Dylan Discovers More "Evidence"
He's pathetic.
Other than that, right now I'm stuck in wonderful Cleveland Hopkins International Airport. Yeah. God bless Contintental Airlines.
To make a long story short...we've been speaking with ticket agents, and, yes, at LEAST two planes landed here on 9-11. The two women were scared to even think about it...
Of course, it is hardly a shock that two planes landed there; the more important question from dipstick Dylan's standpoint is whether either of them was Flight 93.
posted by Pat @ 7:15 AM
20 comments
20 Comments:
To make a long story short...we've been speaking with ticket agents, and, yes, at LEAST two planes landed here on 9-11.
Good God Almighty, TWO?! I wonder what he'd say if he found out dozens landed not too far from me at Logan.
A bunch of planes landed in Gander New Foundland too.
The TRUTH MUST GET OUT!!!!
Good God man! You know what this means don't you? It means that when all the flights in mid-air were ordered to land that day, the NWO Zionists forced them all to land...
... at airports!!
Diabolical.
Notice the e-mail from the RAVING PSYCHO LUNATIC who has 1) concluded that Bush was behind 9/11, and 2) that Bush will somehow be punished for his alleged role in it.
I know you do a great service in exposing these nutjobs, but thank God you do it, because reading the shit these people post raises the hair on my neck.
What a group of losers.
My sister is a flight attendent. She was at the airport on 9/11 when F-16s from Hickam started escorting planes in. They must be in on it too!
Dozens of planes landed at Pearson Airport in Toronto. I know because I volunteered to assist with taking care of stranded passangers. Guess the Canadian government must have been in on it too.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Yet another poor "reaching" post. I'm beginning to thing you guys can't actually understand what you read taking quotes and ideas out of context like that. No wonder you think Osama pulled this thing off. You're brain has been turd to mush by the Zionist propaganda mainstream mechanism.
Yet another poor "reaching" post.
...everything you post is reaching, yet you attack anyone else for supposedly doing it.
Not to menion you're completely wrong about the Jew controlled media (and yes, Zionists are mostly Jews, so dont play that 'I'm not an anti-semite' card).
Out of context? Well then how about adding some context there Einstein? It certainly seemed fully in context to me, but please, do show us where we went wrong.
and yes, Zionists are mostly Jews, so dont play that 'I'm not an anti-semite' card
False! There are more Evangelical Christians that believe in Israel more than there are Israelis. Check your facts; there are more Christian Zionists than Jewish.
Beleiving in Israel is like beleiving in a chair. It's there, it exists, what more is there to say? Why exactly do you feel a need to assign them a name? What's next, calling people who beleive in America "Americanists"? What would you call people who beleive in Palestine? Palestinianists? It wouldn't surprise me at all if there were more christian "zionists" than jewish "zionists". there's certainly more christians in the world than there are jews, and the majority of those christians are reasonable people. They're not going to deny the existance of a country which has been around since the 1940's.
Beleiving in Israel is like beleiving in a chair. It's there, it exists, what more is there to say?
That you are a Zionist or have been conned to accept that satanic movement.
That you are a Zionist or have been conned to accept that satanic movement.
Satanic? Are we getting religious now?
ISRAEL EXISTS AS A COUNTRY. There's no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Jews bought the land, and eventually a narrow strip was given to them by the UN. The land had been abandoned and nobody wanted it till those damn JOOOS came.
Then again we're talking to a guy who thinks the Holocaust never happened. Was South African apartheid a conspiracy to discredit whites, too?
So he didn't object, so what? It certainly doesn't make it true. When Israel was created, there was no such thing as Palestine. In addition to that, something like 90% of the land falling under the Brittish mandate went into creating trans-Jordan, which was specificaly intended as an Arab homeland. I don't see you complaining about all the Jews who were displaced from that area. Finaly, the question of land ownership is irrelevant. The UN mandate was passed by some 33 nations. It became binding at that point. Even if it didn't not have the authority of the UN behind it, the Arabs gave up whatever claims they may have made when they attempted to anhilliate Israel militarily. If they had continued to neogtiate diplomaticaly, perhaps they could claim the moral high ground. As it is, they tried to kill off the Jews, they got their asses kicked, and they lost whatever moral superiority they may have had.
They scrambled planes over New York too. They just got there about 10 minutes too late to do anything.
Hickam Air Force Base and Honolulu International Airport are colocated by the way, so it is not like it was a long trip.
They scrambled planes over New York too. They just got there about 10 minutes too late to do anything.
Even if they did get there before impact, what could they have done? Does ANYONE really think that even after the first impact, the Air Force would shoot down commercial airlners over populated areas? Seriously?
Could you imagine what the CTers would be doing with that if say after the first hit, the remaining 3 planes were shot down? They'd be screaming that the planes weren't even hijacked and the government shot down planes that posed no threat... Oh, wait, nevermind.
If the UN came in here and partitioned off 55% (or even 5%) of our country to give it to some ethnic group, I would hope there'd be some Americans who'd stand up and fight.
On the other hand, I'd certainly hope those Americans wouldn't be attempting to commit genocide at the same time. How do you come up with such horrible comparisons?
The British were a colonial power ruling over land they had no right to.
They had every right to it. Otherwise you may as well argue that all of Europe is illegitemate because all that land belonged to some tribe or another at some point.
The proof is in the pudding
No, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
and the indigenous people have suffered greatly from the League of Nations giving a "mandate" over Palestine to the British.
Yeah, because the middle east was a veritable paradise before then, right? Have you EVER picked up a history book?
If the UN came in here and partitioned off 55% (or even 5%) of our country to give it to some ethnic group, I would hope there'd be some Americans who'd stand up and fight.
That's not exactly how it happened little girl...
You see, before we even had that tragedy called the Holocaust, Jewish folks had been buying up land in a pretty much useless, abadoned strip of land. When the UN created Israel it didn't suddenly take away Palestinian land (as there were no "Palestinians" at the time), it just gave sovereignty to the area that had been bought up and no one wanted but the Jews. Arabs started moving back after infrastructure had been built up.
The British were a colonial power ruling over land they had no right to.
The Ottomans lost a war and European powers took control of the area.
The proof is in the pudding and the indigenous people have suffered greatly from the League of Nations giving a "mandate" over Palestine to the British.
The indigenous people were called Jews (but I digress). I assume you mean the occupants just before Israel was created. Well, as I stated before, the "Palestinians" kept their land (Egypt gobbled up a bit, Jordan some, and Syria the rest). Technically speaking, the creation of Jordan was the creation of the Arab Palestinian nation.
Post a Comment
<< Home