Nice Little Rebuttal Video On the Gold Ring
posted by Pat @ 1:36 PM
109 comments
As Seen in Vanity Fair's August 2006 Issue!
As Seen in US News & World Report's September 11 Fifth Anniversary Issue!
As Seen in Time Magazine's September 11, 2006 Issue!
As Seen in Phoenix New Times' August 9, 2007 Issue!
Saturday, May 20, 2006
Previous Posts
- 9-11 Eyewitness Review Part 1
- Dylan & Co Suck Up To Holocaust Denier
- Those Damn Inconvenient Witnesses
- The Dylan Avery Code?
- Dylan Avery's 115th Dream
- SSG Gene A. Vance Jr. 30 November 1963 - 19 May 2002
- Who's Gotta Prove What?
- The New Search Term
- My Favorite New Catch Phrase
- They're Alive, They're Alive!
View My Stats
Allies:
109 Comments:
Even though, it doesn't look like the original Bin Laden like I said before, his wearing of watches means he's not really a Fundamentalist.
But it doesn't really matter since Bin Laden is dead and is the real reason why we haven't seen any other videos of him since the "confession" video.
"Even though, it doesn't look like the original Bin Laden like I said before, his wearing of watches means he's not really a Fundamentalist."
Bin Laden's always been an Islamist (which is a form of Islamic fundamentalism). Of course, you think he's some invented strawman.
Mostly because you don't know your ass from your elbow.
I'm reposting this comment becuase I think it's important that CTers see this and either they've missed it (possible) or ignored it (most likely). It is in response to nesnyc's italicized comment below regarding the Pentagon attack. A warning... it's graphic.
I really have a hard time believing that search and rescue found bodies at the sight.
Hey nesnyc:
GO
FUCK
YOURSELF
ASSHOLE
A shitload of other evidence that was used in the trial can be found here.
I apologize for going off topic.
Question, why do I keep seeing forward slashes half the time someone is quoting someone else?
Bin Laden's always been an Islamist (which is a form of Islamic fundamentalism). Of course, you think he's some invented strawman.
Bin Laden a.k.a. "Tim Osman"
"Bin Laden a.k.a. "Tim Osman""
Just stop. You're wrong.
Funny how all the sites with Tim Osman are either conspiracy nut sites or unreliably biased.
Nice try.
I really have a hard time believing that search and rescue found bodies at the sight.
FROM THE PASSENGERS. We know there were Pentagon employees there that were killed from the blast. It's no mystery why they found those bodies. But one eyewitness account of an Army Sergeant states "they were still strapped to their seats." If part, or all, of the plane was vaporized as is popularly reported, why did they find remains from the passengers? In this case, 1 + 1 does not equal 2.
I guess all those other fundamentalists shown in the clip wearing watches and rings were't the originals either? Oh, wait. I bet you didn't even watch the actual clip, or you would have already known that and wouldn't have made your hundreth or so insipidly ignorant comment in here.
According to the Daylight Atheism guy, there is no law preventing them from wearing trinkets. Also, a lot of those guys are simply religious leaders, weather they are fundamentalists or not is up to the interpretation of the western media.
Funny how all the sites with Tim Osman are either conspiracy nut sites or unreliably biased.
If the mainstream is complicit in covering up the fact that Bin Laden is, was and always will be a US intelligence asset, why would they disclose otherwise? THINK!
"According to the Daylight Atheism guy, there is no law preventing them from wearing trinkets. Also, a lot of those guys are simply religious leaders, weather they are fundamentalists or not is up to the interpretation of the western media."
No, fundamentalism is an objective label, not some media creation. Someone who believes in or wants sharia law is a fundamentalist by definition because they believe in the fundamentals of their religion.
"If the mainstream is complicit in covering up the fact that Bin Laden is, was and always will be a US intelligence asset, why would they disclose otherwise? THINK!"
If he really was a government agent, an actual journalist would've blown the story by now. A Pulitzer is more important than 'loyalty' to the government to the American media. Anything with eyes can see that.
It's a widely-held myth that al-Qaeda and bin Laden were funded by the CIA, let alone that he was actually an agent of that organization.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
FROM THE PASSENGERS.
Bullshit. A) You're ammending your previous statement to further narrow your criteria. B) How do you know those bodies aren't passengers??
I'm sure if they were shown to be passengers you'd say "I meant BODIES OF THE PASSENGERS WHOSE LAST NAMES STARTED WITH "L" WHO WERE SITTING ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE CRUISE MISSLE BEHIND THE WING".
Pray I never see you on the street....
'I'm sure if they were shown to be passengers you'd say "I meant BODIES OF THE PASSENGERS WHOSE LAST NAMES STARTED WITH "L" WHO WERE SITTING ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE CRUISE MISSLE BEHIND THE WING".'
I just died laughing.
I meant BODIES OF THE PASSENGERS WHOSE LAST NAMES STARTED WITH "L" WHO WERE SITTING ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE CRUISE MISSLE BEHIND THE WING".
Hey you're pretty good and filling in the gaps. No wonder the government can give you half-truths and you guys can take the ball and run with it. You guys are very easy to get over on.
"Hey you're pretty good and filling in the gaps. No wonder the government can give you half-truths and you guys can take the ball and run with it. You guys are very easy to get over on."
You REALLY really need to look up the word "irony". Every conspiracy theory is "filling in the gaps". They just put shit into strawmen holes and you guys eat it up without a shread of evidence.
shred*
That smug attitude? That whole "I'm smarter than you 'cause I 'think outside the box'" line of thinking? It has worn thin.
Abundant evidence has been shown here to you dipshits that thoroughly lays to waste your claims of conspiracy and yet you still persist, changing your theories, altering your comments, and making up new lies to suit your needs.
You, BG, and people of your ilk blatantly disregard the world around you in an attempt to validate your beliefs and it makes my fucking blood boil.
Chad, I feel the exact same way. This idiot doesn't even understand the irony of all his attacks on me. Almost everything he's saying I'm doing is wrong, is what's wrong with his beliefs and his statements. It's a common self-defense mechanism, to throw your faults onto your opponent.
PS - Here's a picture of Flight 93 that was vaporized/returned to United.
Not sure which theory you're currently advocating, but I doubt a huge chunk like that would be considered "vaporized", and I doubt United would've taken just that piece back from the government.
Shawn, there's a video on that site with the Moussaoui evidence that has the audio and transcript of a call from a guy on the 105th floor of the south tower. It also has video of the burning towers.
You can hear the building begin to collapse, his screams, and the call end all while watching it happen.
By far the most horrific thing I've ever seen and heard.
Oh god, I wasn't ready for that.
Absolutely horrific.
If he really was a government agent, an actual journalist would've blown the story by now.
There are very few actual journalists. Only people reporting on "official sources." Journalism as a profession has turned yellow because of corporate and government control. Also factor in Mockingbird type operations and it's a wonder we ever get any truth out of those shills.
This seems to be getting nasty, and I'm not sure how that's useful.
Perhaps it makes this blog less likely to contain quality debate (a bonus if you are supporting the screwloosechange side.)
However, if James and Pat wanted to tilt this blog to maximum advanage they would moderate the comments. I don't see any evidence that they are moderating. I think at this point, I'm wishing they would.
So, let me share the following thoughts. I aver that even those of you seem to love to categorized me as CT, will agree, I hope, that the following comments aren't conspiracy minded.
Idea 1: They don't realise that blogger has a comment moderation setting.
Idea 2: They don't want the hassle of doing moderation.
Idea 3: They think that their case is so stronge that open debate will only support their cause.
Idea 4: (Ok this is pure speculation)
They are doing for class credit or sometime and the rules specify they need to allow comment.
I guess, although the newness is wearing off, and as I say things seem to be getting nasty, I want to one agains say that I've been pleased to have all my comments stand as posted, and express my appreciation to be allowed the post on 911 Eyewitness Vid
You can hear the building begin to collapse, his screams, and the call end all while watching it happen.
Yet another amazing phone call that got through. I don't know but I tried to make at least 10 calls on that morning and NONE GOT THROUGH, not even on land lines.
It's a common self-defense mechanism, to throw your faults onto your opponent.
Yeah! That's why I've been called an "asshole" and to go "fuck myself." It's perfectly understandable. While I continue the discourse and remain cordial, the more emotional and irrational posters seem to want to attack my persona. It doesn't bother me in the least. The debate continues :)
You, BG, and people of your ilk blatantly disregard the world around you in an attempt to validate your beliefs and it makes my fucking blood boil.
That's exactly how the world was constructed around you so that if anyone dares question it, the most common reaction would be anger. You're playing squarely into that if you haven't realized.
Oh god, I wasn't ready for that.
Absolutely horrific.
More people die in car accidents than did on 9/11. There is no war on car accidents. Let's keep things in perspective.
"More people die in car accidents than did on 9/11. There is no war on car accidents. Let's keep things in perspective."
Excellent logical fallacy.
Cars aren't human beings specifically targetting others for destruction.
So we're supposed to sit on our thumbs and let people blow us up? Good idea, moron. Glad our grandparents weren't like you or the Nazis would've steamrolled the Eastern hemisphere.
"That's exactly how the world was constructed around you so that if anyone dares question it, the most common reaction would be anger. You're playing squarely into that if you haven't realized."
Wrong, the anger is from people ignoring evidence. I can't stand Scientologists, the crazenly religious, or conspiracy idiots because they all use blind faith as opposed to reasoned argument.
Copy and paste this link in your media player. QuickTime works best.
Then tell me that call was staged.
Your calls didn't get through that day? There are 7 million people in New York City. Are you suggesting that just because YOU weren't able to get through that NO ONE was?
And BG, I apologize if you've never had the word "asshole" directed towards you. Pat and James B are more than welcome to ban me for this if they feel the need.
But the thing is this. I've tried the "let's all be friends" route. There IS no debate with you people. You've been proven wrong time and time again and yet you PERSIST in spouting this utter bullshit, ignoring everything that goes against your claims (things like logic, physics, photographic evidence).
It's not you being that angers me necessarily. It's your unwillingness to see what's in front of your face.
Are you suggesting that just because YOU weren't able to get through that NO ONE was?
It was very difficult to make calls that day/morning. Everybody I know kept getting "all circuits busy" messages even from land line all the way to about 1pm.
blind faith as opposed to reasoned argument.
Believing Osama did it is blind faith since no credible evidence exists he was involved.
Do you know all 7 million people in New York City?
Believing Osama did it is blind faith since no credible evidence exists he was involved.
Yeah.... Except for him admitting to it.
Just because your feeble mind doesn't think it's credible, or because you found a couple websites that say this or that about the subject, doesn't make it untrue.
I'm sorry, but if the leader of an Islamic extremist group who's repeatedly called for Americas destruction goes ahead and takes credit for 9/11, well I might just go ahead and take his word for it.
Then tell me that call was staged.
He corroborates secondary explosions. I'll leave it at that.
I'm sorry, but if the leader of an Islamic extremist group who's repeatedly called for Americas destruction goes ahead and takes credit for 9/11, well I might just go ahead and take his word for it.
Correct because you have been predisposed to believe that propaganda. During the Clinton years "Bin Laden's" fame was promoted exactly so 9/11 could have a credible fall guy. The plan worked to a tee. Most Americans actually believe he could pull something like this off neglecting the verifiable proof that he could not.
leader of an Islamic extremist group
That never exisited.
For all of you guys who like to say the CT people are just nutty, let me help you. If you consider us your enemy, you should know your enemy. The following is taken from:
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/05/courage.html
Rather than Holocaust deniers, or "tin foil hats", we in the main stand for some version of the following:
Courage
By George Washington [psyeudonym)
It all comes down to courage . . .
If you have courage, then you're willing to face that really stinky mess in the garage and clean it up.
You have faith you can clean it up, because you've cleaned up other really stinky messes, or seen other people do it. In other words, you have faith because you have experience of succeeding in the past.
Now Americans don't have much faith that we can throw out a bunch of murdering, psychotic tyrants (excuse my French). Why? Because we don't have experience succeeding against such people.
Sure, the Founding Fathers threw out the British; but that was WAY back in the day, hundreds of years before we were born. French revolution? Ancient history, and different country. WWII? Still generations back for many of us, and that was different. The WWII generation was fighting "the good war", and never knew that our own government probably let Pearl Harbor be attacked in order to justify the U.S. entry into WWII to help out the British. So we have no experience of having really stood up to tyrants.
Fat and Happy
Moreover, we Americans have led a very pampered life for the past couple of decades. Sure, there has been inequality and exploitation, and some have had it a lot worse than others. But, other than stopping extreme forms of racism (Ku Klux Klan, etc.), we haven't had to defend our borders or our liberties.
Basically, we complain if our tv goes on the fritz, or our team loses the game, or we can't afford that new, nicer whatzit, or if our boss is mean. We think those are big, Earth-shattering, history-changing events. But they are quite small in the grand scheme of things
And even those of us who think of ourselves as brave heroes usually only act like that when we know it is within the bounds of safety, within the limits of what we can handle. "Tough guys" tend to turn into meek mice whenever they are really threatened.
So we're basically lazy and timid, but we don't know or admit it. We like to pretend we are like the Founding Fathers or John Wayne (at least the cowboys had to rough it a little).
But we have no experience of successfully standing up to tyrants, so we have no faith that it can be done, and while the evidence is right before our noses that our current leaders are tyrants, we're so terrified that we have our knickers in a bunch.
What Would They Do?
Even if you haven't experienced success in standing up to tyrants, remember that the Founding Fathers did just that. They were just men, not gods. Sure, they were too persistent and stubborn to give up, but that's because they CARED about something: freedom.
They may have lived hundreds of years before our time, but that doesn't matter -- we can still learn from their experience as if it were happening now. Time is an illusion, since human nature is the same now as it was then. Just as many people of faith ask "what would Jesus do?", we can also ask "what would the founding fathers do?" If they could do it, we can do it.
Take Heart
There is a real misunderstanding of what it means to be courageous. In America, courage is often thought of as a testosterone-driven toughness. There's nothing the matter with testosterone. Masculinity is a great thing. But many American men secretly fear that they don't have sufficient testosterone to really be brave when the chips are down. As I said above, even those of us who think of ourselves as brave men usually only act like that when we know it is within the bounds of safety, within the limits of what we can handle.
We might jump in a bar room brawl to protect our buddy, but that's because we know we're only going to get knocked around a little bit -- nothing but bruises that will go away in a little while. The stakes just aren't that high.
But most American men secretly doubt whether they are macho enough to pull it off under fire. They may watch alot of action movies, and talk tough, and stand up when its not really dangerous (or when they clearly outgun the other guy), but they are secretly terrified that they don't have quite enough backbone to pull it off against the big boys, such as tyrants.
I would argue that this view fundamentally misunderstands the nature of courage, and ensures that we will never have true courage when it counts.
By way of analogy, the word "discipline" comes from "disciple". If you are a true "disciple" of an idea of a plan or a strategy or a religion, then you will stick to it and "have discipline" to reach your goal. It is not just a matter of willpower; it is also devotion to something bigger than ourselves.
Similarly, the word "courage" comes from the French "with heart". Why does it have this root meaning? Because it takes heart to act bravely. That's how my childhood Karate teacher used the word: when I was practicing with courage, power and focus, he would say "you have alot of heart today" (indeed, many old-school warriors use the phrase "fighting with heart" in that way).
If courage is acting "with heart", we've lost heart. And without heart, we cannot face the truth of 9/11, or lying to start wars, or vote fraud, or fascism, or torture, or dictatorship.
So how do we regain our heart? Well, let's start with what gets our hearts beating.
Remember that the mother bear is one of the fiercest animals of all. Just get between a mother bear and her cub and you'll see what I mean. It is her love of her cub which gives her the heart to face any enemy when her cub is threatened. It is not her level of testosterone, but rather her love for her cub which makes her so fierce.
Just as discipline is more than just willpower, courage stems from something bigger than just cajones. In fact, the strongest courage comes from the love of something we care about, since our heart will sustain us even when the chips are really down and we are really up against a tyrant. As the ancient Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu said: "Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage. "
In addition, we're no longer living in the old west. Individualism is very important in numerous ways, but we can only win against the tyrants as a team, as a community, as a nation. And only by opening our hearts to what matters will we be able to work together, to fight for all of our kids, and all of our freedom. Only then will we be able to put the tyrants back in the box.
Do we care about our kids, our significant others, our parents, our friends? Do we care about the freedom to choose what we want, instead of having our "great leader" choose for us?
If not, what DO we care about? Because if that is where your heart is, that is what will give you courage.
Even if you are driven by greed, then -- unless you directly make your living from the defense or oil industries (the two sectors profiting wildy under the current administration) -- you have motive to restore democracy to our country.
I care too much about my kids and my freedom to be afraid. I care enough about them that it gets my heart beating, connects me to something bigger than myself, and that gives me courage, even when the chips are down.
Courage is an innate human quality. It is within each of us, waiting to reveal itself when we open our hearts. When we act with heart, by definition, we are courageous.
Those who would trade safety for freedom deserve neither.
– Thomas Jefferson
Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing.
- Hellen Keller
Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it.
- Goethe
Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgment that something else is more important than fear.
- Ambrose Redmoon
Courage is an everyday thing. When we look reality squarely in the eye and refuse to back away from our awareness, we are living courage.
- Anonymous
To have courage for whatever comes in life - everything lies in that.
- Mother Teresa
It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.
- Robert F . Kennedy
It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare; it is because we do not dare that they are difficult.
- Seneca, Native American
Courage is the first of human qualities because it is the quality which guarantees the others.
- Aristotle
Courage is being scared to death but saddling up anyway.
- John Wayne
Courage is doing what your afraid to do. There can be no courage unless you're scared.
- Eddie Rickenbacker
Courage is fear holding on a minute longer.
- George Patton
Be bold and courageous. When you look back on your life, you'll regret the things you didn't do more than the ones you did.
- H. Jackson Brown, Jr.
You gain strength, courage, and confidence by every experience in which you really stop to look fear in the face.
— Eleanor Roosevelt
Within each of us is a hidden store of energy. Energy we can release to compete in the marathon of life Within each of us is a hidden store of courage. Courage to give us the strength to face any challenge Within each of us is a hidden storeof determination. Determination to keep us in the race when all seems lost.
- Roger Dawson
We must remember that one determined person can make a significant difference, and that a small group of determined people can change the course of history.
-Sonia Johnson
Never doubt that a small, group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
- Margaret Mead
It was the JOOOOOOZZZZZ!
Aint that right non-sync?
Give me the time stamps where he says anything about "explosions". You didn't even watch it.
And that website you link to is again... utter shit. If your linking something to disprove bin Laden's (or Al Qaeda's) ability to carry out those attacks, it'd be helplful if the page actually mentioned either of them.
And if Al Qaeda doesn't exist, who's beheading people? Who's blowing up US warships? Who's bombing night clubs and embassies?
If it's not Al Qaeda then your conspiracy just got infinitely more complex and infinitely more ridiculous.
He corroborates secondary explosions. I'll leave it at that.
Nesnyc, you are a bold face fucking liar. I've watched it three times and not ONCE does he mention explosions. Not ONCE do you hear anything even resembling explosions.
Any sane person watching that and listening, and reading, can see that, plain as fuckin' day.
You are an absolute pathetic waste of life.
Give me the time stamps where he says anything about "explosions". You didn't even watch it.
I'm paraphrasing here:
"I called my wife to tell her I was alright and then BANG!"
And if Al Qaeda doesn't exist, who's beheading people? Who's blowing up US warships? Who's bombing night clubs and embassies?
MOSSAD has been linked to many of that. It's called a false flag attack. John O'Neil was getting too close to the actual perps of these crimes and is why he was told to back off and then resigned in disgust.
"MOSSAD has been linked to many of that. It's called a false flag attack"
SEE?!?! I knew it! It was the JOOOOZZZZ!
"I called my wife to tell her I was alright and then BANG!"
Are you that fucking stupid that you didn't realize he was talking about the second plane??
He called his wife and told her he was fine because, at the time, the south tower hadn't been hit yet. Then BANG!
The plane hit.
You're fucking unbelievable dude....
SEE?!?! I knew it! It was the JOOOOZZZZ!
Here a solid case against them.
Funny how in the CT world terms like "solid case" and "unfounded allegations" seem to have the exact opposite meaning of what's in the dictionary.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Chad,
I've watched the vid. The narrator talks about secondary explosions. There is so much corroborating testimony and evidence, this vid in inself means nothing. It's just a compact source that provides the same evidence availabe from many independent sources.
If you watched the whole thing and you aren't affected, no amount of arguing about details is going to mean anything to you.
The USS Liberty case is as iron clad as it gets.
However, there's no reason to suspect that US personnel assisted with the USS Liberty attack.
There was, of course, a significant number of US personnel was would have been required to be aware and facilitate 9/11.
For those of you who think this is crazy, you are wasting our time and yours with this arguing. Either read the material, like David Ray Griffin's books, or shutup, and spend your time doing something other than talk about something you don't know diddledy about.
Audio evidence of "secondary" explosion after plane hit id'ed with onscreen text at 25:25.
BG, if you were paying attention, I never brought up the topic of "secondary explosions". Your pal nesnyc did.
I posted the link after he suggested that the 9-11 call Kevin Cosgrove made was faked (since HE couldn't seem to get through to anyone).
Instead of addressing that point he "leaves it at" the proclomation that it corroborates that there were secondary explosions, when in fact what Cosgrove was referring to was the 2nd plane hitting the tower he was in.
And you can drop the "My, it's getting awful mean in here. Where's my mommy?" shit. You sit here and spout this crap and accuse us of not knowing "diddledy" because we didn't run out and buy the latest conspiracy theory summer read.
You tell me to "shut up"? You can expect some harsh words back.
We've all given logical, reality-based rebuttals to your cracked out theories. I have yet to see you explain away ours without implicating 95% of our entire goverment, half our military, and those damn dirty JOOOOOOOOOOZ. A conspiracy SO ALL ENCOMPASSING, it would literally be impossible to pull off.
And you can drop the "My, it's getting awful mean in here. Where's my mommy?" shit. You sit here and spout this crap and accuse us of not knowing "diddledy" because we didn't run out and buy the latest conspiracy theory summer read.
When I mention David Ray Griffin, and you repond with "latest conspiracy theory summer read", you really do embarrass youself.
David Ray Griffin
He's a professor of theology. I've read the book, though.
He makes several refutable points, such as there being explosives in the WTC. While being impossible to plant them, there's no evidence they were ever used.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Google David Ray Griffin and the first thing that pops up is his Wikipedia entry. From that entry:
Since his retirement, he has moved his focus from questions of philosophy and religion to one of politics and, specifically, questioning the accepted history of the 9/11 attacks. His recent work includes the book, The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9-11 (2004) and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, books in which he argues there is compelling evidence members of the United States government were complicit in the September 11, 2001 attacks.
Sounds like a conspiracy summer read to me.
I'm sorry, but you'll have to explain to me again BG how a professor of philosphy, religion, and theology is all of a sudden THE go-to guy for all things 9/11.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Chad,
If you have been following the concerns of the 9/11 Truth movement over the last 3 years, it would be obvious why David Ray Giffin's work is more that the "summer read".
Even if you have paid a teensy bit of attention ot the 9/11 Commission and what a sham it was, Griffin's work and it pre-eminence would be obvious to you.
Sounds like your've read:
The New Pearl Harbor.
The following book: 9/11 Commisssion: Ommissions and Distortions is much more powerful.
One again with both books the issues are the "landscape for discussion", not that the dude is some Columbo that solves the crime with irrefutable truth.
The best example that I can give as far as how downright clueless some commenters have been here at this blog in recognizing a fair "landscape" of issues is the the one commenter who said wtc7 controlled demolition should not be seen as a big deal "because no one died there". The mind of someone who would make that statement is pea-sized, or else they are just lying to be diversionary.
Do you even know what Able Danger was, and the irrefutable evidence that the 9/11 Commission tried to hide it?
One again with both books the issues are the "landscape for discussion", not that the dude is some Columbo that solves the crime with irrefutable truth.
I understand the landscape. Most of you have an extreme anti-government bias. Griffin uses several logical fallacies in his book, and cherry-picks quotes to support his assumed evidence. Before that book came out I had already read dozens of websites with the same information.
The mind of someone who would make that statement is pea-sized, or else they are just lying to be diversionary.
I said it was no big deal. And I'm smarter than you and nesnyc will ever be (and I think I'm at least a decade younger than either of you).
Even if I were to allow WTC7 being destroyed in a controlled demolition (although there's zero evidence for this, and it makes absolute sense it would collapse on its own considering the damage it suffered and the fires raging inside), that doesn't prove the two towers were destroyed in such a manner. Believing so falls under the post hoc logical fallacy (as I explained to nesnyc).
WTC7 is a conspiracy idiot red-herring (another type of logical fallacy). It killed no one, it was a building nobody cared about, and it made perfect sense that it would collapse.
Do you even know what Able Danger was, and the irrefutable evidence that the 9/11 Commission tried to hide it?
Red herring.
It also supports our view of the events, as the government wouldn't allow one of the people who was gonna to pull off the attack come under investigation. It's getting real annoying how you guys have about ten different contradictory theories of what went on.
Shawn,
I don't think I have anything against you personally.
I don't see a lot of benefit for either of us arguing about Able Danger and which "side" it benefits. The fact is, I really think you should agree, is that there aren't "two sides" Just that you act like all evidence either supports "your" side versus the CT side is just wrong headed.
There are many sides and possibilities. I don't claim to know how the pieces all fit together. I think that the fact that the 9/11 did an entirely shoddy job of investigation. I think the Abel Danger situation points strongly to Zelikow being the man reason the 9/11 Commission did what it did. Supposedly he wrote a lot of the prose of the report. So yeah I think the evidence about Abel Danger and other factors come together to paint a consistent picture of a insufficient investigation with a report that failed to resolve many of the major questions.
And in the context of what I wrote above, along with all the other open questions, anyone such as you who wants to suggest that getting to the bottom of wtc7 is not likely a critical part of breaking open the larger story is just not a fellow intelligent human walking this earth... but I don't believe in space aliens, so I don't know what to think.
It also supports our view of the events, as the government wouldn't allow one of the people who was gonna to pull off the attack come under investigation. It's getting real annoying how you guys have about ten different contradictory theories of what went on.
There aren’t 10 theories. The Atta and that bunch were being set up to look like the hijackers and is the reason why they weren't stopped. Atta was either a drug mule or an intelligence operative of some kind. It is still debatable weather these guys even boarded the planes, but they were made to look like they had something to do with 9/11 so the real perpetrators could pull it off.
Able Danger shows foreknowledge, cover-up and indicates government complicity of some kind.
how a professor of philosphy, religion, and theology is all of a sudden THE go-to guy for all things 9/11.
Wouldn't he be precisely the person to reference if we're talking about "Islamic Fundamentalism" which is a KEY component of the official 9/11 conspiracy?
Cars aren't human beings specifically targetting others for destruction.
So we're supposed to sit on our thumbs and let people blow us up? Good idea, moron. Glad our grandparents weren't like you or the Nazis would've steamrolled the Eastern hemisphere.
I'm not sure you car analogy fits there. But I liken crashing planes into buildings similar to vehicular homicide; that happens regularly.
An no, we're not supposed to let people blow us up. We do honest police work and catch the criminals not invade countries that had nothing to do with it.
As for the Nazis, they would have never got in power if the same criminals that pulled off 9/11 had been stopped THEN! Please note Hitler was financed by Brown and Harriman and Wall Street (the American faction of the Rothschilds). In fact, the US treasury was pillaged to pay for Hitler's war machine while Americans got a depression! That's how far and stinking the roots of these wars go. Hitler didn't happen in a vacuum, in fact, he is part of the history that leads us right into 9/11 and the coming world war.
I don't claim to know how the pieces all fit together. I think that the fact that the 9/11 did an entirely shoddy job of investigation.
These two poorly worded sentences are so entirely contradictory of each other it makes me laugh.
Wouldn't he be precisely the person to reference if we're talking about "Islamic Fundamentalism" which is a KEY component of the official 9/11 conspiracy?
You seriously are retarded. His books were written specifically to REFUTE the official story. Not back it up. If it were the other way around, I might give the guy a chance if he was actually talking about Islamic fundamentalism. Being that he's talking about controlled demolitions, I'm less likely to take him seriously.
New Video from CNN (via youtube):
Dave Von Kleist on Glenn Beck
Wow, seems like there's a conspiracy between this blog and Glenn Beck to use the term "nutjob".
Chad,
I am guilty as charged of writing poor English as you say. I admit such writing damages the cause for which I speak.
anyone such as you who wants to suggest that getting to the bottom of wtc7 is not likely a critical part of breaking open the larger story is just not a fellow intelligent human walking this earth
Time and time again you don't seem to understand logical fallacies. I'll say it again: WTC7 being pulled does not prove the towers were proved. Nor does it even make it likely. It's a moot point however, since firefighters on the scene thought the building would collapse, and the massive structural damage to one side supports this.
There aren’t 10 theories.
There are many conspiracy theories, the "government did it" doesn't count as one. Some think a missle hit the Pentagon, some think the planes were all remote controlled. Some think they had some kind of missles. Some think everyone and the mother is lying about what they saw that day.
Atta was either a drug mule or an intelligence operative of some kind.
Yeah, and you're saying that with no evidence. I could say the Bush family is a bunch of reptilian aliens, but then I'd be David Icke.
We do honest police work and catch the criminals not invade countries that had nothing to do with it.
The Taliban allowed al-Qaeda to openly operate in their country. But of course, you're an idiot, and then al-Qaeda and bin Laden are invented boogeymen. Ah, circular logic, ain't it grand?
As for the Nazis, they would have never got in power if the same criminals that pulled off 9/11 had been stopped THEN!
The Nazis rose to power on antisemitism (something you seem to love), street thuggery, and political wrangling with the nationalist factions in the Reichstag. But don't listen to someone who's studied in their whole life, just go to some random websites and make random conclusions. You know Henry Ford like Hitler? Maybe that's how they got to power!
someone wanted to discuss the whole "virgin birth" concept as though it was so impossible
It's actually physically possible for a virgin to give birth. I'm still an atheist, however.
IMO, the conspiracy that brought about 9/11 is larger than the highly implausible "These 19 men penetrated our defenses by studying our systems"
They didn't need to penetrate any systems, they used the system against us. They brought on legal items, those box cutters didn't become banned items till after 9/11. And if you weren't a moron you'd realize it's more plausible that 19 men (with the backing of an intricate network of several thousand others) pulled this off than a conspiracy involving in the least thousands of people, my father included. How has Bush and his cronies seemingly failed at other step EXCEPT for pulling off the largest (secret) conspiracy in the history of mankind?
I find that conspiracy ludicrous and Zelikow himself looked embarassed.
Had it not happened, I think a government conspiracy involving the mass deportation and slaughter of 11 million people would be ludicrious.
I think they could produce any kind of videos they wanted, just like we know someone forged uranium documents from Niger.
Logical fallacy (post hoc). Just because they could, doesn't mean they did, and just because something was forged once doesn't mean everything is forged. The media used forged documents to discredit Bush, so should we think everything they show on the news now about a political person is forged?
I love owning all of you on a daily basis.
Shawn,
My point is not about proving anything.
Read this, and read it well. Here is the point:
1) There are pieces that don't fit. The investigations that have been performed and published are clearly hack jobs that avoid reality.
2) The point of what happened at wtc7 has no direct relation on proving anyting about wtc1 and wtc2. Read this again if you don't understand it the first time. I'm not claiming anything about proving anything about wtc1 and wtc2.
3) What I am claiming is that if wtc7 was a controlled demo, the area to investgate this is an extremely rich area to look at. Are you saying you don't understand the value of contacting certain individuals to be interogated, deposed under oath, etc. etc. to find how who planted the charges, when, who controlled the demolition, etc. etc. etc.
I can't tell you have much of a worthless argument I think you make, and how much you are wasting our time when you fail to apply any reasoning in good faith.
3)
They brought on legal items, those box cutters didn't become banned items till after 9/11. And if you weren't a moron you'd realize it's more plausible that 19 men (with the backing of an intricate network of several thousand others) pulled this off than a conspiracy involving in the least thousands of people, my father included.
There is no proof that box cutters were used, that is what the official line and the staged calls tell us. And why is it so believable that only 19 could pull this off but not say a few highly placed people with the means and resources. This didn't necessarily have to be pulled off by "thousands." A group possibly less than 50 in key positions in Government could have done this in a heart beat.
If you understand about US "Black Ops" you know these kinds of operations happen all the time and the intelligence apparatus is compartmentalized in such a way that all it takes to get the lower hands involved is direction from the top because of the hierarchical way the system work.
A very good indication that 9/11 was an inside job is that so many "training" operations were occurring simultaneously to intentionally confuse the air defenses. That doesn't make the military responsible for a stand down but it does indeed bring into question the motive of the leaders who coordinated these missions in the first place.
I love owning all of you on a daily basis.
That's also a failed hypothesis.
The Taliban allowed al-Qaeda to openly operate in their country. But of course, you're an idiot, and then al-Qaeda and bin Laden are invented boogeymen. Ah, circular logic, ain't it grand?
Texas oil guys (UNOCAL) hosted the Taliban in 1997, why didn't we invade Texas? Does the fact that the Taliban were in Texas make Texans guilty of 9/11? BTW, who facilitated the ascension of the Taliban in the first place? Who set up "Al-Qaeda?" (Which is actually the Mujahadin because there is no such thing as "Al-Qaeda.")
And it's only circling in your mind because you can't seem to comprehend what's being said.
The Nazis rose to power on antisemitism (something you seem to love), street thuggery, and political wrangling with the nationalist factions in the Reichstag. But don't listen to someone who's studied in their whole life, just go to some random websites and make random conclusions. You know Henry Ford like Hitler? Maybe that's how they got to power!
Absolutely, positively wrong. But a lover of "official" theories could see it no other way. Just look at all you listed above. Doesn't that take money? Does "anti-Semitism" create money out of thin air? Do yourself a favor and look up Friz Thyssen and his AMERICAN investment partners. Guess who's family pops up? You are seriously ignorant on real history.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Logical fallacy (post hoc). Just because they could, doesn't mean they did, and just because something was forged once doesn't mean everything is forged. The media used forged documents to discredit Bush, so should we think everything they show on the news now about a political person is forged?
"WAR IS PEACE"
"FREEDOM IS SLAVERY"
"IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH"
The Ministry of Truth -- Newspeak
LOL...and somehow, you were made aware of the black ops that "happen all the time". All of us who (including those of us in the military) who don't "understand about US "Black Ops" are just a bunch of ignorant dummies. It couldn't be that we are aware that the government performs certain actions without making it known to the public, but are just logical human beings who see that the contrived "fact" and "evidence" you present, just are not plausible.
Um.. Everybody knows these kinds of things go on. Remember Iran/Contra? That’s one of the few times one of these things got exposed for all the world to see. How many top level conspirators were caught engaged in this operation? How many escaped, including the President? Again, it's right in your face yet you refuse to see it.
Also, go thank a Soldier that you live in a free country
That's a common misconception. Everyone, including the soldiers have to pay their tribute to the government all the way until May. That's slavery to me. And, with the way things are going, it's only a matter of time until that pay date gets extended to June, July... Who’s going to wind up paying for the "War on Terror?"
So start waking up and smell the bullshit. You're as much of a victim of this undemocratic regime as the rest of us.
Believe me. I don't much feel like a victim. I serve our country you shitbag, and I love protecting it and your rights. If you don't see that your ability to say whatever you want, including this crap, is linked directly to the fact that the United States is free because it has men and women who will selfishly put aside important things within their own life(like their families) in order to protect those rights and freedoms (by serving(and in some cases dying) in a foreign country, then you are far worse off than I imagined.
Of course, self delusion is the best protective mechanism when you know deep down inside, you're wrong. Now tell me, what does dying in a rich man's war have anything to do with the NSA spying on average Americans and the deteriorations of our right? Because you serve and have been conditioned to "think" you are protecting rights, doesn't make it so. Fact is, to serve blindly is almost as bad as allowing a tyrannical government in oppression of its citizens. Refer to the goose stepping SS and see how they did not prevent the eventual destruction of their homeland.
and just out of curiosity NES, what do you do for a living? Enquiring minds want to know.
Why is that important if we're talking about issues of the political arena and not personal? Distance the two and you might indeed being to see reality.
Yeah, and you're saying that with no evidence. I could say the Bush family is a bunch of reptilian aliens, but then I'd be David Icke.
Wrong. Atta has been linked to Abramoff and drug smugglers in Florida. He was seen boarding Abramoff's gambling boat many times. Connect the dots.
you're right man. Having a strong military doesn't really keep another nation from invading. Please tell us, in your EXPERT opinion, what would happen to the US if we didn't have a military. I'll be waiting for this one
Are you too insecure about what we'll think of your profession, or is it, that you can't use your job provides no real insight or personal knowledge about the topics that we discuss here?
I am in no way saying the US should not have a strong military. All I'm saying is to send our armed forces overseas to conquer other lands is wrong. In fact, it could all be a set up to eventually destroy this country. If another war opens up on a second front, say Asia, then the US armed forces would be spread too thin. This would be a perfect opportunity for those who wish to destroy this country to come in here invade and REALLY dismantle our country.
History shows that's exactly what happened to Germany. Hitler was that day's Saddam. He was intentionally allowed to get in to power and then he betrayed his armed forces by sending them off in wars they could not win. This left the German homeland more easily conquered exactly as the planners of that war wanted.
The same is true today; I strongly believe the US is getting set up for eventual destruction by Russia and China who have already formed a coalition of countries who will someday dismantle the United States.
Albert Pike writes:
"The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the "agentur" of the "Illuminati" between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other. Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion…We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view. This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time."
Excerpt: "Satan price of the World" Guy Carr
As for me being "insecure" of my profession, nice try. I understand that irrational minds when confronted with logic and beliefs contrary to theirs, will grasp at the personal to distract from the conversation and solidify in their minds that they have achieved the upper hand and will then ignore the rest of the arguments. I'm not playing into that.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
What I'm saying is that you're freedom is protected by soldiers who are willing to give up everything, and in many cases do. They protect your freedoms. Having them on guard everyday, whether here, Iraq, Germany, wherever it is, ensures it. Either you are intellectually dishonest, which i think has been proven here, or like many have said, you are just an idiot.
While the concept in it's self is a noble one and I do honestly believe most of the US military feels they are actually protecting Americans, I also feel that the military has been suckered into fighting wars not in the true interest of average Americans. My hat's off to those who would consider my safety so important they would give their lives for us but just to let them know that when a foreign tank strolls down 5th Avenue, I and others will be the first to have detonators in our hands to blow it up. We are all capable of defending ourselves when indeed the time comes to indeed defend the homeland.
Going overseas and killing people en-mass is not only creating enemies, it is ensuring that the current conflicts spread beyond those borders and eventually here. The chickens will come home to roost. Liken the current military "intervention" to Keystone cop-ery. If massive death wasn't the eventual outcome, it would be comical.
3) What I am claiming is that if wtc7 was a controlled demo, the area to investgate this is an extremely rich area to look at.
I totally agree. As it stands there is no evidence for a controlled demolition.
Remember Iran/Contra?
Red herring.
And why is it so believable that only 19 could pull this off but not say a few highly placed people with the means and resources. This didn't necessarily have to be pulled off by "thousands." A group possibly less than 50 in key positions in Government could have done this in a heart beat.
Totally wrong. You would need the complicit support of hundreds if not thousands of people who witnessed a plane crashing into the Pentagon. You would need the people cleaning the wreckage to cover up any left over refuse of the explosives charges. You would need the support of hundreds of military personnel. You would need an entire company to be on the scheme. You would need a president who's been almost totally inept to somehow not screw this up. You would need the phone calls from the Pentagon plane faked (which would take at a minimum dozens of people). You would need at least some of the victims' families in on the whole deal.
Going overseas and killing people en-mass is not only creating enemies
"En masse".
As for me being "insecure" of my profession, nice try. I understand that irrational minds when confronted with logic and beliefs contrary to theirs, will grasp at the personal to distract from the conversation and solidify in their minds that they have achieved the upper hand and will then ignore the rest of the arguments. I'm not playing into that.
...that's you to a T buddy. You've failed to use rational and cogent arguments since you first started posting here. Anytime someone points out how ignorant your worldview is you just try to act all high and mighty.
The chickens will come home to roost.
Read a lot of Ward Churchill, do you?
Now tell me, what does dying in a rich man's war have anything to do with the NSA spying on average Americans
Having a list of phone numbers isn't spying, all the phone companies do it. That's also totally ignoring the fact that there is no right to privacy in the Constitution.
Of course, self delusion is the best protective mechanism when you know deep down inside, you're wrong.
God, man, look up the word "irony" for crying out loud. You keep saying things that describe you EXACTLY. You're a delusional fool. It speaks of a small mind when someone thinks most of the actions in the world can be explained by a select elite cabal as opposed to the myriad humans of numerous factions.
History shows that's exactly what happened to Germany. Hitler was that day's Saddam. He was intentionally allowed to get in to power and then he betrayed his armed forces by sending them off in wars they could not win. This left the German homeland more easily conquered exactly as the planners of that war wanted.
Uh Hitler planned to allow his own country to be dismantled? I know you're a fucking idiot when it comes to historical fact, but he started the wars of conquest. Saying otherwise is just plain old wrong.
Totally wrong. You would need the complicit support of hundreds if not thousands of people who witnessed a plane crashing into the Pentagon.
That's not realistic. All the media has to do is plant hundreds of stories of fictitious witnesses in order to make it appear so. But it doesn't have to be that complicated either if there was actually a mock-up plane (refer to Operation Northwoods) and a few witnesses saw "something" and the rest of the witness stories planted. You don't need a lot of people.
Uh Hitler planned to allow his own country to be dismantled? I know you're a fucking idiot when it comes to historical fact, but he started the wars of conquest. Saying otherwise is just plain old wrong.
Absolutely. Hitler was somehow connected and "chosen" to lead Germany to its eventual destruction. All his actions indicate he was taking Germany on a suicidal path, even members from his party attempted a coup because of this. Also, there has never been conclusive proof that he committed suicide. Most likely, he escaped to South America with the rest of his SS.
But in the grand scheme of things, the actual goal was to dissolve nation borders in Europe. Germany was an obstacle in that regard and why it was targeted for destruction. Additionally, the second goal was to give half of the area to the Soviets thereby creating a constant threat that would have to be guarded by a permanent military presence of the Allies. Mission accomplished on all fronts.
Oh, and the third goal of the Second World War was to create "Israel." Can't forget about that angle.
Absolutely. Hitler was somehow connected and "chosen" to lead Germany to its eventual destruction.
"Somehow". Great evidence. Hitler wasn't chosen. He was charasmatic and a great orator. He was an artist as using his own prejudices and those of his people to whip them up into a frenzy.
All his actions indicate he was taking Germany on a suicidal path
Had the Japanese not attacked America it's quite possible he would've won the war.
Also, there has never been conclusive proof that he committed suicide.
Apart from the Russians having his remains.
Most likely, he escaped to South America with the rest of his SS.
Not that isn't "most likely". It's actually the least likely scenario. The Mossad tracked down Eichmann, I'm sure they could do it with Hitler.
But in the grand scheme of things, the actual goal was to dissolve nation borders in Europe.
Forgetting that was Hitler's goal? Man, if you could be consistent for once it'd be a breath of fresh air.
Germany was an obstacle in that regard and why it was targeted for destruction.
Why is your thinking so absolutely backwards? The Third Reich wasn't an externally created entity. Saying otherwise is lying.
Additionally, the second goal was to give half of the area to the Soviets thereby creating a constant threat that would have to be guarded by a permanent military presence of the Allies.
Right, that's why we they were Allies? And that's why they were allied with the Nazis, and that's why they started what would become the Cold War? God, you know absolutely zilch about history.
Oh, and the third goal of the Second World War was to create "Israel." Can't forget about that angle.
You fucking antisemite. That's why Britain wouldn't allow Jews to emigrate to the Palestine territory during the Holocaust? Blows your whole insane theory out of the water. World War II, which killed a third of the world's Jews, was fought to create a nation for them. Yup, makes perfect sense.
Hitler wasn't chosen. He was charasmatic and a great orator.
He was a lunatic who was arrested shortly before he came to power. How indeed did THAT happen? Charisma? LOL!
The Mossad tracked down Eichmann, I'm sure they could do it with Hitler.
After how many years? Oh boy.
Why is your thinking so absolutely backwards? The Third Reich wasn't an externally created entity. Saying otherwise is lying.
Follow the money. Can you refute who funded the Nazi regime? I bet you can't.
But it doesn't have to be that complicated either if there was actually a mock-up plane (refer to Operation Northwoods) and a few witnesses saw "something" and the rest of the witness stories planted.
Unfortunately for that one, hundreds of people saw a plane in DC, THOUSANDS saw them live in New York, and fucking MILLIONS watched it all on TV.
He was a lunatic who was arrested shortly before he came to power. How indeed did THAT happen? Charisma? LOL!
Stop quoting with italics, it doesn't show up.
Uh the Beer Hall Putsch wasn't when he came to power dumbass. It was nearly a decade before he did. Moron.
You fucking antisemite. That's why Britain wouldn't allow Jews to emigrate to the Palestine territory during the Holocaust? Blows your whole insane theory out of the water. World War II, which killed a third of the world's Jews, was fought to create a nation for them. Yup, makes perfect sense.
It was the Sabbatean Jew anti-Semites (like Hitler) who killed all those Jews. They needed to so as to establish "Israel." But you should note, the British by that time had been compromised by them. Additionally, Zionist leaders negotiated the transfer with Hitler knowing full well that Britton was blocking their passage thereby creating a humanitarian crises in their benefit! The more Jewish dead, the stronger the case for the Zionist state. It was a fully organized and orchestrated terror operation on Jews and Gentile alike.
The creation of the Zionist state is the building blocks for the next conflict as we see unfolding before our very eyes!
World War II, which killed a third of the world's Jews, was fought to create a nation for them.
No, not for innocent Jews. For criminal Illuminati collaborating Zionist Jews. They are different and not a monolithic group. The simplistic version of history has you believing they are when in reality, they are not.
Why is your thinking so absolutely backwards?
Did you ever wonder why history is taught to us at such an early age? Because it’s that much harder to dislodge early taught beliefs with actual facts once one reaches a certain age.
What I write may seem backwards or contradictory to "what is commonly known." But that's the point of refuting "commonly known" history.
It was the Sabbatean Jew anti-Semites (like Hitler) who killed all those Jews.
Hitler was Catholic. Next.
The simplistic version of history has you believing they are when in reality, they are not.
Now explain to me how my version of history, which has countless groups all with different interests interacting, is more simplistic than one monolithic organization controlling the affairs of the world? I'd love to see the logical leaps you make here.
Did you ever wonder why history is taught to us at such an early age?
I wasn't taught the Second World War or the Cold War at a young age. In fact, most of my teachers saw history as a set of economic changes (which is patently false), so they tended to ignore wars and all those dirty things.
What I write may seem backwards or contradictory to "what is commonly known."
You don't seem to get that just because very few people believe what you say, that doesn't make it true. Nor does it make it true if everyone believes it. It's that fact you have no facts on your side, and I have all of them.
I can't beleive you guys are still talking to this idiot...
Hitler was Catholic. Next.
So the offical storey goes.
Now explain to me how my version of history, which has countless groups all with different interests interacting, is more simplistic than one monolithic organization controlling the affairs of the world? I'd love to see the logical leaps you make here.
The simplistic aspect comes from the fact that things happen by chance or coincidences and is the common factor throughout most widely accepted history. For instance, the popular reason why Hitler is said to have risen to power is that the German people were disaffect by social and economic conditions. A recipe that breeds the seeds of change of revolution. Its simple enough, times were tough.
But WHY were times tough? Could it have been an intentional intervention of Germany's money system and then the external funding of the Fascist in order to create a European boogeyman? What group of people can have the scope and means to influence entire economies of whole countries? These facts are NEVER taught in history class and this is no accident. For if people knew the mechanism of manipulation in place then we would put a stop to it and that endangers the status quo.
The simplistic version of history says "shit happens" and many of us don't look twice and figure out how things really went down.
In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.
FDR
Nor does it make it true if everyone believes it. It's that fact you have no facts on your side, and I have all of them.
You believe the official fiction and that is what everybody believes, for the most part therefore, you don't really have any facts and only echo "what is commonly known."
You believe the official fiction and that is what everybody believes, for the most part therefore, you don't really have any facts and only echo "what is commonly known."
L.O.L.
Hilarious dude! Bra-fuckin'-VO!
Only echo what is commonly known... Priceless. Tell me, how do you think all that commonly known stuff gets to be so commonly known? And do you not trust ALL commonly known things? Or can you pick and choose what commonly known things to believe. If this conspiracy theory of yours spread throughout the world and became "commonly known", would you no longer believe it?
That is by far the WORST argument I have yet to hear in support of your drug-induced delusions.
Keep 'em comin!!
Tell me, how do you think all that commonly known stuff gets to be so commonly known?
Media consolidation anyone? The media speaks with one voice and has you thoroughly convinced in their side of the story. Dissenting opinions are therefore invalidated because they don't derive from the propaganda apparatus.
Wow you're dumb dude....
If the media was so damn "consolidated" why the need to post corrections and run retractions? Shouldn't they all have the story nailed 100% of the time?
The simplistic aspect comes from the fact that things happen by chance or coincidences and is the common factor throughout most widely accepted history.
Have you ever heard of chaos theory? Or is nature controlled by us, too?
For instance, the popular reason why Hitler is said to have risen to power is that the German people were disaffect by social and economic conditions. A recipe that breeds the seeds of change of revolution. Its simple enough, times were tough.
No, not the popular reason, it's why it happened.
But WHY were times tough?
They'd lost a World War, had to pay reparations, and a little ol' thing called the Great Depression.
Could it have been an intentional intervention of Germany's money system and then the external funding of the Fascist in order to create a European boogeyman?
Coulda been, except that's not what happened.
For if people knew the mechanism of manipulation in place then we would put a stop to it and that endangers the status quo.
You can't stop what doesn't exist, Einstein.
What group of people can have the scope and means to influence entire economies of whole countries?
Well, in Germany, it was a group called the National Socialist German Workers' Party. You may have heard of them.
You believe the official fiction and that is what everybody believes, for the most part therefore, you don't really have any facts and only echo "what is commonly known."
Weird, I'm the one who's actually using facts and yet I don't know any facts? Explain the logic there, professor. Or keep spouting your unsupported bullshit.
Post a Comment
<< Home