Ivan Drago Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 In one of the videos you watched there are people saying there were no emblems, no logos, no windows, one from a Fox News reporter who added that it definitely did NOT look like a commercial airliner. That is not, as you claim, people telling us what they saw from underneath the plane. Where did you get that from? These are people that were there at the time and had a side view, on a clear day, of a low flying plan. These are not opinions as you claim, they are eyewitness accounts. Know **** all about airlines? What does that even mean? Do you mean they wouldn't know a commercial airliner if they saw one? Really? I am not the one that is making things up here, nether are the eye witnesses. You on the other hand. Incase you or others would like to see it again, here it is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgM6hjNedE0 As felix pointed out to you, where are the videos, a video, that shows it's flight 175. Where are the pictures, a picture, that shows it's flight 175. There are non. However, there is a multitude of videos, pictures, and eyewitness accounts that say it was not flight 175. Here is another video about the plane that points out something else that throws a spanner in the works. it's there. therefor They identified passengers from flight 175 in the wreckage. Or is that a lie as well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cigaro Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 They identified passengers from flight 175 in the wreckage. Or is that a lie as well?Doesn't matter as it didn't hit the tower. Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niblick1874 Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 They identified passengers from flight 175 in the wreckage. Or is that a lie as well? Did they, show me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cigaro Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 Did they, show me.[emoji38] Google "Flight 175 passenger list". Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Drago Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 Did they, show me. Google it. Also, turns out your fox reporter never saw the plane hit http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5654/debunking-911-myths-planes/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milky_26 Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 They identified passengers from flight 175 in the wreckage. Or is that a lie as well? got a youtube video to prove it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niblick1874 Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 Google it. Also, turns out your fox reporter never saw the plane hit http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5654/debunking-911-myths-planes/ Where does anyone say he saw the plane hit the tower? Are you telling me that he had to see the plane hit or what he saw of the plane and his description doesn't count. What is this garbage. Google it? Leave a link so everyone can see what you are getting at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Drago Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 Where does anyone say he saw the plane hit the tower? Are you telling me that he had to see the plane hit or what he saw of the plane and his description doesn't count. What is this garbage. Google it? Leave a link so everyone can see what you are getting at. If he didn't hit the plane hit how can he tell what kind of plane hit the trade centre For someone who goes on about searching for the truth you don't seem to keen on doing a bit of digging. Here you go though: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3501421,00.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 If he didn't hit the plane hit how can he tell what kind of plane hit the trade centre For someone who goes on about searching for the truth you don't seem to keen on doing a bit of digging. Here you go though: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3501421,00.html Earlier on in the thread, there was more drivel masquerading as a video which claimed the planes crashing into the towers was completely faked to hide the explosions. I wish the loonies would make their minds up as to what actually happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niblick1874 Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 (edited) In one of the videos you watched there are people saying there were no emblems, no logos, no windows, one from a Fox News reporter who added that it definitely did NOT look like a commercial airliner. That is not, as you claim, people telling us what they saw from underneath the plane. Where did you get that from? These are people that were there at the time and had a side view, on a clear day, of a low flying plan. These are not opinions as you claim, they are eyewitness accounts. Know **** all about airlines? What does that even mean? Do you mean they wouldn't know a commercial airliner if they saw one? Really? I am not the one that is making things up here, nether are the eye witnesses. You on the other hand. Incase you or others would like to see it again, here it is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgM6hjNedE0 As felix pointed out to you, where are the videos, a video, that shows it's flight 175. Where are the pictures, a picture, that shows it's flight 175. There are non. However, there is a multitude of videos, pictures, and eyewitness accounts that say it was not flight 175. Here is another video about the plane that points out something else that throws a spanner in the works. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huK0MAb0Xa4 it's there. therefor Above we have reality. Below, six years later, ABRACADABRA, oh look, see what we've found. You're having a laugh. If he didn't hit the plane hit how can he tell what kind of plane hit the trade centre For someone who goes on about searching for the truth you don't seem to keen on doing a bit of digging. Here you go though: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3501421,00.html Edited January 8, 2016 by niblick1874 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Drago Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 Above we have reality. Below, six years later, ABRACADABRA, oh look, see what we've found. You're having a laugh. Is my link not reality because it isn't YouTube? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cigaro Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 (edited) Above we have reality. Below, six years later, ABRACADABRA, oh look, see what we've found. You're having a laugh. ABRACADABRA Between 1 day and 2 weeks later... http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/12/victim-capsule-flight175.htm https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_175 The aftermath section of that should help too. Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk Edited January 8, 2016 by Cigaro Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deesidejambo Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 (edited) Based on Niblicks nonsense, one tower was not hit by a passenger plane, and presumably that plane is now somewhere else. So niblick, what hit the other tower? Was that a drone as well? Why would the US Military hit one tower with a drone and let the either tower be hit by a passenger plane? Where are all the passengers? Murdered? Edited January 8, 2016 by deesidejambo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cigaro Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 An eerie silence... Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 An eerie silence... Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk Standard. A reappearance in a few days talking, or not talking, about TTIP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tazio Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 Personally I hope it is an enforced break. I'm shocked at how many times other people are insulted, called stupid, and called liars without repercussions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Muddie Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 (edited) I'm surprised that people seem to be "debating" 11/9 2001 (well not really surprised on a conspiracy thread). I'm more surprised that the main debate is about whether or not planes hit the towers. In my opinion - Of course they did stupid. My questions are this: Why did aircraft-proof buildings fall? How could they possibly collapse at freefall speed? How did steel beams catch fire and melt (and why were they still burning for ages after?)? Why did loads of people die of cancers who were near ground zero? Why did the news report that tower 7 had fallen when it was clearly visible in the background? Were time-travelling - or psychic - media graduates involved at all? Selective debate is selective. Glory hunting, info-style. Last point first. Nothing wrong with companies encouraging staff to vote in certain directions. It empowers people with information when they vote. If you believe in something different you will vote against them anyway if you disagree with them. Really? If I threatened to kill you if you didn't do something I wanted you to... would that encourage you, or disempower you? You could argue that I've enlightened you to the fact that you're going to be in trouble if you don't do what I say. It doesn't matter what you believe in if the person with hand on trigger is telling you you're gonna die if you go your own way. Survival is preferable to dying for a belief for most, no? If you'd like another analogy, you could substitute the death threat chat for simple triangulation tactics in a less lethal situation. I don't think unionists can decide whether the "UK economy is already down the tubes and Scots haven't noticed" or "the UK economy is strong, robust and thriving thus we are better to be daisy-chained onto it." I find that sort of double standard very see-through. Say anything to "win". I am claiming that not knowing what happened to flight 175 and the passengers doesn't mean it hit the tower. You are claiming that if we don't know what happened to flight 175 and the passengers, it had to be the plane that hit the tower. That is what is ridiculous. It all comes down to what hit the tower. Nothing else. Why not deal in facts instead of what I might consider fantasistical theorum? It's dead easy to debunk 9/11, really. Edited January 10, 2016 by Stephen Muddie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maple Leaf Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 Personally I hope it is an enforced break. I'm shocked at how many times other people are insulted, called stupid, and called liars without repercussions. How do you know? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tazio Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 How do you know? Good point. Maybe I should reword it as slow repercussions. But then again it is against the rules to question the moderators actions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maple Leaf Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 Good point. Maybe I should reword it as slow repercussions. But then again it is against the rules to question the moderators actions. The point is, if a member is given a warning, or suspended from the thread for a few days, that action isn't published, so other members aren't aware of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chester™ Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 The point is, if a member is given a warning, or suspended from the thread for a few days, that action isn't published, so other members aren't aware of it. This is Nibs we are talking about. He'd be screaming 'conspiracy' if he'd been given a warning! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 Selective debate is selective. Glory hunting, info-style. Really? If I threatened to kill you if you didn't do something I wanted you to... would that encourage you, or disempower you? You could argue that I've enlightened you to the fact that you're going to be in trouble if you don't do what I say. It doesn't matter what you believe in if the person with hand on trigger is telling you you're gonna die if you go your own way. Survival is preferable to dying for a belief for most, no? If you'd like another analogy, you could substitute the death threat chat for simple triangulation tactics in a less lethal situation. I don't think unionists can decide whether the "UK economy is already down the tubes and Scots haven't noticed" or "the UK economy is strong, robust and thriving thus we are better to be daisy-chained onto it." I find that sort of double standard very see-through. Say anything to "win". Why not deal in facts instead of what I might consider fantasistical theorum? It's dead easy to debunk 9/11, really. If you threatened me I'd laugh in your face. There are politics threads elsewhere if you want to moan about your referendum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Muddie Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 (edited) If you threatened me I'd laugh in your face. There are politics threads elsewhere if you want to moan about your referendum. Yes, because I was meaning threatening you and not companies threatening their workers with a metaphorical death. Go you, you've won again (in your head) My referendum, hmm. Very condescending, cold and superior of you to disassociate yourself from something you normally love to slaver about. Forgive me but didn't you carry it on by mentioning how there was "nothing wrong" with bosses telling employees how to vote? (which may actually have its place on this here conspiracy thread, seeing as big business conspired to tell lies that they now tell opposites of, such as "economy strong" "oops economy down the pan, you silly wee Scots just haven't noticed") Think we should leave any reference to corporate fascism there shouldn't we? Edited January 11, 2016 by Stephen Muddie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 Yes, because I was meaning threatening you and not companies threatening their workers with a metaphorical death. Go you, you've won again (in your head) My referendum, hmm. Very condescending, cold and superior of you to disassociate yourself from something you normally love to slaver about. Forgive me but didn't you carry it on by mentioning how there was "nothing wrong" with bosses telling employees how to vote? (which may actually have its place on this here conspiracy thread, seeing as big business conspired to tell lies that they now tell opposites of, such as "economy strong" "oops economy down the pan, you silly wee Scots just haven't noticed") Think we should leave any reference to corporate fascism there shouldn't we? You created the analogy, not me. And if you want to believe that employers influenced the outcome of your referendum (I was an interested observer for the record. The only potential impact on me would have been to obtain Scottish passports for my kids) you bash on. Mind you, next time you might want to consider fundamental things like currency before going to the people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Muddie Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 (edited) You created the analogy, not me. And if you want to believe that employers influenced the outcome of your referendum (I was an interested observer for the record. The only potential impact on me would have been to obtain Scottish passports for my kids) you bash on. Mind you, next time you might want to consider fundamental things like currency before going to the people. I created the analogy. You personally replied to it, in a rather strange way. You could have meant you would have simply rebelled against your boss but I strongly doubt it. You couldn't think of what to say so just went full-on blind smartypants. "If you want to believe that employers influenced the outcome..." Hmmm. I know for a fact they did, as do you, Sir GK... In a previous comment from you there was "nothing wrong" with it, now it's all in my imagination, right? Your manner in this conversation is a little strange. You're a Hearts fan, they are a Scottish club mostly supported by people who live in Edinburgh, the Capital of Scotland, yet it's my referendum and my currency and my whatever else you want to use to belittle the event (You actually talk a bit like I'm someone who had any part in it or influence over it, it's fecking weird), and in your mind, "win" the debate. In reality, currency was hardly an issue. Real assets would underpin chocolate buttons and they would be printed less frequently, even if they melted. Stay away from that trapdoor, Geoff. There's something down there. Anyway, you didn't want to keep carrying on this chat, or have you changed your mind? Edited January 11, 2016 by Stephen Muddie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 I created the analogy. You personally replied to it, in a rather strange way. You could have meant you would have simply rebelled against your boss but I strongly doubt it. You couldn't think of what to say so just went full-on blind smartypants. "If you want to believe that employers influenced the outcome..." Hmmm. I know for a fact they did, as do you, Sir GK... In a previous comment from you there was "nothing wrong" with it, now it's all in my imagination, right? Your manner in this conversation is a little strange. You're a Hearts fan, they are a Scottish club mostly supported by people who live in Edinburgh, the Capital of Scotland, yet it's my referendum and my currency and my whatever else you want to use to belittle the event (You actually talk a bit like I'm someone who had any part in it or influence over it, it's fecking weird), and in your mind, "win" the debate. In reality, currency was hardly an issue. Real assets would underpin chocolate buttons and they would be printed less frequently, even if they melted. Stay away from that trapdoor, Geoff. There's something down there. Anyway, you didn't want to keep carrying on this chat, or have you changed your mind? Hold on! If I'm reading you right you are claiming the "conspiracy" is that Yes didn't win because employers influenced the outcome? This will be good. Evidence please? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussieh Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 Hold on! If I'm reading you right you are claiming the "conspiracy" is that Yes didn't win because employers influenced the outcome? This will be good. Evidence please? 900,000 pensioners 45% of the No vote.Who influenced them?. The impartial UK government Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 900,000 pensioners 45% of the No vote. Who influenced them?. The impartial UK government Um, who claimed the UK Government was impartial? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussieh Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 Um, who claimed the UK Government was impartial?they did.Sorry just noticed its the CT thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Muddie Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 Hold on! If I'm reading you right you are claiming the "conspiracy" is that Yes didn't win because employers influenced the outcome? This will be good. Evidence please? Stop digging Geoff. Also, stop laughing at yourself. (you asked for this, Mr logical failure) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Muddie Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 just noticed its the CT thread. Me too! Weird as **** man. Weird as **** Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 Stop digging Geoff. Also, stop laughing at yourself. (you asked for this, Mr logical failure)You make the claims, you back them up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niblick1874 Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 (edited) . Why not deal in facts instead of what I might consider fantasistical theorum? It's dead easy to debunk 9/11, really. You're having a laugh if you think I will take into consideration what you might consider appropriate. Edited January 13, 2016 by niblick1874 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cigaro Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 ABRACADABRA Between 1 day and 2 weeks later... http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/12/victim-capsule-flight175.htm https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_175 The aftermath section of that should help too. Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk Based on Niblicks nonsense, one tower was not hit by a passenger plane, and presumably that plane is now somewhere else. So niblick, what hit the other tower? Was that a drone as well? Why would the US Military hit one tower with a drone and let the either tower be hit by a passenger plane? Where are all the passengers? Murdered? You're having a laugh if you think I will take into consideration what you might consider appropriate.Now that your ban's been lifted you can address these posts. Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maroonlegions Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Now what was that accusation aimed at Ted Heath again... Senior Cop alleges police involved in cover up of ? "There were allegations, including several police reports about allegations involving members of the yachting fraternity and children from homes, children in effect being loaned out to people and taken on yachting trips. There were a large number of allegations of child abuse taking place which on some occasions didn't appear to have been dealt with properly" Police involvement in systemic abuse of children has reach epidemic proportions. Police officers involved in cover up of paedophile ring, says former Deputy Police Chief A former Deputy Chief Officer of Jersey's police force has today claimed senior police officers were? WWW.ITV.COM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niblick1874 Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Now what was that accusation aimed at Ted Heath again... Senior Cop alleges police involved in cover up of ? "There were allegations, including several police reports about allegations involving members of the yachting fraternity and children from homes, children in effect being loaned out to people and taken on yachting trips. There were a large number of allegations of child abuse taking place which on some occasions didn't appear to have been dealt with properly" Police involvement in systemic abuse of children has reach epidemic proportions. Police officers involved in cover up of paedophile ring, says former Deputy Police Chief A former Deputy Chief Officer of Jersey's police force has today claimed senior police officers were? WWW.ITV.COM It has come out that it was common knowledge that he was caught in public toilets with boys by the police and it was covered up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riddley Walker Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Funny how the mainstream media becomes a credible source when it suits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niblick1874 Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Jersey Police say they have no comment to make while the inquiry continues. What, haul them in and get them under oath Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cigaro Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 It has come out that it was common knowledge that he was caught in public toilets with boys by the police and it was covered up.Hey niblick... Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niblick1874 Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 (edited) Funny how the mainstream media becomes a credible source when it suits. You are not covering yourself in glory with that. They have no choice but to report on this and they can't turn it into an opinion peace because of the subject matter, that, and they can't screw with court testimony Are you really going to try and play silly ****** with this? Edited January 13, 2016 by niblick1874 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Muddie Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Funny how the mainstream media becomes a credible source when it suits. I'm surprised it ever made there. I've known about this for years. Not saying it's credible only that it's made it there, eventually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riddley Walker Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 You are not covering yourself in glory with that. They have no choice but to report on this and they can't turn it into an opinion peace because of the subject matter, that, and they can't screw with court testimony Are you really going to try and play silly ****** with this? No. I'm not talking about the specifics in this case. I was pointing out the hypocrisy in your continuous slating of the MSM and discussion of its control by external forces. Yet when they report something that fits your story you are more than happy to quote them and lay down links. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niblick1874 Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 (edited) No. I'm not talking about the specifics in this case. I was pointing out the hypocrisy in your continuous slating of the MSM and discussion of its control by external forces. Yet when they report something that fits your story you are more than happy to quote them and lay down links. I was commentating on a link that ML left. I did not lay down the link as you claim. I could have easily berated the link for being 10 years to late but I am not going to nit pick as you have with your juvenile and of the mark point scoring with this. I could have easily found a link from somewhere on the internet that was years old (10 years or more) saying the same things as the quotes from the court case. As I said, when it comes to quotes from a court case (which this was) it is one of the rare times I will take what I read in the MSM at face value and what was said in court was the whole point of why ML posted that link. This was not your usual opinion piece dressed up as reporting the facts, so you're wrong to think you can disregard the specifics. How about being bigger than this and discussing what was in the link, or do you just come on here to take the conversation away from the subject. You are coming across as a troll on this thread which I know you are not like on any other thread I have watched you post on. What do you think of what was being reported in the link? Edited January 14, 2016 by niblick1874 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Muddie Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 You're having a laugh if you think I will take into consideration what you might consider appropriate. That's a bit harsh My theories make much more sense than yours Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cigaro Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 I was commentating on a link that ML left. I did not lay down the link as you claim. I could have easily berated the link for being 10 years to late but I am not going to nit pick as you have with your juvenile and of the mark point scoring with this. I could have easily found a link from somewhere on the internet that was years old (10 years or more) saying the same things as the quotes from the court case. As I said, when it comes to quotes from a court case (which this was) it is one of the rare times I will take what I read in the MSM at face value and what was said in court was the whole point of why ML posted that link. This was not your usual opinion piece dressed up as reporting the facts, so you're wrong to think you can disregard the specifics. How about being bigger than this and discussing what was in the link, or do you just come on here to take the conversation away from the subject. You are coming across as a troll on this thread which I know you are not like on any other thread I have watched you post on. What do you think of what was being reported in the link? How about being the bigger man and discussing what was in the flight 175 passenger links? Seems you're ignoring it as it doesn't fit in with your theory. Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maroonlegions Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 (edited) Our masters and overlords love us.., they really do folks,so much so that they have rigged the already rigged global financial and political institutions even more with the new TTP. Control a nation's political and financial institutions and you control that nation but endorse it globally and the end game is in sight. Globalisation or the global village is a front for the back door introduction of a global fascist one party state, Cameron is trying it here already in some forms. You can read the full text of the TPP here Our Worst Nightmares Confirmed: Full Text of TPP Finally Revealed "Worse than anything we could've imagined." ANONHQ.COM Edited January 15, 2016 by maroonlegions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tazio Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 So horrendous it's taken you over 2 months to post it. And it's TPP not TTP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niblick1874 Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 Our masters and overlords love us.., they really do folks,so much so that they have rigged the already rigged global financial and political institutions even more with the new TTP. Control a nation's political and financial institutions and you control that nation but endorse it globally and the end game is in sight. Globalisation or the global village is a front for the back door introduction of a global fascist one party state, Cameron is trying it here already in some forms. You can read the full text of the TPP here Our Worst Nightmares Confirmed: Full Text of TPP Finally Revealed "Worse than anything we could've imagined." ANONHQ.COM Yep, now that the TPP is in place the last piece of the puzzle is there for everyone to see (well not really, we will just have to rely on the whistle blowers to find out what's in it) and is being put in place as we speak. We're ok though, because all the clever clogs and trolls on here have got it all figured out and there is nothing to see. Hell, they wont even bother reading the link you left them because.................... Well, just because. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cigaro Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 Yep, now that the TPP is in place the last piece of the puzzle is there for everyone to see (well not really, we will just have to rely on the whistle blowers to find out what's in it) and is being put in place as we speak. We're ok though, because all the clever clogs and trolls on here have got it all figured out and there is nothing to see. Hell, they wont even bother reading the link you left them because.................... Well, just because.Like how you won't read and comment on the multiple flight 175 passenger links? Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Muddie Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 TTIP is how we are going to be American. TPP is how Oz is going to be American. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.