wedge 1 of the Pentagon between the first and second floors, without even scraping the lawn.
Several pilots have said this would have been impossible. Russ Wittenberg, who flew large commercial airliners for 35 years after serving as a fighter pilot in Vietnam, says it would have been “totally impossible for an amateur who couldn’t even fly a Cessna” to fly that downward spiral and then “crash into the Pentagon’s first floor wall without touching the lawn.”115 Ralph Omholt, a former 757 pilot, has bluntly said: “The idea that an unskilled pilot could have flown this trajectory is simply too ridiculous to consider.”116 Ralph Kolstad, who was a US Navy “top gun” pilot before becoming a commercial airline pilot for 27 years, has said: “I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757′s and 767′s and I could not have flown it the way the flight path was described. . . . Something stinks to high heaven!”117
The authors of the Popular Mechanics book about 9/11 offered to solve this problem. While acknowledging that Hanjour “may not have been highly skilled,” they said that he did not need to be, because all he had to do was, using a GPS unit, put his plane on autopilot.118 “He steered the plane manually for only the final eight minutes of the flight,” they state triumphantly119—ignoring the fact that it was precisely during those minutes that Hanjour had allegedly performed the impossible.
14. Would an al-Qaeda Pilot Have Executed that Maneuver?
A further question is: Even if one of the al-Qaeda operatives on that flight could have executed that maneuver, would he have done so? This question arises out of the fact that the plane could easily have crashed into the roof on the side of the Pentagon that housed Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and all the top brass. The difficult maneuver would have been required only by the decision to strike Wedge 1 on the side.
But this was the worst possible place, given the assumed motives of the al-Qaeda operatives: They would have wanted to kill Rumsfeld and the top brass, but Wedge 1 was as far removed from their offices as possible. They would have wanted to cause as much destruction as possible, but Wedge 1—and only it—had been renovated to make it less vulnerable to attack. Al-Qaeda operatives would have wanted to kill as many Pentagon employees as possible, but because the renovation was not quite complete, Wedge 1 was only sparsely occupied. The attack also occurred on the only part of the Pentagon that would have presented physical obstacles to an attacking airplane. All of these facts were public knowledge. So even if an al-Qaeda pilot had been capable of executing the maneuver to strike the ground floor of Wedge 1, he would not have done so.
_______________
111. Marc Fisher and Don Phillips, “On Flight 77: ‘Our Plane Is Being Hijacked,’” Washington Post, 12 September 2001 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...4365-2001Sep11).
112. “FAA Was Alerted To Sept. 11 Hijacker,” CBS News, 10 May 2002 (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in508656.shtml).
113. Jim Yardley, “A Trainee Noted for Incompetence,” New York Times, 4 May 2002 (http://newsmine.org/content.php?ol=9...competence.txt).
114. 9/11CR 242.
115. Greg Szymanski, “Former Vietnam Combat and Commercial Pilot Firm Believer 9/11 Was Inside Government Job,” Arctic Beacon, 17 July 2005 (http://www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.co...8131/29392.htm).
116. Email from Ralph Omholt, 27 October 2006.
117. Alan Miller, “U.S. Navy ‘Top Gun’ Pilot Questions 911 Pentagon Story,” OpedNews.com, 5 September 2007 (http://www.opednews.com/articles/gen..._top_gun__.htm).
118. Dunbar and Reagan, eds., Debunking 9/11 Myths, 6.
119. Ibid.
What was my "crime" thus far?
I doubted the the magic missile.
I took the exact same position Richard Gage did, yet some want to burn me alive at the stake.
Who is on what side? Good question. I'm beginning to wonder.
Gage concedes his entry into 9/11 Pentagon ‘quagmire’ has been divisiveQuote:
Originally Posted by joboo
While Gage never responded to the letter, he did freely discuss the subject of CIT in our interview. Here’s part of the exchange Gage and I had about the Pentagon:
CM: If you listen to the witnesses, the two things (impact and north of Citgo flight path) are completely incompatible. The witnesses say the plane flew on the north side of the gas station and they say the plane hit the building. Hasn’t that been ruled out?
RG: “I don’t know. Can you explain that to me?”
CM: Because had it been on the north side of the gas station it could not have knocked the light poles over.
RG: “Right. I agree.”
CM: Which means that the light poles had to have been staged. And I believe Pilots for 9/11 Truth has done a study in terms of G forces to indicate that there’s no way the plane could have been on the north side and then banked…
RG: “Well they said they saw it bank, the witnesses.”
CM: Yes, they said they saw it bank to the right. But that doesn’t help the [impact] theory. It doesn’t help it because they’re still missing the light poles (the official story has a straight south of Citgo approach, no banking). So if the plane really hit the building, why would you stage knocked-over light poles? What would be the purpose of that exactly, if you’re planning to fly the plane into the building? That certainly supports the idea of the illusion, doesn’t it?
RG: “Right. Ya. There’s a lot to be resolved there. I actually don’t have an opinion on whether the plane flew over the building or went into it. That’s not part of my statement. But I do believe there was a plane. These witnesses saw a plane, that’s an important distinction and also a disruptive set of elements in the 9/11 Truth movement. Most people in the 9/11 Truth movement think there was a plane.”
CM: Absolutely, including David Ray Griffin.
RG: “Didn’t he at some point support CIT as well?”
CM: As far as I know he still does.
RG: “And he believes there was some kind of plane present.”
CM: He believes there was a plane, he just doesn’t think it hit the building.
Gage admits he broke a promise to CIT’s Craig Ranke when he released his withdrawal of support:
CM: I spoke to Craig Ranke in Toronto in September and he mentioned that you had made a commitment to him that before ever withdrawing your endorsement you would talk to him first.
RG: “That’s probably accurate.”
CM: What was the reason you didn’t?
RG: “I didn’t want to go back and forth and back and forth and back and forth, because both sides of this argument are very convincing and very difficult, and I needed to be done with the issue and get off the fence.
“I’m not interested in pursuing the points any further because I’m already behind in the work that I’m doing and I need to focus on that. But if there’s some kind of information that proves something I might be inclined – probably not, though – if it draws the 9/11 Truth movement together instead of splitting it apart then I’d be … I’m a servant of the 9/11 Truth movement, ultimately.”
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com...been-divisive/
Links? ???Quote:
Originally Posted by Pattern of Projection GirlI already answered it a few times.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatColo
you know, like for example, "#224" ;)
^ while we all eagerly await Pattern of Projection Girl'shttp://gold-silver.us/forum/attachme...1&d=1361024018 links to her past posts indicating her expert researchhttp://gold-silver.us/forum/attachme...1&d=1361024018 based speculation on the "Was America Attacked By Scary Moozlems On 9/11?" question; this old thread she started may give us some preview. It's got 3 replies, 2 of them mine:
Thread: CIA Threatens 9/11 Researchers After Discovery Of Cover Up Details
You still a "9/11: Press For Kosher-Truthhttp://gold-silver.us/forum/attachme...1&d=1361024018" fangirl, joobohttp://gold-silver.us/forum/attachme...1&d=1361024018??
and she also started this thread, promoting fake-truther Susan Lindauerhttp://gold-silver.us/forum/attachme...1&d=1361024018:Quote:
Originally Posted by PatColo
Thread: Susan Lindaur Breaks Her 10-Year Silence about 9/11 & Iraq
whom I debunked here: #4
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatColo
Richard Gage: "I needed to separate myself from nutty conspiracy angles, it was poison pulling me down, pulling my work down, pulling everyone down"
Amen...
LOL @ Pat...no... Pat it wasn't scaary mooozlems.
Now you can go back to looking @ gay pics of dudes on the internet for your next, out of context, character attack, science fair mural post.
Make sure to get something extra racist this time. ;)
Now you're just plain lying.Quote:
Originally Posted by joboo
I just posted what he thinks above, he thought there was room enough for argument, and is leaving it well enough alone.
he also admitted that he handled himself like a complete idiot.
Now you are putting words in his mouth, destroying his credibility, along with truth movement even further.
"The eternally persecuted joobohttp://gold-silver.us/forum/attachme...1&d=1361024018 cries out in pain:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pattern of Projection Girl
... as she strikes us",
are you an adherent of Holocaustianity™ too, joobo? Sort of like how your Boeing-hit-Pentagon cult works?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pattern of Projection Girl
Is the over-hyped "Holocaust" a mere Jewish projection of Zionist-perpetrated crimes against humanity onto their Gentile victims?
given that you now appear to be discreetly tiptoeing away ^ from your prior "I already answered it a few times" claim; I guess it follows that you'd be unable to provide links to GSUS posts which don't exist, eh? Duly noted. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Pattern of Projection Girl
So that leaves us with your new, vague claim above to work with; at odds with your prior postings on 911, though it is.
Must request clarification:
WHAT wasn't scary moozlems?? Pentagon only, or WTC too? and Penn?
WHO does your years of expert sane/logical 911 researchhttp://gold-silver.us/forum/attachme...1&d=1361024018 indicate was most likely piloting that big Boeing airliner which you proselytize so dogmatically really did fly into the Pentagon, if indeed "it wasn't scaary mooozlems" ???
your last dozen/whatever replies banging the 'what Gage thinks of the Pentagon question' drum, and making unlikely sounding characterizations of same, have all been conspicuously lacking any source links.Quote:
Originally Posted by joboo
So given that you posted the above alleged, unlikely sounding Gage "quote" in double quotation marks, I goog'd it:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22I+...e+down%22+gage
and that ^ returns exactly one result: your post above:D.....
Sorry Charlene>:(, but we need source links a bit more uuuum, credible than "Pattern of Projection Girl http://gold-silver.us/forum/attachme...1&d=1361024018 says so"....
please advise, \uu\
The bitch slapping continues! ! halo desperately seeking to divert- delay -deny - the inevitable..the worn dog eared adl playbook at his side ...worn from trying to find an antidote for TRUTH....sarcasm isnt working! denial isnt working ! mis direction inst working either! what to do???
This is worth a bump.Quote:
WHO does your years of expert sane/logical research indicate was most likely piloting that big Boeing airliner which you proselytize so dogmatically really did fly into the Pentagon, if indeed "it wasn't scaary mooozlems"
This too.Quote:
I just posted what he(Richard Gage) thinks above, he thought there was room enough for argument,
Is this not some form of slanderous injunction?Quote:
Originally Posted by PatColo
I like to post at the forum, but not with criminals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by joboo
So Im an owl now.........what a hoot
What is "po" in tagalog?
Best Answer - Chosen by Voters
The word 'po' does not really have a definitive meaning in the Tagalog Language, but its nearest equivalent in English is 'sir' or 'ma'am'.
It is basically a word of respect, which you attach to your sentence when speaking to an older person, someone in authority over you, or even your clients.
Keep on the with the magic missile theory. The amount of invisible acrobatics required to fake it all is ludicrous.
The rest of the truth movement looking to make real progress will stay far away from that BS.
David Icke Lizard territory.
Gage made some comments to soothe the nerves of some of the missile radicals.
At the end of the day you still can't get around the fact that they could have easily just used the damn airplane instead of some ridiculous ultra undercover elaborately complicated getup.
Gage's actions speak a lot louder than his words. He wants nothing to do with it anymore, and I can see why.
Quote:
Originally Posted by joboo
http://www.thelibertypapers.org/wp-c...9/04/fatho.jpg