^such as?

6/29/2007 10:42:06 AM

the tax protester faq

6/29/2007 4:09:16 PM

Apparently you're either too much of a coward or too much of a moron to address this:

Quote :

"They've never actually been proven to be fraudulent. It's just been claimed by Jewish-controlled sources that they've been proven to be a "forgery.""

Yes, they have been proven to be fraudulent. If you would do some objective research instead of blindly casting aside anything that may hurt your opinion you would know this.

The original London Times article from 1921:
http://emperors-clothes.com/antisem/times-pdf.htm

If the article is such a load of bunk, then disprove it here and now.

6/29/2007 4:14:50 PM

so some article in a newspaper is the final word on the subject? since they claim the Protocols are "fraudulent" it must be true? case closed?

what a joke

6/29/2007 4:32:11 PM

Well if its a joke then it should be easy for you to disprove.

Of course, you can't so you'll just try to dismiss it because it isn't from prison planet.

Refute it here and now, brainiac.

Quote :

"since they claim the Protocols are "fraudulent" it must be true?"

They don't simply claim that they are fraudulent, they prove it.

[Edited on June 29, 2007 at 4:36 PM. Reason : .]

6/29/2007 4:33:43 PM

http://www.iahushua.com/BeWise/newlight.html

Quote :

"The "Times" proclaimed triumphantly that "indisputable evidence" was produced!!! Is that so? How wonderful. . . Now, if this watered "evidence" is properly scrutinized and subjected to distilation the only solid substance that is left is the fact that one of the books represents an overwriting and further development of the other one. Under these circumstances can the ugly word "Forgery" be applied? A further development and widening of a certain text can not be classified as "Forgery," otherwise every preacher who quotes a passage from the Bible without mentioning the verse and chapter would also be considered as a forger and plagiarist."

more:
http://www.iahushua.com/BeWise/protocol.html

6/29/2007 4:43:12 PM

Neat. You can't refute it but you can find an article that claims to.

It disproves nothing. It creates a strawman argument regarding repetition in the bible and then asserts that it doesn't matter if it was a forgery or not because it plagiarizes a piece of political satire that was incidentally written by a jew - the same pathetic argument that you have parrotted in the past.

Have you even read the Times article or is it just easier to let others think for you?

6/29/2007 5:00:33 PM

http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/dn12123-mobile-phones-may-soon-be-used-on-planes.html

Quote :

"Mobile phones may soon be used on planes 22 June 2007 One of the last telephone-free environments on the planet, the airplane, is about to be connected, allowing travellers to make mobile phone calls at high altitude. Requests to switch off cellphones and fasten seatbelts are a familiar part of the take-off routine for airline passengers, but a European company has found a way to make dialling safe and link up people from above the clouds. "Cabin connectivity is here," chief commercial officer of OnAir, Graham Lake, said at the Paris Air Show this week. His company, a joint venture between European plane maker Airbus and airline IT group Sita, received a green light from the European Aviation Safety Agency on Monday to begin fitting equipment to commercial jets. [...]"

Wait...what about those infamous alleged "cell phone calls made from the hijacked jets" on 9/11?? Don't tell me that the government lied about that too...

Nothing to see here.

7/2/2007 9:45:49 PM

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2004-12-16-cells-planes_x.htm

Quote :

"Cell phones usually don't work at high altitudes. When they do, they simultaneously communicate with hundreds of cell towers on the ground, clogging networks."

http://physics911.net/cellphoneflight93

Quote :

"1. Background Any analysis of the cellphone and “airfone” calls from Flight 93 must begin with some basic, high-altitude cellphone facts. According to AT&T spokesperson Alexa Graf, cellphones are not designed for calls from the high altitudes at which most airliners normally operate. It was, in her opinion, a “fluke” that so many calls reached their destinations. (Harter 2001) In the opinion of a colleague of mine who has worked in the cellphone industry, it was a “miracle” that any of the calls got through from altitude. (See the recent proposal to install equipment to make cellphone calls possible from aircraft.) An aircraft, having a metal skin and fuselage, acts like a Faraday cage, tending to block or attenuate electromagnetic radiation. One can make a cellphone call from inside an aircraft while on the ground because the weakened signal is still close enough to the nearest cellsite (relay tower) to get picked up. Once above 10,000 feet, however, calls rarely get through, if ever. Here is the statement of an experienced airline pilot: “The idea of being able to use a cellphone while flying is completely impractical. Once through about 10,000 feet, the thing is useless, since you are too high and moving too fast (and thus changing cells too rapidly) for the phone to provide a signal.” (AVWeb, 1999) People boarding aircraft for the last decade or so have all heard the warnings to turn off their cellphones for the duration of the flight. The reasons for this regulation are somewhat mysterious, since the usual explanation, that delicate aircraft electronics might be affected by cellphone signals, is cast somewhat in doubt by the fact that all avionics are shielded from stray electromagnetic radiation. (Spitzer 1987) On the other hand, the FCC had apparently requested that airlines make this rule, owing to the tendency for cell phone calls made from aircraft at lower altitudes to create “cascades” that may lead to breakdown of cellsite operations. (Fraizer 2002) The cascade problem is more likely at altitudes of 10,000 feet or lower, where reaching a cellsite, although still a touch-and-go matter, is more easily accomplished. However, because of its superior position, the cellphone may reach several cellsites at once. "

7/2/2007 9:46:23 PM

***NEW PHOTOS LEAKED OF 9/11***

7/27/2007 2:08:22 AM

ttt

7/27/2007 7:09:14 PM