.
Future of the U.S.
Veemon
Tue May 20, 2008 9:07 pm
I'd like to state two things before I take a good chunk of time to assert my case about 9/11 being setup by the government. This post is only to show you guys that you are followers. That you are "sheep", in the sense of "following what has been told to you, not what you learn to be true". I'll address 9/11 later.
1. The video that farquezy linked in the first page is a radical ideology, supported by few, and explained in-depth by even fewer. It is essentially no more factual than any work of fiction, as it is itself, exactly just that. Que had it right when he said
I don't think anything else needs to be said there. But this is about 9/11 being a conspiracy or not, or at least, that's what this thread has developed into, so the video in this thread is non-important propaganda that I will not address again.
2. I enjoy these forums. This is not an attack on 1 member. However, what this member said shows that people do not fully understand what they are talking about when pertaining to this issue - that they are spoon-fed garbage and exhale it as well.
That is the kind of statement that I see in this thread by multiple people. It's a message of not understanding the situation at hand, but INSTEAD, telling other people "something randomly off-hand that they don't really know for sure", and that's happened too much in this thread. People don't understand the facts behind what they say, and I'll prove it.
1. The US invoked a trade embargo on Japan before the US entered World War 2. Why did the US do this? I'll explain. Japan was trying to capture strategic land that belonged to China in order to stop the influx and importation of war goods. Japan wanted all of China's resources halted, essentially placing an embargo on CHINA, not Japan. However, the United States decided to place a trade embargo on Japan to anger the Japanese into attacking the United States. This didn't work, so the United States took other measures, even going as far as freezing Japanese bank accounts and funds held within United States market-space.
Japan's reaction was to attack Pearl Harbor. Now, this isn't simple either.
2. The United States had already deciphered the majority of the code that Japan used to send covert military messages. Not only that, the United States was intercepting those messages daily, deciphering them, and knew about Japan wanting to launch an attack. The United States did nothing about it. Instead, the US Navy (and even Army) sent very ominous and foreshadowing "war with Japan" warnings to all Pacific commands in its reach. Still, however, Pearl Harbor, the United States' closest Naval base at the time, was not told that Japan would attack, that they planned to attack, and did not even alert any personnel at all (at the infantry level) about impending attacks on Pearl Harbor, when in reality, Pearl Harbor was the most logical target based on common sense, as it was the closest to Japan in the first place.
The United States knew that Japan was attacking. There's more evidence to prove that the United States government WANTED Japan to attack the United States, as it seems easy to understand that it appears that the United States "picked on the little guy" by helping China and the U.S.S.R (Russia now) by taking their side, yet still pissing off Japan on the side, as Japan was a war ally with Germany. Taking sides with the "big guys" offered the United States a way to target Japan as a way to enter World War 2 by provoking them to attack, not telling on-site personnel the intelligence that the government KNEW about, and eventually offered a gateway to enter the war. Before Pearl Harbor, most everyone in the United States was against going into war. After Pearl Harbor, the majority had shifted to being war-minded, and the United States entered the war.
Now. I want you to read this again.
"since our fighter jets or something and stuff were off training, so thats something." --- I'd like to address this.
1. Some fighter planes were off on training. True. Most were not. Most were grounded. None, absolutely none, were on-call and ready to fight against the Japanese attack that the government knew about.
2. 188 US planes were lost in the attacks.
3. Adventwolf states that Pearl Harbor didn't do a ton of damage to the United States, as a whole, so the attacks on Pearl Harbor were pretty insignificant. Which I agree with. I think that's absolutely true. However, like I mentioned my post just before this, on page 4, you people fail to question WHY?!?!
Why did Pearl Harbor happen?
Why didn't the US warn the people?
Why weren't fighters mobilized?
Why were fighters away training?
Why were they grounded?
Why, and under what circumstances, can a country like Japan make a perfectly devastating "sneak" attack on the most powerful country in the world without ANY prior knowledge and do so while under the best conditions available?
Why does this appear to be more than just mere coincidence? - that, is the question. By asking "why", you'll find your solutions.
Now ask "why" to 9/11. You'll see points coincide with Pearl Harbor, however, you won't UNDERSTAND what you're saying unless you ignore what you are told is the truth, and instead, seek out the real truth, which is something that I've researched and found to be particularly hard for religious people and institutions to do. You need to learn to adapt to the truth, as a whole - everyone does, but I'll post again, and when I do, I want you sheep to listen. I want you sheep to ask questions. I want you sheep to think critically and draw your own substantiated conclusions. Only then will you shed your own wool and not become another statistic rifled with fear and ignorance, but instead, you won't be a victim of deception any longer, that is, unless you are too afraid to step out of your wool, stop being sheep, and want to learn about the truth as a whole. It is that single reason alone, fear, that makes sheep follow the leader and get chased away by dogs - chased away by those who you're told are your superiors, including religious entities.
-DarkPacMan77-
1. The video that farquezy linked in the first page is a radical ideology, supported by few, and explained in-depth by even fewer. It is essentially no more factual than any work of fiction, as it is itself, exactly just that. Que had it right when he said
que13x wrote:Stop taking fiction for fact FarQ.
I don't think anything else needs to be said there. But this is about 9/11 being a conspiracy or not, or at least, that's what this thread has developed into, so the video in this thread is non-important propaganda that I will not address again.
2. I enjoy these forums. This is not an attack on 1 member. However, what this member said shows that people do not fully understand what they are talking about when pertaining to this issue - that they are spoon-fed garbage and exhale it as well.
AdventWolf wrote:Pearl Harbor didn't really hurt us since our fighter jets or something and stuff were off training, so thats something.
That is the kind of statement that I see in this thread by multiple people. It's a message of not understanding the situation at hand, but INSTEAD, telling other people "something randomly off-hand that they don't really know for sure", and that's happened too much in this thread. People don't understand the facts behind what they say, and I'll prove it.
1. The US invoked a trade embargo on Japan before the US entered World War 2. Why did the US do this? I'll explain. Japan was trying to capture strategic land that belonged to China in order to stop the influx and importation of war goods. Japan wanted all of China's resources halted, essentially placing an embargo on CHINA, not Japan. However, the United States decided to place a trade embargo on Japan to anger the Japanese into attacking the United States. This didn't work, so the United States took other measures, even going as far as freezing Japanese bank accounts and funds held within United States market-space.
Japan's reaction was to attack Pearl Harbor. Now, this isn't simple either.
2. The United States had already deciphered the majority of the code that Japan used to send covert military messages. Not only that, the United States was intercepting those messages daily, deciphering them, and knew about Japan wanting to launch an attack. The United States did nothing about it. Instead, the US Navy (and even Army) sent very ominous and foreshadowing "war with Japan" warnings to all Pacific commands in its reach. Still, however, Pearl Harbor, the United States' closest Naval base at the time, was not told that Japan would attack, that they planned to attack, and did not even alert any personnel at all (at the infantry level) about impending attacks on Pearl Harbor, when in reality, Pearl Harbor was the most logical target based on common sense, as it was the closest to Japan in the first place.
The United States knew that Japan was attacking. There's more evidence to prove that the United States government WANTED Japan to attack the United States, as it seems easy to understand that it appears that the United States "picked on the little guy" by helping China and the U.S.S.R (Russia now) by taking their side, yet still pissing off Japan on the side, as Japan was a war ally with Germany. Taking sides with the "big guys" offered the United States a way to target Japan as a way to enter World War 2 by provoking them to attack, not telling on-site personnel the intelligence that the government KNEW about, and eventually offered a gateway to enter the war. Before Pearl Harbor, most everyone in the United States was against going into war. After Pearl Harbor, the majority had shifted to being war-minded, and the United States entered the war.
Now. I want you to read this again.
AdventWolf wrote:Pearl Harbor didn't really hurt us since our fighter jets or something and stuff were off training, so thats something.
"since our fighter jets or something and stuff were off training, so thats something." --- I'd like to address this.
1. Some fighter planes were off on training. True. Most were not. Most were grounded. None, absolutely none, were on-call and ready to fight against the Japanese attack that the government knew about.
2. 188 US planes were lost in the attacks.
3. Adventwolf states that Pearl Harbor didn't do a ton of damage to the United States, as a whole, so the attacks on Pearl Harbor were pretty insignificant. Which I agree with. I think that's absolutely true. However, like I mentioned my post just before this, on page 4, you people fail to question WHY?!?!
Why did Pearl Harbor happen?
Why didn't the US warn the people?
Why weren't fighters mobilized?
Why were fighters away training?
Why were they grounded?
Why, and under what circumstances, can a country like Japan make a perfectly devastating "sneak" attack on the most powerful country in the world without ANY prior knowledge and do so while under the best conditions available?
Why does this appear to be more than just mere coincidence? - that, is the question. By asking "why", you'll find your solutions.
Now ask "why" to 9/11. You'll see points coincide with Pearl Harbor, however, you won't UNDERSTAND what you're saying unless you ignore what you are told is the truth, and instead, seek out the real truth, which is something that I've researched and found to be particularly hard for religious people and institutions to do. You need to learn to adapt to the truth, as a whole - everyone does, but I'll post again, and when I do, I want you sheep to listen. I want you sheep to ask questions. I want you sheep to think critically and draw your own substantiated conclusions. Only then will you shed your own wool and not become another statistic rifled with fear and ignorance, but instead, you won't be a victim of deception any longer, that is, unless you are too afraid to step out of your wool, stop being sheep, and want to learn about the truth as a whole. It is that single reason alone, fear, that makes sheep follow the leader and get chased away by dogs - chased away by those who you're told are your superiors, including religious entities.
-DarkPacMan77-
D3ViLsAdvocate wrote:Try shaking the salt harder onto your tongue.
Tue May 20, 2008 9:26 pm
Because of the fact that I need to do some intel collection of my own I won't ask too much...
1.) Why did the Japanese see it fit to place an embargo on China in the first place? Fear of what would've, or could've been?
2.) How exactly did the USA get involved?
What was the true reason for proboking the Japanese in such a manner?
Was it just to stir up a war?
Was it to in some sick way to test what out defences could do if attacked without warning?
If you feel that I'm not comprehending an element of your post please point it out to me.
1.) Why did the Japanese see it fit to place an embargo on China in the first place? Fear of what would've, or could've been?
2.) How exactly did the USA get involved?
What was the true reason for proboking the Japanese in such a manner?
Was it just to stir up a war?
Was it to in some sick way to test what out defences could do if attacked without warning?
If you feel that I'm not comprehending an element of your post please point it out to me.
Tue May 20, 2008 9:46 pm
I'd love to answer both of your questions roxfox, as I've definitely done my research about this topic, as well as most political conspiracy theories.
1. Japan was capturing easily obtainable land from China. Japan had taken quite a few provinces from China, and knew that China was going to retaliate. Out of fear of being squashed by China, Japan calls forth for suppliers of China, their allies, to stop trade with China, which would definitely help out the Japanese takeover of more Chinese land. The United States had "officially" remained neutral during the war, however, according to the president's "lend-lease" style of dealing military supplies and armaments easily allowed the United States to help out most of Europe with supplies against the Nazi forces. Now, the United States was allies with Europe, who was allies with China. If the United States made a trade embargo against China, that would be a dangerous move for the United States to make because it could potentially turn a lot of angry heads at the US. Instead, the US decides to place an embargo on Japan, freeze Japanese accounts within the US market (among other things), and later allows the attacks on Pearl Harbor to happen in order to be a catalyst into World War 2, something private bankers as well as the United States military profits from. Also, it allows for funds to be easily hidden from the public as "war costs". Just take a look at how many trillions of dollars have gone "missing" from the United States military budget, and my statements really catch fire.
2. The US got involved because it was profitable. Roosevelt was already making money on the war while remaining neutral according to the lend-lease programs in place, however, war is EXTREMELY profitable to the military industrial complex. When war goods are being made, used, and re-made quickly, that alone can fuel an economy and make it a GIANT threat VERY quickly. Look at Germany to better understand this trend. World War one happens and Germany is told that it must pay for war costs and losses incurred by most of Europe. The US actually decides against what Europe is proposing, or at least, the president at the time did. That doesn't matter though. What does matter, is that Germany was devastated after World War One. The only thing that brought Germany back from the ashes, was the military industrial complex. According to neo-con theory, you must have an enemy entity in order to have a society as a whole, so "jews" bore the brunt of the assault from Germany. Nonetheless, however, Germany was making war goods quickly, attacking enemies at lightning pace with blitzkrieg tactics, and fueled Germany enough to take over MOST of Europe as well as enter into World War 2 as the leading military threat to the entire world.
How did that happen? - the military industrial complex.
The question you must ask yourself, is how often does the military industrial complex, or private bankers themselves, profit from American wars, proxies, or conflicts?
The answers to those questions are innumerable.
-DarkPacMan77-
1. Japan was capturing easily obtainable land from China. Japan had taken quite a few provinces from China, and knew that China was going to retaliate. Out of fear of being squashed by China, Japan calls forth for suppliers of China, their allies, to stop trade with China, which would definitely help out the Japanese takeover of more Chinese land. The United States had "officially" remained neutral during the war, however, according to the president's "lend-lease" style of dealing military supplies and armaments easily allowed the United States to help out most of Europe with supplies against the Nazi forces. Now, the United States was allies with Europe, who was allies with China. If the United States made a trade embargo against China, that would be a dangerous move for the United States to make because it could potentially turn a lot of angry heads at the US. Instead, the US decides to place an embargo on Japan, freeze Japanese accounts within the US market (among other things), and later allows the attacks on Pearl Harbor to happen in order to be a catalyst into World War 2, something private bankers as well as the United States military profits from. Also, it allows for funds to be easily hidden from the public as "war costs". Just take a look at how many trillions of dollars have gone "missing" from the United States military budget, and my statements really catch fire.
2. The US got involved because it was profitable. Roosevelt was already making money on the war while remaining neutral according to the lend-lease programs in place, however, war is EXTREMELY profitable to the military industrial complex. When war goods are being made, used, and re-made quickly, that alone can fuel an economy and make it a GIANT threat VERY quickly. Look at Germany to better understand this trend. World War one happens and Germany is told that it must pay for war costs and losses incurred by most of Europe. The US actually decides against what Europe is proposing, or at least, the president at the time did. That doesn't matter though. What does matter, is that Germany was devastated after World War One. The only thing that brought Germany back from the ashes, was the military industrial complex. According to neo-con theory, you must have an enemy entity in order to have a society as a whole, so "jews" bore the brunt of the assault from Germany. Nonetheless, however, Germany was making war goods quickly, attacking enemies at lightning pace with blitzkrieg tactics, and fueled Germany enough to take over MOST of Europe as well as enter into World War 2 as the leading military threat to the entire world.
How did that happen? - the military industrial complex.
The question you must ask yourself, is how often does the military industrial complex, or private bankers themselves, profit from American wars, proxies, or conflicts?
The answers to those questions are innumerable.
-DarkPacMan77-
D3ViLsAdvocate wrote:Try shaking the salt harder onto your tongue.
Tue May 20, 2008 10:29 pm
In order to understand the money making part, please watch the youtube documentary that farquezy, as well as myself, urge everyone to see. I believe it's specifically part 3 of the FREE internet-released movie called, Zeitgeist. How it works is that our money, mine, yours, any US made dollar bill gets loaned to the United States' government at interest. Because of that interest, that means that every dollar the FED issues, it costs Americans $1 PLUS the TAX on that dollar. It's a system that is designed to keep United States citizens in debt. I can prove it as well... anyone can, even you roxfox. Anybody can. How? - look for the statute that makes it mandatory for Americans to pay the federal income tax.
It - doesn't - even - exist.
The federal income tax is a directly unapportioned tax which is illegal according to the constitution of the United States of America... but then again... so is everything else that the Bush administration has done. I'm not saying that the Bush administration is responsible for the federal income tax blunder... no... that's many years old. You should find it interesting to see that the Bush administration is still linked to private banking firms. Don't take my word for it. Look up "Prescott Bush". Zeitgeist talks about him a little too.
There are far too many things to outline, but the film does a good job teaching how it works. You'll be amazed once the truth is right in front of your face.
Please, would everyone watch Zeitgeist. It's entirely free and will open up your mind to a better understanding of the truth.
Keep in mind, that Zeitgeist draws conclusions based on a theory. It's not fact, so don't believe it from face value alone. Instead, do your own research about the statements in Zeitgeist. You'll find that many check out to be very valid theories, and in many cases may even scientifically prove something accurate or inaccurate. Watch it, and then try to learn everything about what they say that you possibly can.
-DarkPacMan77-
It - doesn't - even - exist.
The federal income tax is a directly unapportioned tax which is illegal according to the constitution of the United States of America... but then again... so is everything else that the Bush administration has done. I'm not saying that the Bush administration is responsible for the federal income tax blunder... no... that's many years old. You should find it interesting to see that the Bush administration is still linked to private banking firms. Don't take my word for it. Look up "Prescott Bush". Zeitgeist talks about him a little too.
There are far too many things to outline, but the film does a good job teaching how it works. You'll be amazed once the truth is right in front of your face.
Please, would everyone watch Zeitgeist. It's entirely free and will open up your mind to a better understanding of the truth.
Keep in mind, that Zeitgeist draws conclusions based on a theory. It's not fact, so don't believe it from face value alone. Instead, do your own research about the statements in Zeitgeist. You'll find that many check out to be very valid theories, and in many cases may even scientifically prove something accurate or inaccurate. Watch it, and then try to learn everything about what they say that you possibly can.
-DarkPacMan77-
D3ViLsAdvocate wrote:Try shaking the salt harder onto your tongue.
Wed May 21, 2008 12:21 am
I can't say whether they were cut or not, but I can say that it appears that they were.
1. Pictures after the attack show diagonally "sliced" core columns with molten metal that had since hardened, sticking to the columns.
2. There WERE sub basement explosions before any planes hit.
Now, you're pretty spot on with your logic about the 300+ MPH plane thing. I get where you're coming from, but it's entirely possible that the charges didn't blow all of the main cores. There were many... to be exact, there were 47 steel columns and each was 4 inches thick from all 4 sides of the rectangular shaped columns. There were also 236 EXTERIOR support columns.
It's entirely possible that the weight of the buildings alone, cores cut or not, was enough to keep them anchored to the ground. It's very important to understand that the twin towers were also designed to withstand 140MPH winds. Since most examples I have found in the past believe the planes were going at about 350-380 MPH (best estimate), if you subtract 140, conservatively, you reach a possible 200-240MPH extra force that the building wasn't particularly designed to withstand. However, the buildings BOTH withstood the brunt of the trauma, and did so easily.
Also, both trade towers were designed by the engineers who came up with the layout of the buildings to take the blow of a Boeing 707 commercial airliner hitting the building IN ANY LOCATION. It's widely believed, and rightly so, that either trade tower could sustain MULTIPLE jetliner impacts and not fall because even a plane with that much mass and traveling 300-400-500+ miles per hour, STILL couldn't have cut all of the 47 core columns, especially not from a Boeing 767. Now, the aircraft that hit the towers were Boeing 767, not 707. This is important to consider because the 767's were considerably less heavy and carried less than full fuel, also helping it to have less velocity and power.
So what do we know?
1. there were sub level explosions
2. planes hit after explosions in the sub levels (high quality sound capturing software can prove this)
3. the buildings didn't fall for a long time
4. Smoke billowed out for hours. smoke is a sign of an oxygen starved fire even though the government wants you to believe that extremely hot fire weakened the structure to below 50% strength and it fell, even though no steel building has ever, in the history of mankind, fallen from fire. Still, the government insists that you are stupid enough to believe this "coincidence".
There is much more information I know, and I openly challenge anybody to bring facts against mine. I personally don't like that my research always points all blame on the government, but I assure you, my research is completely 3rd party and the blame always circles back. I will post with more information, surely, as this is only a tiny bit that I know. Please though... if anyone can prove me wrong, please do. I want so desperately to be proven wrong, if for anything but to sleep better at night.
-DarkPacMan77-
1. Pictures after the attack show diagonally "sliced" core columns with molten metal that had since hardened, sticking to the columns.
2. There WERE sub basement explosions before any planes hit.
Now, you're pretty spot on with your logic about the 300+ MPH plane thing. I get where you're coming from, but it's entirely possible that the charges didn't blow all of the main cores. There were many... to be exact, there were 47 steel columns and each was 4 inches thick from all 4 sides of the rectangular shaped columns. There were also 236 EXTERIOR support columns.
It's entirely possible that the weight of the buildings alone, cores cut or not, was enough to keep them anchored to the ground. It's very important to understand that the twin towers were also designed to withstand 140MPH winds. Since most examples I have found in the past believe the planes were going at about 350-380 MPH (best estimate), if you subtract 140, conservatively, you reach a possible 200-240MPH extra force that the building wasn't particularly designed to withstand. However, the buildings BOTH withstood the brunt of the trauma, and did so easily.
Also, both trade towers were designed by the engineers who came up with the layout of the buildings to take the blow of a Boeing 707 commercial airliner hitting the building IN ANY LOCATION. It's widely believed, and rightly so, that either trade tower could sustain MULTIPLE jetliner impacts and not fall because even a plane with that much mass and traveling 300-400-500+ miles per hour, STILL couldn't have cut all of the 47 core columns, especially not from a Boeing 767. Now, the aircraft that hit the towers were Boeing 767, not 707. This is important to consider because the 767's were considerably less heavy and carried less than full fuel, also helping it to have less velocity and power.
So what do we know?
1. there were sub level explosions
2. planes hit after explosions in the sub levels (high quality sound capturing software can prove this)
3. the buildings didn't fall for a long time
4. Smoke billowed out for hours. smoke is a sign of an oxygen starved fire even though the government wants you to believe that extremely hot fire weakened the structure to below 50% strength and it fell, even though no steel building has ever, in the history of mankind, fallen from fire. Still, the government insists that you are stupid enough to believe this "coincidence".
There is much more information I know, and I openly challenge anybody to bring facts against mine. I personally don't like that my research always points all blame on the government, but I assure you, my research is completely 3rd party and the blame always circles back. I will post with more information, surely, as this is only a tiny bit that I know. Please though... if anyone can prove me wrong, please do. I want so desperately to be proven wrong, if for anything but to sleep better at night.
-DarkPacMan77-
D3ViLsAdvocate wrote:Try shaking the salt harder onto your tongue.
Wed May 21, 2008 1:03 am
You raise very good points!!!!! There are a few things that could be possible factors here.
1.) Thermite is Jet/Rocket fuel.
2.) I doubt an explosion of any kind could blow out the supports.
3.) I doubt you could cut through beams in a straight fashion using thermite, Coring Rods might work however.
1.) Thermite is Jet/Rocket fuel.
2.) I doubt an explosion of any kind could blow out the supports.
3.) I doubt you could cut through beams in a straight fashion using thermite, Coring Rods might work however.
Wed May 21, 2008 2:32 am
DarkPacMan77 wrote:farquezy wrote:ok wait, i go against everything media tells us, but yet you think im a media lap dog?roxfox64 wrote:No you are not wrong Farq, I did indeed call you a "Media Lap Dog", however, you haven't shown that you aren'tWTC7roxfox64 wrote:Please tell me In your own words why 9/11 is a conspiricy.
thats all
9/11 goes much farther than WTC7. I haven't read this entire thread yet, but I will, and when I do, expect a long post of well-informed information.
I will say that already, from reading little in this thread, that perhaps the majority of you consider someone questioning 9/11 as blasphemous to your Lord and savior. Others consider conspiracy evidence as lackluster. So many of you fail to question. You... fail... to... question. YOU FAIL TO QUESTION!!!
YOU FAIL TO QUESTION; WHY!?!?
WHY!?!? WHY!?!? WHY!?!? WHY!?!?
When you begin to start answering questions as to "why", you'll find out that 9/11 has more to do with corporate greed and failed legislative efforts than it EVER did with any terrorist, terrorists, or terrorist organisation [aside from the United States Government].
I will post back with information. If you don't listen to me, that's your fault. Until then, bicker like hens and follow like sheep.
-DarkPacMan77-
DPM read the whole posts before u come in and think ur right. And ur wrong farquezy...he hasnt even read it all. He isnt saving ur day.
Last edited by Anonymous on Wed May 21, 2008 2:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
Watch me stream on MIXER or follow on Youtube at ChA0TiCxDR3AMS
Wed May 21, 2008 2:34 am
I can read all that later, but it was in the history books DPM, don't blame me, blame the schools 
. I didn't mean for it to be a random fact because don't know much about the situation. It is true I don't know much of it but a key fact that could support something fishy going on is that out planes were coincidentally out at sea.
EDIT: I logged before you started posting DPM, so I wasn't able to answer your questions
We just went over this in history class, it happened on Dec 7, 1941.
. I didn't mean for it to be a random fact because don't know much about the situation. It is true I don't know much of it but a key fact that could support something fishy going on is that out planes were coincidentally out at sea.
EDIT: I logged before you started posting DPM, so I wasn't able to answer your questions
We just went over this in history class, it happened on Dec 7, 1941.
Wed May 21, 2008 9:57 am
BKFraiders7 wrote:DPM read the whole posts before u come in and think ur right. And ur wrong farquezy...he hasnt even read it all. He isnt saving ur day.
Read 1/ 100th of the material that I've read, and tell me I've done less research than anyone on this site. I've been researching things like Pearl Harbor, both World Wars, the Lusitania... everything. The Iran Contra, the Cold War and so on. Initially, it began as I was researching Nazi Germany, and my love for information didn't cease. It's a hobby of mine to get smarter, to learn more, and to uncover the truth. I can't say that what I support IS the truth, but I can definitely say that it is the closest that I can come to understanding it.
And yes, I will post a whopper of a post probably sometime later tonight, maybe tomorrow. It will take quite a few hours to collect my thoughts. Right now, I've read all posts in this thread.
@ AdventWolf ~ I do, partially, blame the schools.
@ roxfox ~ I'll comment on your 3 points you made later as well.
-DarkPacMan77-
D3ViLsAdvocate wrote:Try shaking the salt harder onto your tongue.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 107 guests