06-04-2012, 08:27 PM
Mr. Orling, rather than use up valuable bandwidth, I have not copied your post #23, but I do have it open in front of me in a separate window and will dictate a response as I read it.
"Take Katrina for example..." Here in the 2nd paragraph, you're already off topic and off target. But let's take Katrina for example; it's a subject I've studied and it lies in the heart of my personal and professional interests and I've published on the topic. That does not make me an expert, I wasn't in New Orleans at any time, and I won't follow your lead to divert this examination of 9/11, except to say that to say "no one claimed it was a planned act" suggests that you are either incompletely informed, have rejected those species entirely, or perhaps are engaged in further diversion.
The 3rd paragraph is an apology for the failed conspiracy theory as espoused by the United States government in a slapstick fashion. It continues to suggest that some people opposed to the abuses of the United States and of a Muslim derivation were principally the actors (or perhaps at the "mechanic" stage), this despite reams of evidence and information (all archived and in continual dissemination despite efforts by many at suppression) of the role of Israeli intelligence acting in various modes of deception and or through the offices of the United States government, its intelligence agencies, its military, the software used by those agencies, surveillance of the operation at every stage, and more. You and others can continue to ignore this information at your pleasure and leisure; you cannot, however, brush away the mounting evidence and analysis done by many with a long 20-paragraph essay.
The 3rd paragraph is mirrored in the 9th paragraph and its discussion of "gross negligence and incompetence", neatly sidestepping any possibility of exploring intent or parallel histories with an argument that has been destroyed several times over in the years past. [Try to catch up, Jeffrey.] As is said on the back cover of the aforementioned "Disconnecting the Dots", "there is a pattern to these events". For example, we could examine the history of Israel using explosives in false flag events, or its use of masquerade identities and the natural and inherent ability of its agents to look something like a Middle Easterner.
But I appreciate the effort, Jeffrey. It's just that I'm not going to waste any more time trying to digest it, though it surely has some nutritious value somewhere for someone.
"Take Katrina for example..." Here in the 2nd paragraph, you're already off topic and off target. But let's take Katrina for example; it's a subject I've studied and it lies in the heart of my personal and professional interests and I've published on the topic. That does not make me an expert, I wasn't in New Orleans at any time, and I won't follow your lead to divert this examination of 9/11, except to say that to say "no one claimed it was a planned act" suggests that you are either incompletely informed, have rejected those species entirely, or perhaps are engaged in further diversion.
The 3rd paragraph is an apology for the failed conspiracy theory as espoused by the United States government in a slapstick fashion. It continues to suggest that some people opposed to the abuses of the United States and of a Muslim derivation were principally the actors (or perhaps at the "mechanic" stage), this despite reams of evidence and information (all archived and in continual dissemination despite efforts by many at suppression) of the role of Israeli intelligence acting in various modes of deception and or through the offices of the United States government, its intelligence agencies, its military, the software used by those agencies, surveillance of the operation at every stage, and more. You and others can continue to ignore this information at your pleasure and leisure; you cannot, however, brush away the mounting evidence and analysis done by many with a long 20-paragraph essay.
The 3rd paragraph is mirrored in the 9th paragraph and its discussion of "gross negligence and incompetence", neatly sidestepping any possibility of exploring intent or parallel histories with an argument that has been destroyed several times over in the years past. [Try to catch up, Jeffrey.] As is said on the back cover of the aforementioned "Disconnecting the Dots", "there is a pattern to these events". For example, we could examine the history of Israel using explosives in false flag events, or its use of masquerade identities and the natural and inherent ability of its agents to look something like a Middle Easterner.
But I appreciate the effort, Jeffrey. It's just that I'm not going to waste any more time trying to digest it, though it surely has some nutritious value somewhere for someone.
"Where is the intersection between the world's deep hunger and your deep gladness?"