how exactly is a drill supposed to cover up anything when the faa calls and says "in case you werent sure, this isnt a drill"

generally when you want something to work as a cover you dont spell things out for people like that

but then again... im probably bringing too much logic into this

4/8/2006 2:48:02 PM

Quote :

"how exactly is a drill supposed to cover up anything when the faa calls and says "in case you werent sure, this isnt a drill" "

Are you suggesting that NORAD, the FAA, and the U.S. Air Defense responded according to standard procedure on the morning of 9/11? Because it seems pretty clear that they didn't. Before 9/11, the U.S. Air Defense routinely intercepted aircraft that went off course, most often within 15-20 minutes (as in the case of golfer Payne Stewart's plane in 1999).

Between September 2000 and June 2001 the Pentagon launched fighters on 67 occasions to escort wayward aircraft. But on 9/11, NORAD and the FAA ignored routine procedures, and the fighter jet interceptors were launched way too late.

The drills on the morning of 9/11 were one of the things used to delay and prevent an effective response.

4/8/2006 2:59:45 PM

im pretty clearly asking why the faa would call and confirm that it was not a drill if they were trying to use this as cover or delay

[Edited on April 8, 2006 at 3:06 PM. Reason : .]

4/8/2006 3:06:05 PM

Quote :

"why the faa would call and confirm that it was not a drill if they were trying to use this as cover or delay"

The point is that the drills helped DELAY a proper response.

Trying to understand why the orchestrators of the attacks allowed the FAA to confirm it wasn't a drill goes into the area of speculation, but here's what I think. Those orchestrating the failure of NORAD and the U.S. Air Defense on 9/11 wanted to make it appear like a series of little mistakes and coincidences caused the failure of the U.S. Air Defense to intercept the aircraft. Having the FAA not call and confirm the hijacked aircraft would have raised a huge red flag and more quickly exposed the fact that it was an inside job, and people within the U.S. intentionally allowed it to happen.

4/8/2006 3:27:13 PM

but it didnt delay things, so what was the point. you can argue that other steps were taken to prevent interceptors, but that just makes it even more confusing why they needed to try to get a few extra minutes of delay if there were already plans to hold the interceptors.

the cover story just doesnt make sense

4/8/2006 4:35:51 PM

Quote :

"And, as I stated, the Steve Jackson game is merely anecdotal evidence of prior knowledge."

So are you saying that Steve Jackson is a part of the NWO? How else would he have prior knowledge?

You're going to have prove that this is more than a coincidence. Obviously, if you write down 600 possible events, chances are that one of them will occur in the next decade.



"The Oakland based band, Coup, released their new album on July 19, 1991. The front cover eerily depicts the World Trade Center Towers exploding in smoke. The album has been pulled and the album cover replaced."

So is this more anecdotal evidence of 9/11 prior knowledge too? Is the rap industry a part of the Illuminati as well?

4/8/2006 4:38:56 PM

THE RAP INDUSTRY IS DEFINITELY PART OF THE LOLMINATI

Quote :

" Name just one piece of evidence I've presented here in this thread that is "full of holes.""

FOR STARTERS
THE USA TODAY ARTICLE
AND
THE CARD GAME

BUT THEN AGAIN
YOU REFUSE TO LISTEN TO THOSE
SO WHY BOTHER TO LOOK AT ANY OF YOUR OTHER "POINTS"

ITS MUCH EASIER TO TROLL AND SAY "THIS FUCKIN' GUY"

HOPEFULLY PEOPLE SEE HOW MUCH OF A RACIST WHACKJOB YOU ARE




THIS FUCKIN' GUY

4/8/2006 8:09:51 PM

omg more coincidencez!!11!!!1oneone

1) New York City has 11 letters

2) Afghanistan has 11 letters.

3) Ramsin Yuseb (The terrorist who threatened to destroy the Twin
Towers in 1993) has 11 letters.

4) George W Bush has 11 letters.

This could be a mere coincidence, but this gets more interesting:

1) New York is the 11th state.

2) The first plane crashing against the Twin Towers was flight number
11.

3) Flight 11 was carrying 92 passengers. 9 + 2 = 11

4) Flight 77 which also hit Twin Towers, was carrying 65 passengers.
6+5 = 11

5) The tragedy was on September 11, or 9/11 as it is now known. 9 + 1+ 1 = 11

6) The date is equal to the US emergency services telephone number 911.
9 + 1 + 1 = 11.

Sheer coincidence..?! Read on and make up your own mind:

1) The total number of victims inside all the hi-jacked planes was 254. >2 + 5 + 4 = 11.

2) September 11 is day number 254 of the calendar year.
Again 2 + 5 + 4 = 11.

3) The Madrid bombing took place on 3/11/2004. 3 + 1 + 1 + 2 + 4 = 11.

4) The tragedy of Madrid happened 911 days after the Twin Towers
incident.

4/9/2006 12:27:27 AM

i'm convinced now that pythagoras and euclid had something to do with this

they're from the math branch of the LOLminati

4/9/2006 12:44:46 AM

flight 93> 9+3=12
flight 175> 1+7+5=13
flight 77> 7+7=14

omfg it all adds up to 11!!!!!111oneoneone

4/10/2006 1:47:21 AM

Quote :

"but it didnt delay things"

YES, the drills did delay the proper response by NORAD on 9/11. The drills confused the FAA and NORAD and cost them minutes in response time.

Quote :

"the cover story just doesnt make sense"

It makes perfect sense. You are just using denial tactics.

Quote :

"HOPEFULLY PEOPLE SEE HOW MUCH OF A RACIST WHACKJOB YOU ARE"

I've already admitted that I am a "racist" (under today's politically correct definition of the term). So, try to smear me by calling me a "racist" all you want. I don't care.

Quote :

"ITS MUCH EASIER TO TROLL "

There you go. No use in denying you're a troll now. It's too obvious. Now that you're admitting the obvious, why don't you just admit 9/11 was an inside job too?

4/10/2006 8:01:14 AM

iran

nukes

isreal

ice cream

where's the connection?

4/10/2006 9:34:54 AM

the only time i've ever not trolled your threads is when i was trying to find out how many cards are in that game, which in the end YOU HAVE TOTALLY IGNORED

i've never once denied my attempts

BECAUSE ITS NOT LIKE YOU LISTEN TO YOUR DETRACTORS WHEN THEY AREN'T TROLLING

so why bother to not troll





THIS FUCKIN' GUY

4/10/2006 9:52:44 AM

THIS FUCKIN' GUY

4/10/2006 10:12:08 AM

Quote :

"The drills confused the FAA and NORAD and cost them minutes in response time."

well nothing you have shown me said they cost minutes

but if they did, that is a lot of risk and trouble to gain some minutes especially if they already knew they were going to delay interceptors like you said

it doesnt make sense

4/10/2006 10:19:57 AM

Quote :

"omg more coincidencez!!11!!!1oneone 1) New York City has 11 letters 2) Afghanistan has 11 letters. 3) Ramsin Yuseb (The terrorist who threatened to destroy the Twin Towers in 1993) has 11 letters. 4) George W Bush has 11 letters. This could be a mere coincidence, but this gets more interesting: 1) New York is the 11th state. 2) The first plane crashing against the Twin Towers was flight number 11. 3) Flight 11 was carrying 92 passengers. 9 + 2 = 11 4) Flight 77 which also hit Twin Towers, was carrying 65 passengers. 6+5 = 11 5) The tragedy was on September 11, or 9/11 as it is now known. 9 + 1+ 1 = 11 6) The date is equal to the US emergency services telephone number 911. 9 + 1 + 1 = 11. Sheer coincidence..?! Read on and make up your own mind: 1) The total number of victims inside all the hi-jacked planes was 254. >2 + 5 + 4 = 11. 2) September 11 is day number 254 of the calendar year. Again 2 + 5 + 4 = 11. 3) The Madrid bombing took place on 3/11/2004. 3 + 1 + 1 + 2 + 4 = 11. 4) The tragedy of Madrid happened 911 days after the Twin Towers incident."

Not sure if anybody pointed this out yet, but the twin towers themselves were a giant number 11!

4/10/2006 12:10:02 PM

4/10/2006 12:13:15 PM

1967 ISRAELI ATTACK ON THE U.S.S LIBERTY AND THE ENSUING COVER-UP: PROOF OF ZIONIST CONTROL OVER U.S. GOVERNMENT GOING BACK TO 1967. ATTEMPTED "FALSE-FLAG" ATTACK?

Summary

The Israeli attack on the U.S.S. Liberty is one of the most stunning and defining events in American history, demonstrating the Zionist control over the U.S. Government, and their use of "false-flag" attacks where they carry out attacks and blame their enemies.

On June 8, 1967, in the midst of the Israeli-Arab "Six-Day War", the Israeli military deliberately attacked the U.S.S. Liberty, an unarmed reconnaissance and intelligence ship of the U.S. Navy, which was prominently flying a large American flag in the waters of the Mediterranean Sea off the coast of Gaza. The Israeli assault occurred over a two-hour span, and consisted of rocket, cannon, and napalm bombing from fighter jets, torpedo boat attacks, and machine gun fire from Israeli warships. In all, 34 American sailors were killed and 173 wounded.

It is stunning enough that our supposed "ally" Israel would intentionally attack the United States, but the ensuing cover-up of the incident is even more astounding. The White House and Congress immediately accepted Israel's claim that it was an "accident", and worked to cover-up the incident. Later, President Lyndon Johnson and defense secretary Robert McNamara ordered that the military investigation into the attack conclude the incident was an "accident." And, to this day, the mainstream media has suppressed the incident.

Why would Israel deliberately attack the U.S.S. Liberty? The most likely goal was to blame the attack on Egypt and draw the United States into the Israeli-Arab conflict on the side of Israel. The only problem was that they failed to sink the ship and kill all the sailors, thus preventing them from carrying out the plan. Another possible motivation could have been because the Liberty had gathered information disadvantageous to Israel, including Israeli plans to invade Syria the next day and that Israel had initiated the war and attacked Egypt first.


Lyndon Johnson Ordered Cover-Up of Israeli Attack on USS Liberty
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/23/national/main579649.shtml

Quote :

"Did LBJ Cover For Israel? WASHINGTON, Oct. 23, 2003 (AP) A former Navy attorney who helped lead the military investigation of the 1967 Israeli attack on the USS Liberty that killed 34 American servicemen says former President Lyndon Johnson and his defense secretary, Robert McNamara, ordered that the inquiry conclude the incident was an accident. [...] It was "one of the classic all-American cover-ups," said Ret. Adm. Thomas Moorer, a former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman who spent a year investigating the attack as part of an independent panel he formed with other former military officials. [...] Moorer's panel suggested several possible reasons Israel might have wanted to attack a U.S. ship. Among them: Israel intended to sink the ship and blame Egypt because it might have brought the United States into the 1967 war."

'The USS Liberty': America's Most Shameful Secret
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/margolis12.html

Washington’s Fateful Cover-Up of Israel’s Attack on the USS Liberty
http://www.washington-report.org/archives/August_2005/0508016.html

Archive on USS Liberty Cover-up
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ussliberty.html


So, Zionist Israel can attack a U.S. Naval Ship, kill 34 and wound 173 American sailors, then the whole thing gets covered up, and it's supposed to be "no big deal"?. Compare this to 9/11, where 5 Israeli Mossad agents are arrested after seen filming the WTC attack and celebrating, and around 200 Israeli spies are detained around 9/11 in connection to the 9/11 attacks. But, like the U.S.S. Liberty incident, the incidents are covered-up and the information is suppressed.

Who can deny that Zionist "Israel" would attack the U.S.? Who can deny the Zionist control over our government?


[Edited on April 10, 2006 at 12:18 PM. Reason : `]

4/10/2006 12:16:20 PM

4/10/2006 12:39:35 PM

JOHN, by the grace of God King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and Count of Anjou, to his archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justices, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all his officials and loyal subjects, Greeting.

KNOW THAT BEFORE GOD, for the health of our soul and those of our ancestors and heirs, to the honour of God, the exaltation of the holy Church, and the better ordering of our kingdom, at the advice of our reverend fathers Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England, and cardinal of the holy Roman Church, Henry archbishop of Dublin, William bishop of London, Peter bishop of Winchester, Jocelin bishop of Bath and Glastonbury, Hugh bishop of Lincoln, Walter Bishop of Worcester, William bishop of Coventry, Benedict bishop of Rochester, Master Pandulf subdeacon and member of the papal household, Brother Aymeric master of the knighthood of the Temple in England, William Marshal earl of Pembroke, William earl of Salisbury, William earl of Warren, William earl of Arundel, Alan de Galloway constable of Scotland, Warin Fitz Gerald, Peter Fitz Herbert, Hubert de Burgh seneschal of Poitou, Hugh de Neville, Matthew Fitz Herbert, Thomas Basset, Alan Basset, Philip Daubeny, Robert de Roppeley, John Marshal, John Fitz Hugh, and other loyal subjects:

+ (1) FIRST, THAT WE HAVE GRANTED TO GOD, and by this present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired. That we wish this so to be observed, appears from the fact that of our own free will, before the outbreak of the present dispute between us and our barons, we granted and confirmed by charter the freedom of the Church's elections - a right reckoned to be of the greatest necessity and importance to it - and caused this to be confirmed by Pope Innocent III. This freedom we shall observe ourselves, and desire to be observed in good faith by our heirs in perpetuity.

TO ALL FREE MEN OF OUR KINGDOM we have also granted, for us and our heirs for ever, all the liberties written out below, to have and to keep for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs:

(2) If any earl, baron, or other person that holds lands directly of the Crown, for military service, shall die, and at his death his heir shall be of full age and owe a 'relief', the heir shall have his inheritance on payment of the ancient scale of 'relief'. That is to say, the heir or heirs of an earl shall pay £100 for the entire earl's barony, the heir or heirs of a knight l00s. at most for the entire knight's 'fee', and any man that owes less shall pay less, in accordance with the ancient usage of 'fees'

(3) But if the heir of such a person is under age and a ward, when he comes of age he shall have his inheritance without 'relief' or fine.

(4) The guardian of the land of an heir who is under age shall take from it only reasonable revenues, customary dues, and feudal services. He shall do this without destruction or damage to men or property. If we have given the guardianship of the land to a sheriff, or to any person answerable to us for the revenues, and he commits destruction or damage, we will exact compensation from him, and the land shall be entrusted to two worthy and prudent men of the same 'fee', who shall be answerable to us for the revenues, or to the person to whom we have assigned them. If we have given or sold to anyone the guardianship of such land, and he causes destruction or damage, he shall lose the guardianship of it, and it shall be handed over to two worthy and prudent men of the same 'fee', who shall be similarly answerable to us.

(5) For so long as a guardian has guardianship of such land, he shall maintain the houses, parks, fish preserves, ponds, mills, and everything else pertaining to it, from the revenues of the land itself. When the heir comes of age, he shall restore the whole land to him, stocked with plough teams and such implements of husbandry as the season demands and the revenues from the land can reasonably bear.

(6) Heirs may be given in marriage, but not to someone of lower social standing. Before a marriage takes place, it shall be' made known to the heir's next-of-kin.

(7) At her husband's death, a widow may have her marriage portion and inheritance at once and without trouble. She shall pay nothing for her dower, marriage portion, or any inheritance that she and her husband held jointly on the day of his death. She may remain in her husband's house for forty days after his death, and within this period her dower shall be assigned to her.

(8) No widow shall be compelled to marry, so long as she wishes to remain without a husband. But she must give security that she will not marry without royal consent, if she holds her lands of the Crown, or without the consent of whatever other lord she may hold them of.

(9) Neither we nor our officials will seize any land or rent in payment of a debt, so long as the debtor has movable goods sufficient to discharge the debt. A debtor's sureties shall not be distrained upon so long as the debtor himself can discharge his debt. If, for lack of means, the debtor is unable to discharge his debt, his sureties shall be answerable for it. If they so desire, they may have the debtor's lands and rents until they have received satisfaction for the debt that they paid for him, unless the debtor can show that he has settled his obligations to them.

* (10) If anyone who has borrowed a sum of money from Jews dies before the debt has been repaid, his heir shall pay no interest on the debt for so long as he remains under age, irrespective of whom he holds his lands. If such a debt falls into the hands of the Crown, it will take nothing except the principal sum specified in the bond.

* (11) If a man dies owing money to Jews, his wife may have her dower and pay nothing towards the debt from it. If he leaves children that are under age, their needs may also be provided for on a scale appropriate to the size of his holding of lands. The debt is to be paid out of the residue, reserving the service due to his feudal lords. Debts owed to persons other than Jews are to be dealt with similarly.

* (12) No 'scutage' or 'aid' may be levied in our kingdom without its general consent, unless it is for the ransom of our person, to make our eldest son a knight, and (once) to marry our eldest daughter. For these purposes only a reasonable 'aid' may be levied. 'Aids' from the city of London are to be treated similarly.

+ (13) The city of London shall enjoy all its ancient liberties and free customs, both by land and by water. We also will and grant that all other cities, boroughs, towns, and ports shall enjoy all their liberties and free customs.

* (14) To obtain the general consent of the realm for the assessment of an 'aid' - except in the three cases specified above - or a 'scutage', we will cause the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, and greater barons to be summoned individually by letter. To those who hold lands directly of us we will cause a general summons to be issued, through the sheriffs and other officials, to come together on a fixed day (of which at least forty days notice shall be given) and at a fixed place. In all letters of summons, the cause of the summons will be stated. When a summons has been issued, the business appointed for the day shall go forward in accordance with the resolution of those present, even if not all those who were summoned have appeared.

* (15) In future we will allow no one to levy an 'aid' from his free men, except to ransom his person, to make his eldest son a knight, and (once) to marry his eldest daughter. For these purposes only a reasonable 'aid' may be levied.

(16) No man shall be forced to perform more service for a knight's 'fee', or other free holding of land, than is due from it.

(17) Ordinary lawsuits shall not follow the royal court around, but shall be held in a fixed place.

(18) Inquests of novel disseisin, mort d'ancestor, and darrein presentment shall be taken only in their proper county court. We ourselves, or in our absence abroad our chief justice, will send two justices to each county four times a year, and these justices, with four knights of the county elected by the county itself, shall hold the assizes in the county court, on the day and in the place where the court meets.

(19) If any assizes cannot be taken on the day of the county court, as many knights and freeholders shall afterwards remain behind, of those who have attended the court, as will suffice for the administration of justice, having regard to the volume of business to be done.

4/10/2006 12:40:17 PM

(20) For a trivial offence, a free man shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood. In the same way, a merchant shall be spared his merchandise, and a husbandman the implements of his husbandry, if they fall upon the mercy of a royal court. None of these fines shall be imposed except by the assessment on oath of reputable men of the neighbourhood.

(21) Earls and barons shall be fined only by their equals, and in proportion to the gravity of their offence.

(22) A fine imposed upon the lay property of a clerk in holy orders shall be assessed upon the same principles, without reference to the value of his ecclesiastical benefice.

(23) No town or person shall be forced to build bridges over rivers except those with an ancient obligation to do so.

(24) No sheriff, constable, coroners, or other royal officials are to hold lawsuits that should be held by the royal justices.

* (25) Every county, hundred, wapentake, and tithing shall remain at its ancient rent, without increase, except the royal demesne manors.

(26) If at the death of a man who holds a lay 'fee' of the Crown, a sheriff or royal official produces royal letters patent of summons for a debt due to the Crown, it shall be lawful for them to seize and list movable goods found in the lay 'fee' of the dead man to the value of the debt, as assessed by worthy men. Nothing shall be removed until the whole debt is paid, when the residue shall be given over to the executors to carry out the dead man s will. If no debt is due to the Crown, all the movable goods shall be regarded as the property of the dead man, except the reasonable shares of his wife and children.

* (27) If a free man dies intestate, his movable goods are to be distributed by his next-of-kin and friends, under the supervision of the Church. The rights of his debtors are to be preserved.

(28) No constable or other royal official shall take corn or other movable goods from any man without immediate payment, unless the seller voluntarily offers postponement of this.

(29) No constable may compel a knight to pay money for castle-guard if the knight is willing to undertake the guard in person, or with reasonable excuse to supply some other fit man to do it. A knight taken or sent on military service shall be excused from castle-guard for the period of this servlce.

(30) No sheriff, royal official, or other person shall take horses or carts for transport from any free man, without his consent.

(31) Neither we nor any royal official will take wood for our castle, or for any other purpose, without the consent of the owner.

(32) We will not keep the lands of people convicted of felony in our hand for longer than a year and a day, after which they shall be returned to the lords of the 'fees' concerned.

(33) All fish-weirs shall be removed from the Thames, the Medway, and throughout the whole of England, except on the sea coast.

(34) The writ called precipe shall not in future be issued to anyone in respect of any holding of land, if a free man could thereby be deprived of the right of trial in his own lord's court.

(35) There shall be standard measures of wine, ale, and corn (the London quarter), throughout the kingdom. There shall also be a standard width of dyed cloth, russett, and haberject, namely two ells within the selvedges. Weights are to be standardised similarly.

(36) In future nothing shall be paid or accepted for the issue of a writ of inquisition of life or limbs. It shall be given gratis, and not refused.

(37) If a man holds land of the Crown by 'fee-farm', 'socage', or 'burgage', and also holds land of someone else for knight's service, we will not have guardianship of his heir, nor of the land that belongs to the other person's 'fee', by virtue of the 'fee-farm', 'socage', or 'burgage', unless the 'fee-farm' owes knight's service. We will not have the guardianship of a man's heir, or of land that he holds of someone else, by reason of any small property that he may hold of the Crown for a service of knives, arrows, or the like.

(38) In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.

+ (39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.

+ (40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.

(41) All merchants may enter or leave England unharmed and without fear, and may stay or travel within it, by land or water, for purposes of trade, free from all illegal exactions, in accordance with ancient and lawful customs. This, however, does not apply in time of war to merchants from a country that is at war with us. Any such merchants found in our country at the outbreak of war shall be detained without injury to their persons or property, until we or our chief justice have discovered how our own merchants are being treated in the country at war with us. If our own merchants are safe they shall be safe too.

* (42) In future it shall be lawful for any man to leave and return to our kingdom unharmed and without fear, by land or water, preserving his allegiance to us, except in time of war, for some short period, for the common benefit of the realm. People that have been imprisoned or outlawed in accordance with the law of the land, people from a country that is at war with us, and merchants - who shall be dealt with as stated above - are excepted from this provision.

(43) If a man holds lands of any 'escheat' such as the 'honour' of Wallingford, Nottingham, Boulogne, Lancaster, or of other 'escheats' in our hand that are baronies, at his death his heir shall give us only the 'relief' and service that he would have made to the baron, had the barony been in the baron's hand. We will hold the 'escheat' in the same manner as the baron held it.

(44) People who live outside the forest need not in future appear before the royal justices of the forest in answer to general summonses, unless they are actually involved in proceedings or are sureties for someone who has been seized for a forest offence.

* (45) We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or other officials, only men that know the law of the realm and are minded to keep it well.

(46) All barons who have founded abbeys, and have charters of English kings or ancient tenure as evidence of this, may have guardianship of them when there is no abbot, as is their due.

(47) All forests that have been created in our reign shall at once be disafforested. River-banks that have been enclosed in our reign shall be treated similarly.

* (48) All evil customs relating to forests and warrens, foresters, warreners, sheriffs and their servants, or river-banks and their wardens, are at once to be investigated in every county by twelve sworn knights of the county, and within forty days of their enquiry the evil customs are to be abolished completely and irrevocably. But we, or our chief justice if we are not in England, are first to be informed.

* (49) We will at once return all hostages and charters delivered up to us by Englishmen as security for peace or for loyal service.

4/10/2006 12:40:38 PM

* (50) We will remove completely from their offices the kinsmen of Gerard de Athée, and in future they shall hold no offices in England. The people in question are Engelard de Cigogné', Peter, Guy, and Andrew de Chanceaux, Guy de Cigogné, Geoffrey de Martigny and his brothers, Philip Marc and his brothers, with Geoffrey his nephew, and all their followers.

* (51) As soon as peace is restored, we will remove from the kingdom all the foreign knights, bowmen, their attendants, and the mercenaries that have come to it, to its harm, with horses and arms.

* (52) To any man whom we have deprived or dispossessed of lands, castles, liberties, or rights, without the lawful judgement of his equals, we will at once restore these. In cases of dispute the matter shall be resolved by the judgement of the twenty-five barons referred to below in the clause for securing the peace (§ 61). In cases, however, where a man was deprived or dispossessed of something without the lawful judgement of his equals by our father King Henry or our brother King Richard, and it remains in our hands or is held by others under our warranty, we shall have respite for the period commonly allowed to Crusaders, unless a lawsuit had been begun, or an enquiry had been made at our order, before we took the Cross as a Crusader. On our return from the Crusade, or if we abandon it, we will at once render justice in full.

* (53) We shall have similar respite in rendering justice in connexion with forests that are to be disafforested, or to remain forests, when these were first a-orested by our father Henry or our brother Richard; with the guardianship of lands in another person's 'fee', when we have hitherto had this by virtue of a 'fee' held of us for knight's service by a third party; and with abbeys founded in another person's 'fee', in which the lord of the 'fee' claims to own a right. On our return from the Crusade, or if we abandon it, we will at once do full justice to complaints about these matters.

(54) No one shall be arrested or imprisoned on the appeal of a woman for the death of any person except her husband.

* (55) All fines that have been given to us unjustly and against the law of the land, and all fines that we have exacted unjustly, shall be entirely remitted or the matter decided by a majority judgement of the twenty-five barons referred to below in the clause for securing the peace (§ 61) together with Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, if he can be present, and such others as he wishes to bring with him. If the archbishop cannot be present, proceedings shall continue without him, provided that if any of the twenty-five barons has been involved in a similar suit himself, his judgement shall be set aside, and someone else chosen and sworn in his place, as a substitute for the single occasion, by the rest of the twenty-five.

(56) If we have deprived or dispossessed any Welshmen of lands, liberties, or anything else in England or in Wales, without the lawful judgement of their equals, these are at once to be returned to them. A dispute on this point shall be determined in the Marches by the judgement of equals. English law shall apply to holdings of land in England, Welsh law to those in Wales, and the law of the Marches to those in the Marches. The Welsh shall treat us and ours in the same way.

* (57) In cases where a Welshman was deprived or dispossessed of anything, without the lawful judgement of his equals, by our father King Henry or our brother King Richard, and it remains in our hands or is held by others under our warranty, we shall have respite for the period commonly allowed to Crusaders, unless a lawsuit had been begun, or an enquiry had been made at our order, before we took the Cross as a Crusader. But on our return from the Crusade, or if we abandon it, we will at once do full justice according to the laws of Wales and the said regions.

* (58) We will at once return the son of Llywelyn, all Welsh hostages, and the charters delivered to us as security for the peace.

* (59) With regard to the return of the sisters and hostages of Alexander, king of Scotland, his liberties and his rights, we will treat him in the same way as our other barons of England, unless it appears from the charters that we hold from his father William, formerly king of Scotland, that he should be treated otherwise. This matter shall be resolved by the judgement of his equals in our court.

(60) All these customs and liberties that we have granted shall be observed in our kingdom in so far as concerns our own relations with our subjects. Let all men of our kingdom, whether clergy or laymen, observe them similarly in their relations with their own men.

* (61) SINCE WE HAVE GRANTED ALL THESE THINGS for God, for the better ordering of our kingdom, and to allay the discord that has arisen between us and our barons, and since we desire that they shall be enjoyed in their entirety, with lasting strength, for ever, we give and grant to the barons the following security:

The barons shall elect twenty-five of their number to keep, and cause to be observed with all their might, the peace and liberties granted and confirmed to them by this charter.
If we, our chief justice, our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security, and the offence is made known to four of the said twenty-five barons, they shall come to us - or in our absence from the kingdom to the chief justice - to declare it and claim immediate redress. If we, or in our absence abroad the chiefjustice, make no redress within forty days, reckoning from the day on which the offence was declared to us or to him, the four barons shall refer the matter to the rest of the twenty-five barons, who may distrain upon and assail us in every way possible, with the support of the whole community of the land, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or anything else saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured such redress as they have determined upon. Having secured the redress, they may then resume their normal obedience to us.

Any man who so desires may take an oath to obey the commands of the twenty-five barons for the achievement of these ends, and to join with them in assailing us to the utmost of his power. We give public and free permission to take this oath to any man who so desires, and at no time will we prohibit any man from taking it. Indeed, we will compel any of our subjects who are unwilling to take it to swear it at our command.

If-one of the twenty-five barons dies or leaves the country, or is prevented in any other way from discharging his duties, the rest of them shall choose another baron in his place, at their discretion, who shall be duly sworn in as they were.

In the event of disagreement among the twenty-five barons on any matter referred to them for decision, the verdict of the majority present shall have the same validity as a unanimous verdict of the whole twenty-five, whether these were all present or some of those summoned were unwilling or unable to appear.

The twenty-five barons shall swear to obey all the above articles faithfully, and shall cause them to be obeyed by others to the best of their power.

We will not seek to procure from anyone, either by our own efforts or those of a third party, anything by which any part of these concessions or liberties might be revoked or diminished. Should such a thing be procured, it shall be null and void and we will at no time make use of it, either ourselves or through a third party.

* (62) We have remitted and pardoned fully to all men any ill-will, hurt, or grudges that have arisen between us and our subjects, whether clergy or laymen, since the beginning of the dispute. We have in addition remitted fully, and for our own part have also pardoned, to all clergy and laymen any offences committed as a result of the said dispute between Easter in the sixteenth year of our reign (i.e. 1215) and the restoration of peace.

In addition we have caused letters patent to be made for the barons, bearing witness to this security and to the concessions set out above, over the seals of Stephen archbishop of Canterbury, Henry archbishop of Dublin, the other bishops named above, and Master Pandulf.

* (63) IT IS ACCORDINGLY OUR WISH AND COMMAND that the English Church shall be free, and that men in our kingdom shall have and keep all these liberties, rights, and concessions, well and peaceably in their fulness and entirety for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs, in all things and all places for ever.

Both we and the barons have sworn that all this shall be observed in good faith and without deceit. Witness the abovementioned people and many others.

Given by our hand in the meadow that is called Runnymede, between Windsor and Staines, on the fifteenth day of June in the seventeenth year of our reign (i.e. 1215: the new regnal year began on 28 May).

4/10/2006 12:41:06 PM

Quote :

"And, to this day, the mainstream media has suppressed the incident."

Quote :

"Lyndon Johnson Ordered Cover-Up of Israeli Attack on USS Liberty [The article's actual title is:] Did LBJ Cover For Israel? www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/23/national/main579649.shtml"

LOLers.

[Edited on April 10, 2006 at 12:50 PM. Reason : 666]

4/10/2006 12:49:25 PM

so he's using the tactic of subverting titles to go along with his cause now? how nice to see the desperateness.

4/10/2006 12:54:09 PM

30thAnnZ,

Don't tell me you're trying to distract from the information above on the Israeli attack on the U.S.S. Liberty?

Quote :

"LOLers"

I said the U.S.S. Liberty incident has been suppressed by the mainstream media, not totally ignored. Having an article on the incident 40 years later, and mentioning it a few times in between, is not sufficient media coverage for an event of this magnitude.

4/10/2006 1:04:51 PM

GOOD FUCKING JOB THEDUKE866

THIS FUCKIN' GUY

4/10/2006 1:12:07 PM

shut up troll

4/10/2006 1:19:54 PM

The media doesn't constantly run stories 40 years after the fact. How often do you hear about the USS Pueblo? It was boarded and captured by North Korea in international water in 1968 with the entire crew imprisoned, which is clearly an act of war. It is just as inflammatory as you make the USS Liberty out to be, yet receives the same coverage. Is the Zionists media covering this up too?

More Zionists media cover up:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/12/us.israel.ussliberty/index.html
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/04/23/liberty.attack/
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/07/09/uss.liberty.tapes/index.html

BTW, I got a slice of pizza at Whole Foods the other day. The guy was heating it up in the brick oven when another guy told him to "Thats enough, you can pull it". Is this a sign of zionist false flag operations at the local organic grocer?

4/10/2006 1:24:53 PM

hey, another troll

4/10/2006 1:25:39 PM

Classic salisburyboy. Whenever anyone questions your logic, dismiss them as a troll.

This is why no one takes you seriously or takes the time to debate you anymore.

Now please:

Are the Zionists covering up the USS Pueblo? Why don't we ever hear about it in the media?

4/10/2006 1:29:39 PM

THIS FUCKIN' GUY

what would be so bad about moving his shit to the lounge? honestly?

4/10/2006 1:35:28 PM

Quote :

"Classic salisburyboy. Whenever anyone questions your logic, dismiss them as a troll. "

No, I just call it like it is. You are a troll. And Woodfoot already ADMITTED he was trolling me.

Quote :

"Are the Zionists covering up the USS Pueblo? Why don't we ever hear about it in the media?"

Is the MSM maintaining that the attack on the USS Pueblo was an "accident"? Is the MSM lying about the USS Pueblo incident? Did the MSM suppress that incident as they did the USS Liberty incident? No. The Pueblo incident received a lot of media coverage shortly after it happened. The USS Liberty incident, however, was quickly swept under the rug, and dismissed as an "accident." The truth about the Liberty incident was covered up.

There is a big difference between those two events.

Quote :

"Is this a sign of zionist false flag operations at the local organic grocer?"

Oh, so you're saying that WTC Building 7 wasn't brought down in a controlled demolition?

The level of denial some of you people are in is amazing.


[Edited on April 10, 2006 at 1:43 PM. Reason : ``]

4/10/2006 1:38:34 PM

Quote :

"And Woodfoot already ADMITTED he was trolling me."

BECAUSE YOU DO NOT DISCUSS ANYTHING WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT TROLLING YOU

SO WHY TRY AND BE BETTER THAN YOU
WHEN I CAN JUST FUCKING MOCK YOU

i'm glad there are people that attempt to shoot holes in your fucking "evidence" because it is really easy to do
yet you just move right along and slap that "troll" label on them

YOU HAVE YET TO COMMENT ON THE FACT THAT THERE ARE OVER 600 CARDS IN THAT FUCKING GAME, WHICH I HAVE STATED I WAS NOT TROLLING ABOUT

I'D REALLY LIKE TO KNOW IF YOU STILL THINK THAT IS "EVIDENCE"






THIS FUCKIN' GUY

4/10/2006 1:41:10 PM

The USS Pueblo wasn't an accident, it was a blatant act of war, yet it is never reported in the media.

To simply say "There is a big difference between those two events" is completely ignoring the question. Did you even know anything about the USS Pueblo or did you have to look it up? I assume that it was completely new to you, as it doesn't fit into your lexicon of NWO-zionist-illuminati events.

Quote :

"Oh, so you're saying that WTC Building 7 wasn't brought down in a controlled demolition?"

I'm saying that I heard the pizza guy say the magic word. Obviously whenever anyone says "pull it" they are talking about controlled demolition.

[Edited on April 10, 2006 at 1:46 PM. Reason : 666]

4/10/2006 1:43:08 PM

Mr. Joshua's reply looked serious to me, and I know trolls

4/10/2006 1:44:12 PM

exactly

for a minute i almost thought his goose was cooked

but then he did what he always does and hits the troll-button-stiffarm


THIS FUCKIN' GUY

4/10/2006 1:46:00 PM

all the answers that you seek are in the zionist inspired magna carta

4/10/2006 1:47:24 PM

Back in the day he used to call us "disinformation agents" then he found out what "troll" meant.

Oh memories! My little buddy is growing up!

4/10/2006 1:47:44 PM

Quote :

"The USS Pueblo wasn't an accident, it was a blatant act of war, yet it is never reported in the media."

The Pueblo incident received extensive media coverage at the time it occured. Current levels of media coverage are virtually insignificant in regards to the level of MSM suppression, given that both incidents occured decades ago.

Here's the bottom line. The MSM suppressed the TRUTH about the U.S.S. Liberty incident. They lied for decades by reporting that it was an "accident." Now, can you say that the MSM lied and suppressed the truth about the Pueblo incident?

Quote :

"I'm saying that I heard the pizza guy say the magic word. Obviously whenever anyone says "pull it" they are talking about controlled demolition."

That isn't an OBVIOUS straw-man argument?

4/10/2006 1:52:40 PM

ADDRESS THE CARD GAME LITTLE MAN

4/10/2006 1:54:46 PM

address the USS Liberty incident troll

4/10/2006 1:56:02 PM

that has already been addressed by mr joshua

ADDRESS THE RAP CD COVER

4/10/2006 1:59:32 PM

Quote :

"YOU HAVE YET TO COMMENT ON THE FACT THAT THERE ARE OVER 600 CARDS IN THAT FUCKING GAME"

Not true. I responded to that. Here's what I posted near the bottom of page 7:

Quote :

"You can try to say that it's just a "coincidence" all you want. Rational people and those not in denial can see that it almost certainly was not a coincidence."

4/10/2006 2:02:24 PM

oh good grief

so you're saying YOU'RE the rational one here


ADDRESS THE RAP CD COVER





THIS FUCKIN' GUY

4/10/2006 2:04:27 PM

Quote :

"So are you saying that Steve Jackson is a part of the NWO? How else would he have prior knowledge? You're going to have prove that this is more than a coincidence. Obviously, if you write down 600 possible events, chances are that one of them will occur in the next decade."

Annnnnnndddd......GO!

Quote :

"The USS Liberty incident, however, was quickly swept under the rug, and dismissed as an "accident.""

2 minute google search:

Sheenan, Neil. “Crippled Liberty on Way to Malta.” New York Times 12 June 1967.

Sheenan, Neil. “Sailors Describe Attack on Vessel.” New York Times 11 June 1967.

“Sinking the Liberty: Accident or Design?” Newsweek 19 June 1967.

“The U.S.S. Liberty: Tragedy of Errors.” Newsweek 28 August 1967.

Newsweek 3 July 1967. Reprinted: Cristol, Jay. The Liberty Incident: The 1967 Attack
on the U.S. Navy Ship.

Associated Press. “Israel Accused at Hearing on U.S. Ship.” New York Times 18 June
1967.

Beecher, William. “Israel in Error, Attacks U.S. Ship.” New York Times 9 June 1967.

Beecher, William. “U.S. Investigating Attack on Vessel.” New York Times 10 June
1967.

So how exactly can you say that the Liberty was swept under the rug? Were you alive to see the coverage in 1967 or are just basing your claims on what your websites tell you?

[Edited on April 10, 2006 at 2:18 PM. Reason : 666]

4/10/2006 2:09:08 PM

Quote :

"ADDRESS THE RAP CD COVER"

I think it's more than just a "coincidence." It's most likely more evidence of prior knowledge of the attacks. On the CD cover, the explosion in the tower is located in the general area of the actual explosions on 9/11. It looks almost exactly like the explosion after the 2nd plane hit the South Tower.

That's not to say that this rap group had prior knowledge of the attacks. They probably didn't. But, at the very least, the person who did the artwork (or commissioned for the art work) most likely had prior knowledge of the attack.

Just looking at this one example (ie, the rap cover), you might dismiss my claim that someone had prior knowledge. But after looking at all the other anecdotal evidence of prior knowledge--eg, The Lone Gunmen episode, the dialogue from the The Long Kiss Goodnight movie, the cards in Steve Jackson's INWO game, etc--it becomes clear that some people surrounding the entertainment industry did indeed have prior knowledge of the attacks.

4/10/2006 2:18:39 PM

Quote :

"That's not to say that this rap group had prior knowledge of the attacks. They probably didn't. But, at the very least, the person who did the artwork (or commissioned for the art work) most likely had prior knowledge of the attack. "

wow

just wow

i never EVER thought that you would prove you're this crazy

but then you go and do something like this

AND TOTALLY REDEEM YOURSELF





THIS FUCKIN' GUY!!!

4/10/2006 2:22:20 PM

actually, what becomes clearer is that you're a fucking loony




THIS FUCKIN' GUY

4/10/2006 2:22:52 PM

Quote :

"But, at the very least, the person who did the artwork (or commissioned for the art work) most likely had prior knowledge of the attack."

You heard it hear first, cover artists within the west coast rap industry knew about 9/11 as far back as 1991. So why, pray tell, would they put it on their album cover?

Quote :

"On the CD cover, the explosion in the tower is located in the general area of the actual explosions on 9/11."

Yeah, the middle. Whoda thunk it?

Quote :

"it becomes clear that some people surrounding the entertainment industry did indeed have prior knowledge of the attacks."

So find out who instead making vague accusations at no one.

4/10/2006 2:24:16 PM

it is honestly sad to me that there is a whole group of people that look at a rap cd cover from 1991

and think "THEM FUCKERS IS IN ON IT!"

rather than

"thats a wierd coincedence"

THIS FUCKIN' GUY PROBABLY BELIEVES THE WINGDINGS SHIT TOO

4/10/2006 2:25:47 PM