Confessions of khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Oklahoma City, PanAm 800 and American 587

[MarkE]

OK, you mentioned downed light poles...why would a missile hit the light poles in the first place?  If someone launched a missile, there would be no need for such a low level flat trajectory right?  If one were to argue that they wanted it to look like an aircraft, then why use such a flat flight path which would look suspicious to folks like yourself?

Bill

Maybe they weren't light poles.  Maybe they were special drones painted to look like light poles.

[Red_Sunset]

You all can argue this case indefinitely,  but one thing should be clear (as in OU), it never is what you think it is

Neither does the one who claims overunity for months or years, has mastered overunity (a good current example is EMjunkie)
But that doesn't mean there isn't a smoking gun.

We might not know the in's or out's of what or how, but that doesn't pre-empt a claim
What we can say with confidence,
1.. The pentagon evidence does not match the story given (damage to the building & aircraft debris shown)
2.. The collapse of the WTC did not match the pancaking theory.  (the no resistance free fall collapse & the lack of a partial but substantial remaining center core standing)
3.. The custom implosion of building 7, ( a building on fire, a decision was made to pull the building down, time required to rig for implosion...just impossibe without pre-meditated pre-work done to execute this action)
4.. Pictures of the debris field of the crashed plane in PA did not come to a near match of any previous known crashes fields

"What and how" is under discussion here and might never get an answer,  although to get closer to the truth we can add "the motive",  this doesn't need much discussion,  it became very clear soon after the event.   A counter action to defuse an enemy party that does you harm is understandable, but that is not exactly what happened.

Lest assume that the events were exactly as claimed, was the extend of the reaction warranted or was the reaction driven by other motives?   If you say the latter, that would definitely put the initial assumption into doubt

Just to get some perspective on this event, switch yourself into the shoes of the other party.
Lets take a current event, like a US drone strike in some other country like Pakistan or Yemen.   Should they come and invade the US because of that event and include Canada because they were in the neighborhood and they didn't like the their Prime Minister ?

See the bigger picture.  The US does what it does became it can!, because it has the superior technology, not because it is morally right or otherwise.   Lets call a spade a spade!.

Red_Sunset

[MarkE]

You all can argue this case indefinitely,  but one thing should be clear (as in OU), it never is what you think it is

Neither does the one who claims overunity for months or years, has mastered overunity (a good current example is EMjunkie)
But that doesn't mean there isn't a smoking gun.

We might not know the in's or out's of what or how, but that doesn't pre-empt a claim
What we can say with confidence,
1.. The pentagon evidence does not match the story given (damage to the building & aircraft debris shown)
2.. The collapse of the WTC did not match the pancaking theory.  (the no resistance free fall collapse & the lack of a partial but substantial remaining center core standing)
3.. The custom implosion of building 7, ( a building on fire, a decision was made to pull the building down, time required to rig for implosion...just impossibe without pre-meditated pre-work done to execute this action)
4.. Pictures of the debris field of the crashed plane in PA did not come to a near match of any previous known crashes fields

"What and how" is under discussion here and might never get an answer,  although to get closer to the truth we can add "the motive",  this doesn't need much discussion,  it became very clear soon after the event.   A counter action to defuse an enemy party that does you harm is understandable, but that is not exactly what happened.

Lest assume that the events were exactly as claimed, was the extend of the reaction warranted or was the reaction driven by other motives?   If you say the latter, that would definitely put the initial assumption into doubt

Just to get some perspective on this event, switch yourself into the shoes of the other party.
Lets take a current event, like a US drone strike in some other country like Pakistan or Yemen.   Should they come and invade the US because of that event and include Canada because they were in the neighborhood and they didn't like the their Prime Minister ?

See the bigger picture.  The US does what it does became it can!, because it has the superior technology, not because it is morally right or otherwise.   Lets call a spade a spade!.

Red_Sunset

Declaring conclusions does not make them right.  What is remarkable to me is that people wander off on speculations where they easily discredit themselves by jumping to conclusions, while ignoring what is indisputable, wrong, and in need of public action.  The physical mechanics of 9/11 are a flea speck compared to the evil that has been done in the name of avenging 9/11 and preventing further terrorism.

[Red_Sunset]

Declaring conclusions does not make them right.  What is remarkable to me is that people wander off on speculations where they easily discredit themselves by jumping to conclusions, while ignoring what is indisputable, wrong, and in need of public action.

The physical mechanics of 9/11 are a flea speck compared to the evil that has been done in the name of avenging 9/11 and preventing further terrorism.

I couldn't agree more !

[synchro1]

Synchro,
It is purely a matter how you see the world around you.
A presidential candidate who would NOT have a willingness to go along with future deceptions, would never get elected. He most probably will be discredited in the early stages of the process.
You might not hold the same viewpoint, but from my angle, the running of a country is no one man show. It is directed by board committee type process, there is a public committee (representatives & senators), but there is a also a background (shadow) committee.   The one is an public elected committee, the other one is just 'power' & 'money'.   
There is a saying, "birds of a feather flock together",  if you then consider anybody who has a "fair chunk of lot of money" would be of similar position and circle in life, usually would associate together due to similar interest, in addition to other interests they would  conspire where is the best money to be made and together will do similar investments to increase their earnings.  It is a natural and inevitable merge of common interests and I would guess this happens on different levels in a similar way.

On the next level, big companies, big banks & big money are no different, although in additional they can wield big power and control on a regional or national level to expand their fortunes. 
When this "big" reaches a certain threshold, there is not much to stop it.  Today in this process of growth has gone to a international level as was seen in colonial times.  The commercial interest would expand into the world under crown protection (mutual interest).  Although we have now come to a point where commercial power has overtaken the crown in wealth and power.  The power has shifted.
In the world economy, big money interests have overtaken regional or national interests and provide the opportunity to make more money quicker.  This went hand in hand with a side effect, the power to control on who will be rich or poor.
USA is a good example of being stripped to the bone, only a magical transformation will save this country(a possibility).  That power & control is not with the people nor their president but with the big industrial & financial complex.  The president is only a front man for the 2 committees that are lopsided towards big money, this limits the freedom of the whole structure .
In a democracy of today, if we take into account the lobbying influence, I would guess that the public at best exercise only 1/4 of the governing control and the president is no different.

PS:   How quick and by which method was the 2007 financial crisis loan to the banks approved ?  It was so quick that  nobody had time to read the document.  What is power?, what is BIG power?  What can it really do?  something to think about.

Deceptions are there to execute shadow agendas,  I would guess the president should be seen more as a coordinator to the interests at hand, he needs to be compliant to a certain level otherwise I would doubt if he would have gotten that position to start of with. Sure he has controlling power for house keeping and daily run of the country.
If at any time using, aiding or aligning with an Islamic fundamentalist group to achieve a desired objective at hand, a moral or national or patriotic objection would not stop this drive. The long term power & control objectives are what matters (that is how I think business is done here). 
Real life "Democracy" doesn't necessary mean exactly what is written in the dictionary or constitution.
An understanding we will need to come to terms with in this century. A new world has arrived (sometime I wonder if are destined by the outline of certain predictions)

PS:  What is REAL power? .  BTW who owns your house that is under mortgage loan?  The bank ?
                                                  BTW, who owns all those trillions of government debt of the US ?  So who own the US gov?
                                                 BTW, it is no different for many other countries with IMF or World Bank loans.
                                                 BTW,  Who controls Greece now? Not the people, not their elected Gov.
It is not a question that he country doesn't have wealth or money, the problem that most of the money is the hands of a limited number of people who exercise the power & control this money give them to achieve their set objectives.  These objectives do not necessary meet the national democratic expectations of the citizen.

***   a little paragraph pulled from wikipedia (JP Morgan), this happened already 100yrs ago, what happens today ?

//   In 1895, at the depths of the Panic of 1893, the Federal Treasury was nearly out of gold. President Grover Cleveland accepted Morgan's offer to join with the Rothschilds and supply the U.S. Treasury with 3.5 million ounces of gold[6] to restore the treasury surplus in exchange for a 30-year bond issue. The episode saved the Treasury but hurt Cleveland's standing with the agrarian wing of the Democratic Party, and became an issue in the election of 1896, when banks came under a withering attack from William Jennings Bryan. Morgan and Wall Street bankers donated heavily to Republican William McKinley, who was elected in 1896 and re-elected in 1900.[7]  //

//    The Panic of 1907 was a financial crisis that almost crippled the American economy. Major New York banks were on the verge of bankruptcy and there was no mechanism to rescue them, until Morgan stepped in to help resolve the crisis.[11][12] Treasury Secretary George B. Cortelyou earmarked $35 million of federal money to quell the storm but had no easy way to use it. Morgan now took personal charge. Meeting with the nation's leading financiers in his New York mansion, he forced them to devise a plan to meet the crisis. James Stillman, president of the National City Bank, also played a central role. Morgan organized a team of bank and trust executives which redirected money between banks, secured further international lines of credit, and bought up the plummeting stocks of healthy corporations.[11]  //


Red_Sunset

@Red__Sunset,

The government relied on private bankers to cope with insolvency in the past. When the fiat "Green Back" expires from War squandering the Banks will help evolve the Cashless economy. This involves digital "World Money", and loss of privacy.