Report cites warnings before September 11, 2001...

  • Thread starter Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer
  • Start date
Vandar wrote:
> seon ferguson wrote:
> > <bushlyed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1183711908.550353.53070@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >>On Jun 30, 11:23 pm, "John P."
> >><JohnP_Da_Evil_...@WhyAreMoronsAttractedToMe.com> wrote:
[...]
> > And let the pilots carry freaking guns.
> You want this guy carrying a gun on an airplane?
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/10/national/main1786964.shtml

Why get finnicky about a drunk pilot with a gun, when the bigger
threat in the same set of circumstances is a drunk pilot at the controls
of a quarter-megaton missile?

[Note to self: don't play with the minds of sweet children, Zook, it
ain't symmetrical and it ain't couth]

-zookumar-
 
"John P." <JohnP_Da_Evil_Joo@WhyAreMoronsAttractedToMe.com> wrote in message
news:cbmdnfhORIn2CBHbnZ2dnUVZ_vOlnZ2d@comcast.com...
> "seon ferguson" <seon@iinet.net.au> wrote in a message
>
>>> The PNAC did not say they wanted a terrorist attack (or, more
>>> accurately, another Pearl Harbor). They were saying that's what it would
>>> take to gain the support of the American people. There's a big
>>> difference there.
>
>> True no one actually said they wanted a new Pearl harbor but i wonder how
>> many of these "Patriots" would be willing to let 911 happen so they can
>> have an excuse to invade other countries.
>
> Just so you understand, the PNAC did make mention of a "new Pearl
> Harbor".

Chapter 5, moron.


>
> This is the line conspiracy kooks focus on, while ignoring the context of
> the comments;
> "Further, the process of transformation even if it brings revolutionary
> change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and
> catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."

So they did make mention of a "new Pearl Harbor" and it isn't taken out of
context, moron. Without a catalyzing event like a "new Pearl Harbor" none of
their vision would have been moving forward at such rates.


>
> Here's a copy of the entire document;
> http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
>
 
"seon ferguson" <seon@iinet.net.au> wrote in message news:468c9968$0$12852


>> Here's a copy of the entire document;
>> http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
>>
> Thats the one I read. You have a point they didnt say we must have a new
> pearl harbour to pursure our agenda.

Yea, they stated that minus a new pearl harbor it be a very long road at
obtaining their goals and these nut jobs with their retarded foreign policy
wouldn't care about civilian or troop deaths to obtain these neo-Rome goals.
Bush did get the 3.8% military budget increase that the PNAC called for in
their vision.




> I still find all the warnings, breifings and things like w199-eye, Able
> Danger and other smoking guns unusual.
>
 
"seon ferguson" <seon@iinet.net.au> wrote in message news:468c9968$0$12852>
..
> I still find all the warnings, breifings and things like w199-eye, Able
> Danger and other smoking guns unusual.

And imagine what we don't really know about Able-Danger.


>
>
 
In article <468dccb1$0$12804$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
01.iinet.net.au>, seon@iinet.net.au says...
>
> "BDK" <BDK@shillsrus.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.20f6feea7bbba70798b323@news.buckeye-express.com...
> > In article <flnp839v00782bo1mgb4htqguhks740gm3@4ax.com>, US says...
> >> On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 21:19:11 -0400, Bushkultie Deranged Kook BDK
> >> <BDK@shillsrus.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >... try to follow ...
> >>
> >> It was about profiteering.
> >
> > Probably.
> >
> >>
> >> Do you even know what the word means?
> >
> > Yes I know exactly what it means..
> >
> >>
> >> >... insanity,
> >
> > I know what that word means too.
> >
> > I bet you do too! You've undoubtedly been hearing it all the time during
> > your "life". .
> >
> >> >BDK
> >>
> >> It's your best excuse for your support of the
> >> "Heir to the Holocaust".
> >
> >
> > Oh goody, a new kook "Phrase". Please, tell me and my shills all about
> > it! I bet it's a good one.
> >
> I'm guessing it has something to do with holocaust denial. Something to
> kooky even for me.
>
>
>

I already figured that out Seon, I was trying to get him to go off on a
rant...

BDK
 
In article <1183714630.830399.245750@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Gov.Shill@gmail.com says...
> On Jul 6, 6:47 pm, Loogie <boogieloo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > GovShill wrote:
> > > Hey! Seon is an immigrant. A citizen (he says), but still an
> > > immigrant.
> >
> > > Shill #312
> >
> > where is your green card dollo?
>
> Green card? You think I'm in those United States?
>
> Shill #312
>
>

Loogie. Another tower of intellect.

Makes me ashamed to be living in the same world with him.

Let alone (Probably) the same country.

BDK
 
In article <ucuji.11643$B25.4222@news01.roc.ny>, vandar69@yahoo.com
says...
> MoronLocator wrote:
>
> > "John P." <JohnP_Da_Evil_Joo@WhyAreMoronsAttractedToMe.com> wrote in message
> > news:t6qdnfPWGIxqCxHbnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >
> >>"seon ferguson" <seon@iinet.net.au> wrote in a message
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>Anything would have been better then just sitting there when his fellow
> >>>>>Americans were being burnt alive. I mean even if he didnt do anything I
> >>>>>wouldnt mind so much its the joking he did with the kids that gets to
> >>>>>me. How would you like it if you had a wife who was burnt alive in the
> >>>>>twin towers or who had no choice to jumo to her death and you saw the
> >>>>>man who was suposed to be commander and chief just sitting there joking
> >>>>>and laughing?
> >>
> >>>>Well Seon, I have no expectation that the President of the US is in a
> >>>>position to do anything to rescue my wife from a burning building. I
> >>>>would very much want the fire department to be there, as well as EMT's
> >>>>and other emergency crews, but, I really wouldn't care what the
> >>>>president was doing. He is the Commander in Chief of the US military,
> >>>>which really wouldn't play a role in a building fire, or even a
> >>>>terrorist attack. The military isn't really set up for an immediate
> >>>>response to that type of incident.
> >>>>
> >>>>The question should really be, how would I want GW to act if that were
> >>>>one of my kids in that classroom with him?
> >>>>
> >>>>The answer is, I'd prefer he not do anything to alarm or panic those
> >>>>kids.
> >>
> >>>Yeah he can do that later with the whole "war on terror" fraud and the
> >>>members of his administration can help scare the American people with
> >>>there fear mongering.
> >>
> >>Pffft.
> >
> >
> > That would be the sound of the OBL wanted dead or alive slogan disappearing.
> >
> >
> >
> >>>Or maybe Bush didn't know what was going on and maybe the whole "mr
> >>>president were under attack" business was just a lie to make him appear
> >>>more commander in chiefly later on.
> >>
> >>It's pretty clear Bush didn't know what was going on.
> >
> >
> > BS. He was told America was under attack.
> >
> >
> >
> > He'd have little
> >
> >>choice as to what he might do once he learned of the attack.
> >
> >
> >
> > He was told America was under attack and sat there for another (minimum) 7
> > minutes before doing his next move, nothing.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > At that point,
> >
> >>the Secret Service is running through a whole list of options. They're
> >>checking the surrounding area (maybe part of the attack plan assumed the
> >>president would leave the school immediately, where he'd then be hit by a
> >>suicide bomber, a shoulder launched missile at his limo, etc.).
> >
> >
> > Yep, stay at the place he's known to be... because the terrorists might hit
> > him... at some undisclosed escape route... during an undisclosed escape
> > plan.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>Since the school and surrounding area would have been checked prior to his
> >>arrival at the school, for the immediate time, he was in a 'known safe"
> >>area. ... or, at least more known safe than anywhere outside the school.
> >
> >
> > How did anyone "know" he was safe in the highly publicized photo op
> > location?
>
> How did anyone "know" if he was unsafe? The secret service isn't
> supposed to act based on whether they think the President is safe, they
> are supposed to act when they know he is not.
> Right at this very second, a person intent on causing the President harm
> could be headed to his location. Should his security detail whisk him to
> a "secure" location based on no known threat?
>
>

I'm glad MoronLocated isn't in charge of security, there would be dead
Presidents so often nobody would want, or even take the job.

BDK
 
"John P." <JohnP_Da_Evil_Joo@WhyAreMoronsAttractedToMe.com> wrote in message
news:_rCdnVWwqrG94xHbnZ2dnUVZ_rWnnZ2d@comcast.com...
> "seon ferguson" <seon@iinet.net.au> wrote in a message
>
>> Its not that big but I admit it is better then before. It was the Scooter
>> Libby pardoning that woke me up to the corruption and the crinimal nature
>> of these people. Hopefully a lot of other people will be woken up to.
>
> If you think that is something new and exciting from the current
> administration, you might want to do some digging into past presidential
> pardons.

Please refresh Usenet about another President who commuted or padoned a
member of his staff whom was found quilty of perjury and obstruction for
their grand jury testimony on a National Security issue like outing covert
agents working in the area of WMD. Please!

Please please please!

>
> Some of the biggies you might find interesting are Gerald Ford's pardon of
> Richard Nixon,

Covering up a B and E on the other party.. certainly no where near the same
as Bushstir latest.




Bill Clinton pardoning 16 members of FALN, and, on his last
> day in office, signing 140 pardons for various criminals.


None of the 16 were convicted of bombings or any crime which injured another
person, though they were sentenced with terms ranging from 35 to 105 years
in prison for the conviction of conspiracy and sedition. All of the 16 had
served 19 years or longer in prison, which was a longer sentence than such
crimes typically received. They all needed to renounce violence also.


....certainly no where near the same as Bushstir latest. That little *****
called scooter, was covering for someone else...one can make a very educated
guess, no?
 
In article <79uji.17$Vb6.7@newsfe12.lga>, yeah@right.net says...
>
> "BDK" <BDK@shillsrus.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.20f6117ce20c6eff98b300@news.buckeye-express.com...
> > In article <468c3d8e$0$12837$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
> > 01.iinet.net.au>, seon@iinet.net.au says...
> >>
> >> "BDK" <BDK@shillsrus.com> wrote in message
> >> news:MPG.20f5a10cfd765cbb98b2f1@news.buckeye-express.com...
> >> > In article <4g6n83pq16vlb9ddrhgtfe9vpbuhs5t19a@4ax.com>, US says...
> >> >> On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 21:06:10 +1000, "seon ferguson" <seon@iinet.net.au>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >< US > wrote in message
> >> >> >news:titm835bbv3nucqkqu8obiare9rko119j1@4ax.com...
> >> >> >> On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 00:03:49 -0700, sj <sj@essjay.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>>... are you quite sure that the "Popular
> >> >> >>>Mechanics" folks didn't do a pretty good job of explaining it all
> >> >> >>>with
> >> >> >>>some real science and logic?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Yes. Can you learn how to use a search engine
> >> >> >> and find out how it's been debunked?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Hint: Chertoff's cousin wrote it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >And the 911 comission was a sham, those views we can both agree on.
> >> >> >Was
> >> >> >911
> >> >> >a false flag attack? well for me the jury is still out.
> >> >>
> >> >> Consider means, motive, and opportunity.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Consider evidence too, and there isn't any.
> >> >
> >> There's certainly evidence that something went on before 911 to let it
> >> happen. How much did the government know? Well I'm still trying to figure
> >> it
> >> out but I wouldn't be at all surprised if 50 years from now it came out
> >> that
> >> the CIA had agents in the terrorist cells who carried out 911 like with
> >> the
> >> 7/7 London bombings with MI5 but allowed it to happen.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Much more likely it comes down in inter-agency rivalry, or just an
> > incompetent middle manager who didn't think a tip was "legit", or a
> > combination of both.
> >
> > BDK
>
> Yes because its easy to claim such things. In fact, it puts the retarded
> foreign policy wheels well in motion, backed by the citizenry that would
> have never supported such actions. The record stands that there was
> obstruction to thwart capture and prosecution of the alleged men.
> http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_2469.shtml
>
> He's not alone with such claims either.
>
>
>

LOL, you really need to get away for the kookpages, when you make claims
that have no basis in reality, it makes you look CARAZY!!

Why do you think we call them kookpages?

Because they are dripping with sweet sweet kookery..

BDK
 
zookumar yelubandi wrote:

> Vandar wrote:
>
>>zookumar yelubandi wrote:
>>
>>>John P. wrote:
>>>
>>>>"seon ferguson" <seon@iinet.net.au> wrote in a message
>>>>
>>>>>>The PNAC did not say they wanted a terrorist attack (or, more
>>>>>>accurately, another Pearl Harbor). They were saying that's what it would
>>>>>>take to gain the support of the American people. There's a big difference
>>>>>>there.
>>>>>
>>>>>True no one actually said they wanted a new Pearl harbor but i wonder how
>>>>>many of these "Patriots" would be willing to let 911 happen so they can
>>>>>have an excuse to invade other countries.
>>>>
>>>>Just so you understand, the PNAC did make mention of a "new Pearl Harbor".
>>>
>>> Yes, to prepare the American people for what they, a
>>>Machiavellian band of highway robbers slash tinpot emperors dressed in
>>>business suits and exuding the foul stench of conflict of interest (with
>>>their oil, drug, and defense industry ties) ... had long planned ... a
>>>New Pearl Harbour to initiate the imperialist reign of Novus Ordo Mundi.
>>>Absent this trigger, the planned globalist order would've had to be
>>>delayed indefinitely because the American people - individualist by
>>>nature and representing the only serious obstacle to the collectivist
>>>global order - did not or ever did have an appetite for global hegemony,
>>>unlike, of course, the corporate elites. Corporations tend towards
>>>monopoly: state borders yield to the national border yield to the
>>>international order of things (if there existed a viable second planet
>>>in the solar system, be assured the corporate mindset would seek
>>>expansion into an interplanetary order). Corporations are amoral
>>>entities; the people in charge of them are largely immoral people.
>>> Suffice to say, indefinite delay was not an option as the
>>>American economy, burdened with an out-of-control national debt that was
>>>arrived by decades of financial mismanagement and outright pilfering by
>>>the managing classes of the global elitist order, was quickly
>>>approaching critical pressure.
>>> How does this relate to the statement about a New Pearl Harbour
>>>in PNAC? Well, if you understand the context in gestalt, you'll
>>>quickly realize that the comment is gratuitous. It has no real bearing
>>>on the timescale for transforming the American military.
>>> I mean, ask yourself this simple question: has 9/11 changed much
>>>wrt the transformation of the American military? No? All right then,
>>>what exactly has it managed to do? Well, all it has really managed to
>>>do to this point is channel vast quantities of taxpayers' money into the
>>>pockets of the globalist management classes, kill about a million
>>>innocent people, expose major weaknesses in the American military, and
>>>it has made America's overall standing in the rest of the world less
>>>than it was prior to the New Pearl Harbour. If anything, the American
>>>economy is on the verge of collapse, with the Euro now pegged to be the
>>>currency of choice. More the further, the American people are less safe
>>>now than prior to the NPH, and the American government is more reviled
>>>than at any point in its history. In short, this most recent imperialist
>>>misadventure has more in common with the Vietnam misadventure than with
>>>any grandiose century envisioned by its authors.
>>> But if the NPH reference in PNAC was gratuitous, then why
>>>mention it at all? Simple ... to unify the masses by evoking the
>>>memory of the original Pearl Harbour attack. Okay. But why the need
>>>to unify the masses? Simple ... the Inside Jobbers were deep into
>>>their plans for attacking the American people, the American state, and
>>>the American Constitution in September of 2000, a year before they
>>>implemented it on 9/11/2001.
>>> To wit, the inclusion of NPH in PNAC was designed to prepare the
>>>American people, nothing more, and certainly nothing less. But you,
>>>sweet child, would have us believe in something less. Again, what is
>>>your stake in all this?
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>>Here's a copy of the entire document;
>>>>http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
>>>
>>> Yes, I encourage people to read the entire document to get an
>>>understanding of the gestalt.
>>
>>Ok. So we now know that you have no clue what the PNAC document was
>>about or what it says, no clue about the state of economy in 2001, and
>>no clue about what happened on 9/11.
>>Anything else you'd like to you reveal yourself as clueless about?
>
>
> Yes, yours is an excellent rebuttal, I'm sure.

Rebuttal?

> But the cloaking
> device you've adorned it with is not allowing me a glimpse, sweet child.
> If it's not too much trouble to ask you to remove it so I can see your
> excellent arguments, that would be of great assistance. Perhaps we can
> solve this thing if we work together, sweet child.

Are you a pedophile or a just a juvenile fool?
 
zookumar yelubandi wrote:

> Vandar wrote:
>
>>seon ferguson wrote:
>>
>>><bushlyed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1183711908.550353.53070@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>>On Jun 30, 11:23 pm, "John P."
>>>><JohnP_Da_Evil_...@WhyAreMoronsAttractedToMe.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>And let the pilots carry freaking guns.
>>
>>You want this guy carrying a gun on an airplane?
>>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/10/national/main1786964.shtml
>
>
> Why get finnicky about a drunk pilot with a gun, when the bigger
> threat in the same set of circumstances is a drunk pilot at the controls
> of a quarter-megaton missile?

Congratulations, kid, you have no clue about missiles either.
A missile with a pilot. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
 
Vandar wrote:
> zookumar yelubandi wrote:
> > Vandar wrote:
> >>zookumar yelubandi wrote:

[deletia: my generalized explanation of the ruse behind the "New Pearl
Harbour" PNAC inclusion narrative]

> >>> To wit, the inclusion of NPH in PNAC was designed to prepare the
> >>>American people, nothing more, and certainly nothing less. But you,
> >>>sweet child, would have us believe in something less. Again, what is
> >>>your stake in all this?
> >>>[...]
> >>>>Here's a copy of the entire document;
> >>>>http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
> >>> Yes, I encourage people to read the entire document to get an
> >>>understanding of the gestalt.
> >>Ok. So we now know that you have no clue what the PNAC document was
> >>about or what it says, no clue about the state of economy in 2001, and
> >>no clue about what happened on 9/11.
> >>Anything else you'd like to you reveal yourself as clueless about?
> > Yes, yours is an excellent rebuttal, I'm sure.
> Rebuttal?

You didn't catch the satire, then?

> > But the cloaking
> > device you've adorned it with is not allowing me a glimpse, sweet child.
> > If it's not too much trouble to ask you to remove it so I can see your
> > excellent arguments, that would be of great assistance. Perhaps we can
> > solve this thing if we work together, sweet child.
> Are you a pedophile or a just a juvenile fool?

Nope, I'm a full-blooded gynophile, and happy about it.

It's interesting that you introduce the term "pedophile" here to
pervert the context of my "sweet child" addressal of you (which
clearly is intended to relate to your infantile mental state here in
these sundry 9/11 threads) ... to your own narrative of choice.

Since you're the one who wants to change the narrative to one
with a "pedophile" slant, the question should be asked: is pedophilia an
interest of yours ? In any event, I've no interest in your orientation
or pursuits, so to avoid further misunderstanding, I will now refer to
you and your sibling clowns as Satan's children.

So, once again, Satan's child, why do you lie when the truth is
an irresistible force, and you, a movable object?

-zookumar-
 
zookumar yelubandi wrote:

> Vandar wrote:
>
>>zookumar yelubandi wrote:
>>
>>>Vandar wrote:
>>>
>>>>zookumar yelubandi wrote:
>
>
> [deletia: my generalized explanation of the ruse behind the "New Pearl
> Harbour" PNAC inclusion narrative]
>
>
>>>>> To wit, the inclusion of NPH in PNAC was designed to prepare the
>>>>>American people, nothing more, and certainly nothing less. But you,
>>>>>sweet child, would have us believe in something less. Again, what is
>>>>>your stake in all this?
>>>>>[...]
>>>>>
>>>>>>Here's a copy of the entire document;
>>>>>>http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I encourage people to read the entire document to get an
>>>>>understanding of the gestalt.
>>>>
>>>>Ok. So we now know that you have no clue what the PNAC document was
>>>>about or what it says, no clue about the state of economy in 2001, and
>>>>no clue about what happened on 9/11.
>>>>Anything else you'd like to you reveal yourself as clueless about?
>>>
>>> Yes, yours is an excellent rebuttal, I'm sure.
>>
>>Rebuttal?
>
>
> You didn't catch the satire, then?
>
>
>>>But the cloaking
>>>device you've adorned it with is not allowing me a glimpse, sweet child.
>>>If it's not too much trouble to ask you to remove it so I can see your
>>>excellent arguments, that would be of great assistance. Perhaps we can
>>>solve this thing if we work together, sweet child.
>>
>>Are you a pedophile or a just a juvenile fool?
>
>
> Nope, I'm a full-blooded gynophile, and happy about it.

Gynophile? You can make up words in an attempt to describe yourself as
something you're obviously not.
Are you also a pledidactor?

> It's interesting that you introduce the term "pedophile" here to
> pervert the context of my "sweet child" addressal of you (which
> clearly is intended to relate to your infantile mental state here in
> these sundry 9/11 threads) ... to your own narrative of choice.

Do you always address your intellectual superiors in such a juvenile manner?

> Since you're the one who wants to change the narrative to one
> with a "pedophile" slant, the question should be asked: is pedophilia an
> interest of yours ?

I didn't "change the narrative", kid. I asked you a question that you
are scrambling like mad to avoid.

> In any event, I've no interest in your orientation
> or pursuits, so to avoid further misunderstanding, I will now refer to
> you and your sibling clowns as Satan's children.
>
> So, once again, Satan's child, why do you lie when the truth is
> an irresistible force, and you, a movable object?

You aren't very bright.
 
Vandar wrote:
> zookumar yelubandi wrote:
> > Vandar wrote:
[...]
> > It's interesting that you introduce the term "pedophile" here to
> > pervert the context of my "sweet child" addressal of you (which
> > clearly is intended to relate to your infantile mental state here in
> > these sundry 9/11 threads) ... to your own narrative of choice.
>
> Do you always address your intellectual superiors in such a juvenile manner?

Nope, not my superiors.

-zookumar-
 
zookumar yelubandi wrote:

> Vandar wrote:
>
>>zookumar yelubandi wrote:
>>
>>>Vandar wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> It's interesting that you introduce the term "pedophile" here to
>>>pervert the context of my "sweet child" addressal of you (which
>>>clearly is intended to relate to your infantile mental state here in
>>>these sundry 9/11 threads) ... to your own narrative of choice.
>>
>>Do you always address your intellectual superiors in such a juvenile manner?
>
>
> Nope, not my superiors.

That's good, junior. All you need to do know is figure out who your
surperiors are.
Good luck.
 
Vandar wrote:
> zookumar yelubandi wrote:
> > Vandar wrote:
> >>zookumar yelubandi wrote:
> >>>Vandar wrote:
> > [...]
> >>> It's interesting that you introduce the term "pedophile" here to
> >>>pervert the context of my "sweet child" addressal of you (which
> >>>clearly is intended to relate to your infantile mental state here in
> >>>these sundry 9/11 threads) ... to your own narrative of choice.
> >>Do you always address your intellectual superiors in such a juvenile manner?
> > Nope, not my superiors.
> That's good, junior. All you need to do know is figure out who your
> surperiors are.
> Good luck.

Well, I'll definitely need all the luck I can find. In my 44
years of existence, senior, two things have basically eluded me: the
meaning of life ... and the identity of my superiors. But I'll be glad
to accept your funding offer of good luck.

-zookumar-
 
seon ferguson wrote:

> "GovShill" <Gov.Shill@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1183714561.193835.121300@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>>On Jul 6, 6:47 pm, Loogie <boogieloo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>GovShill wrote:
>>>
>>>>Reserves and resources
>>>>Most (608 of 981 GL or 3.8 of 6.2 Bbbl (billion barrels)) of
>>>>Australia's initial commercial crude oil reserves have been discovered
>>>>in offshore Tertiary reservoirs in the Gippsland Basin. Additional
>>>>major oil reserves have been discovered in the Carnarvon and Bonaparte
>>>>Basins.
>>>
>>>>...
>>>
>>>>Production
>>>>Estimates by Geoscience Australia of future crude oil plus condensate
>>>>production suggest production in 2005 at between 78.0 ML/d or 490,700
>>>>bbl/d and 107.3 ML/d or 674,700 bbl/d and a decline to between about
>>>>25.0 ML/d or 157,000 bbl/d and 54.2 ML/d or 341,000 bbl/d by 2025.
>>>
>>>Which pales in comparison to the trillions of barrels under Gull Island,
>>>Alaska.
>>
>>Big deal.
>>
>>Seon said "I'm just glad there is no oil in Australia."
>>
>>I said <what you quoted above>.
>>
>>You come back with some crap about Alaska. BFD!
>>
>
> And I also pointed out I meant no oil fields like Iraq. It was late and I
> was rushing my post without thinking to much.

Did the dog eat your homework?
 
zookumar yelubandi wrote:

> Vandar wrote:
>
>>zookumar yelubandi wrote:
>>
>>>Vandar wrote:
>>>
>>>>zookumar yelubandi wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Vandar wrote:
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>>> It's interesting that you introduce the term "pedophile" here to
>>>>>pervert the context of my "sweet child" addressal of you (which
>>>>>clearly is intended to relate to your infantile mental state here in
>>>>>these sundry 9/11 threads) ... to your own narrative of choice.
>>>>
>>>>Do you always address your intellectual superiors in such a juvenile manner?
>>>
>>> Nope, not my superiors.
>>
>>That's good, junior. All you need to do know is figure out who your
>>surperiors are.
>>Good luck.
>
>
> Well, I'll definitely need all the luck I can find. In my 44
> years of existence, senior, two things have basically eluded me: the
> meaning of life

Not seeking it is the first step to discovering it.

> ... and the identity of my superiors.

Are you implying that you have never met anyone you would consider
intellectually superior to yourself?
 
Vandar wrote:
> zookumar yelubandi wrote:
> > Vandar wrote:
[...]
> >>>>Do you always address your intellectual superiors in such a juvenile manner?
> >>> Nope, not my superiors.
> >>That's good, junior. All you need to do know is figure out who your
> >>surperiors are.
> >>Good luck.
> > Well, I'll definitely need all the luck I can find. In my 44
> > years of existence, senior, two things have basically eluded me: the
> > meaning of life
> Not seeking it is the first step to discovering it.

You mean to discover anything, I have to seek nothing? Hmm ...
interesting strategy. But it does put a fresh perspective on your
"understanding" of the truths of 9/11.

> > ... and the identity of my superiors.
> Are you implying that you have never met anyone you would consider
> intellectually superior to yourself?

I cannot tell a lie. No. I have indeed met some who I would
consider my intellectual equals, but superior? Not yet. I'm 100% sure
they exist, mind you. Just that I haven't had the pleasure of meeting
any, so far ... present company excepted, of course.

-zookumar-
 
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 22:23:48 -0500, "John P."
<JohnP_Da_Evil_Joo@WhyAreMoronsAttractedToMe.com> wrote:

>"Anonymous Loser" <AnonymousLoser@remailer.cyberiade.it> wrote in a a
>message
>
>> WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. intelligence officials had
>> several warnings that terrorists might attack the United States
>> on its home soil -- even using airplanes as weapons -- well
>> before the September 11, 2001 attacks, two congressional
>> committees said in a report released Wednesday.
>
>During the week of July 4, 2007, four people will die in car accidents on
>the interstate highways in and around the Chicago area.
>
>Armed with this specific information, stop it from happening.
>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGtOFudmHG8

Alex Jones was able to piece the information together and predict
pretty accurately what happened on 911, several months before the
event.

Seems a shame he wasn't listened to by the 'powers who be', rather
than be ridiculed as a conspiracy nut.
 

Similar threads

B
Backlink Hut Backlink Review
Replies
0
Views
126
Backlink Hut
B
N
Top 10 Online Slots
Replies
0
Views
156
NathanJar
N
Cloaked
  • Locked
  • Sticky
Terms of Service and Disclaimer
Replies
0
Views
2K
Cloaked
Cloaked
WorldNews
Official: Trump briefed on potentially compromising report
Replies
0
Views
21
WorldNews
WorldNews
WorldNews
Obama points finger at Putin for cyber attacks on U.S. election
Replies
0
Views
29
WorldNews
WorldNews
Back
Top