Russia crashes: Traces of explosives found

fyrestarter, you're falling down here. The phony left vs. right political house of cards thatched together with b.s. has collapsed under the weight of scrutiny. Which am I, a chauvinistic pig or a politically correct numbskull?

I guess that's just the lengths a government must take to convince the PC brain-dead that there are actually enormous pockets of the world worthy of our attention and MX missles.....
Click to expand...

At least you're admitting to yourself what's really going on.

These "pockets" are almost always financed and controlled by our governments, in their attempts to control the third world. And eventually it always blows up in their faces. So you have to ask yourself, do you think that governments are stupid enough to keep making the same mistake over and over? Or is there something else at work behind the scenes. There is so much evidence to suggest that there is. Whether you're French or Canadian or American or Russian or German. Don't forget who armed our enemies. Don't forget that the government benefits in the aftermath of "terrorist attacks". In all seriousness, what incentive do they have to stop them???

They only get more power and more control. And as soon as they engineer another major terrorist attack (which will probably have to be a nuked city at this point) they'll pass Patriot Act 2.

Then the U.N. will be able to enslave us (as the globalists strip our rights away) to fight all of their wars for them profiting enormously behind the scenes while decrying us as evil right wing Americans in the mainstream. One giant slavery system.
 
Hmmmm... I have an odd idea.... Mebbe worth considering....



Maybe there really ARE terrorists who blow things up, and MAYBE some governments aren't above using that fact as a cloak for other activities!









Nah. Couldn't be that. It's got to be all of one or all of the other.

Forget I mentioned it.
 
PsychoSword,

I don't see anyone here screaming "death to ZOG."
Click to expand...

I would humbly suggest that you check on what the Priory of Zion (aka Priory of Sion, aka Prieure de Sion) is. (Or, more accurately, was.) Hint: It has nothing to do with "ZOG", being neither Jewish, nor American.

Spend a couple minutes Googling. (Conspiracy theories are something of a hobby of mine... :) )
 
Apparently one person's debunked conspiracy is another's fact.

Your pardon for disengaging from what seems a pointless discussion... :o
 
Tamara
A media announcer stating that someone "might" have been on the planes is not an attempt to suggest that they weren't. It's journalism 101: might, alleged, presumed; in the absence of rock-solid proof, these are the words one uses
Click to expand...

Um, no. That is not the word commonly used in such stories. Read back over the stories issued within days of 9/11 for just one major example. But it has been consistantly used in several news stories about this one from different sources.
 
Um, no. That is not the word commonly used in such stories. Read back over the stories issued within days of 9/11 for just one major example. But it has been consistantly used in several news stories about this one from different sources.
Click to expand...
It's SOP journalistic jargon. They can't be sued for libel when they use those terms.
 
i found out about the planes on the morning i was flying to russia, via that russian airport. worried in case they increased security, other wise customs would have been a real bugger on way home...but wasn't too bad.
 
Destructo6,

Libel? Who is going to sue? They didn't name anyone. And I repeat - look over the first reports after 9/11 and a pile of other crashes where foul play was suspected outright. See how "shy" our media was about identifying those on the manifests, and count the number of articles that used this "jargon" of yours. "Believed", "allegedly" etc are some of the usual cautionary terms. Journalism isn't the only profession where such language is used for, I have used them in reports myself many times. But "might"? Well Mickey Rooney "might" have been on the plane as well.

Hani I-can't-fly-or-navigate Hanjour was not on the passenger manifest for Flight 77. In fact IIRC he didn't even have a ticket, and the numbers released from AA were not consistant. But our media didn't shy from saying he was on the aircraft very early on.

Either these two were on the planes, or not. But I suspect, as I have already stated, that they do not have bodies - or at least enough of them to make a visual ID. So without a positive visual ID by someone, DNA basis (unlikely), or a traceable history via other avenues, they have no way of verifying their actual identity.

But even if they have two names on the manifests which may be false, they can still say "there were ladies on the planes". There is evidence that they ... [etc].

Notice the media has gone quiet on this one now. Wonder why.
 
Libel and retractions. Sorry, I thought you didn't need everything spelled out for you.
Hani I-can't-fly-or-navigate Hanjour was not on the passenger manifest for Flight 77. In fact IIRC he didn't even have a ticket, and the numbers released from AA were not consistant. But our media didn't shy from saying he was on the aircraft very early on.
Click to expand...
And one printed "Dewey beats Truman" for a headline, too. It seems you want a paper's certainty to be proof of sinister plots and also their uncertainty to be equal proof.
Notice the media has gone quiet on this one now. Wonder why.
Click to expand...
Take your pick:
  • 1) 2, possibly 3 hurricanes battering Florida
    2) Chechen terrorist attack at a park
    3) Chechen terrorist stage 3-day school barricade and kill hundreds
    4) US Presidential race.
I'm sure there are more.
 
Destructo6,

For the government spokesmen and media to keep using a term like "might have been" under the circumstances is very unusual, anyway you cut it.
 
I disagree.

Using words like, "alleged", "presumed", etc gives newspapers/governments/whatever wiggle room so that they never have to admit an assertion was wrong.

IIRC, Terry Nichols was referred to as, "alleged co-conspirator", then "convicted co-conspirator" without the media ever stating that he was, indeed, a co-conspirator.
 
I wonder why my question is being ignored:

The FSB arrested people who claimed the government blew up those buildings in 1999 for disclosure of classified information in 'FSB Blows UP Russia" and confiscate copies of the book. Why did they do that?
 
The FSB arrested people who claimed the government blew up those buildings in 1999 for disclosure of classified information in 'FSB Blows UP Russia" and confiscate copies of the book. Why did they do that?
Click to expand...
I don't know. What were the charges?
 
I wonder why my question is being ignored
Click to expand...

Ignored?

Boris, I gave you my opinion way back on page one. Perhaps my reference to a Slavic game of "He said; she said" was too idiomatic. :confused:

"I'm a whistleblower being persecuted for releasing damaging information!"
"You're a scoundrel trying to keep out of jail by playing the martyr card!"

He said...
She said...

Accusations are not evidence.
 
MicroBalrog
The FSB arrested people who claimed the government blew up those buildings in 1999 for disclosure of classified information in 'FSB Blows UP Russia" and confiscate copies of the book. Why did they do that?
Click to expand...

Well, it sounds like "for disclosure of classified information".

?
 
No, it sounds like a conspiracy, by the publishers. See, there is no book and the two people allegedly arrested don't even exist! The publisher gets free press so they can hawk their other wares, while the FSB can do nothing but plead ignorance about these non-existant arrests: a sure sign of dirty tricks for the conspiracists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top