Topic: There is nothing worse than a conspiracy theorist

[Alan_X]

Fair enough. I can understand getting annoyed as the truth is important.

Like I said I'm of the opinion that the official story is correct in this matter. However I don't blame anyone for believing it was a conspiracy as 'Government' and 'trustworthy' can't usually be written in the same sentence. I certainly don't feel that you can call CT people 'nuts'. Perhaps all people need (including me) is to be pointed in the right direction in order to discount some of the wilder claims that conspiracy theorists make.

For instance this is a well researched piece explaining the explosions that many people heard and gives an explanation to John Schroeder's confused account of the happenings of that day. There is a timeline which pieces together many of the first-hand accounts from the first responders. Be warned it is a long piece and it is extremely disturbing.

http://911stories.googlepages.com/anopenletter

Thanks... I've started reading it.

[Alan_X]

Back to that "photoanalyst" and his "whatsits"  here's is page again:



and a higher quality shot of the wreckage and the fire truck in the background:



It's a fuckling firetruck - number 61 as in the other photographs but the thick twat can't even recognise it!... some "photoanalyst"...

All in all it's typical of the shite put out by CT nuts - lies, misinformation and incompetence...

[Slave]

And also, as i've said to you before, your understanding of the banks is poor.......banks control governments Alan, and have done for many years.

That brings me to this documentary. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3VUsNPTAV0

I found it fascinating. I know a lot of the topics were mentioned in Zeitgeist but I feel this documentary was far better presented. I'm no expert in economic matters so I am sure there are numerous errors in it. Still it's well worth a look and if someone on here who understands Economics better than I do can give me an assessment on it, I'd be grateful.

[kesey]

Alan mate what's your thoughts on a Global Fascist Dictatorship that is ruling our planet?

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

Alan mate what's your thoughts on a Global Fascist Dictatorship that is ruling our planet?

Are they all lizards in disguise?

It's nonsense.

Firstly I think that a global fascist movement is actually a contradiction in terms given that Fascism is by definition Nationalist.  Secondly Fascism and Dicatorship both suggest an authoritarian regime, which in turn suggests centralised power, which on a global scale is again obviously nonsense.

What I find most annoying is that these bullshit theories take certain points of evidence and then extrapolate them into a far fetched but essentially simple (it has to be) answer.  It distracts from proper analysis of the real issues. In this case that global capital and global trade have far too much influence on the election and decisions of national governments.

Come to me with a theory that there is a global plutocracy which grotesquely favours the super-rich then I think we can talk. Global Fascist Dictatorship? No chance.

[Alan_X]

That brings me to this documentary. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3VUsNPTAV0

I found it fascinating. I know a lot of the topics were mentioned in Zeitgeist but I feel this documentary was far better presented. I'm no expert in economic matters so I am sure there are numerous errors in it. Still it's well worth a look and if someone on here who understands Economics better than I do can give me an assessment on it, I'd be grateful.

I've only skimmed through it but basically the guy is proposing monetarism as propounded by the great Maggie Thatcher. Control the money supply and the world will be fantastic... err... but it wasn't was it? The fact that inflation doubled and employment soared under monetarist policies is irrelevant I suppose.

If I can find three-and-half hours to watch the whole thing maybe I will but on an initial skip through there seems to be quite a lot of bollocks in there.

The Bank of England isn't privately owned. However it was set up it was nationalised in the 1940s and is Government owned - not run by a Jewish conspiracy.

He quotes Sir Josiah Stamp in the 1920s and calls him the Director of the Bank of England... he was made a director of the Bank of England but as far as I'm aware was never the Governor of the Bank of England. Small mistake or a deliberate deceit?...

Guernsey uses the pound and doesn't have a separate currency, though it does have it's own notes. I can't find any trace of his story about Guernsey issuing its own currency in 1815 - before that it used French currency.

His comments at the end (apart from their millennial survivalist overtones) are similarly weird. 20-30 silver coins will be enough for you to survive on because people will know they are worth something apparently... sell your property as well... or open a bank account in Switzerland or Austria... (Austria is in the Euro).

I despise bankers but I really don't know what this is meant to be about and I don't think most people watching it have a clue either.

There are also more than a few unpleasant fellow travellers. Look at Larry Bates who he cites at the beginning - a religious nut who believes in the coming end-times, who believes the US should bomb Iran and hates homosexuals... Have a listen to some of his crazy views here:

http://www.soundwaves2000.com/unwo/insert/

A few of the titles gives you a taste. "Obama is Ludicrous"  "Democrats, homosexuals and oil" "Pansy preachers and poverty pimps"  "Are your kids being raised as prostitutes with special guest Pat Montgomery"   great stuff eh?.. and there's plenty more where that came from.

I listened for a bit and I can honestly say I was sickened and appalled by these right-wing Christian bigots. Still if that's the sort of person you want to base your world views on do carry on. Apparently, apart from believing that we are entering the "end times", he also believes that all modern medicine is witchcraft and the answer is actually colloidal silver which kills all bacteria...

I listened to a couple of callers when he was discussing Obama and one woman said she was upset because McCain is a bit too liberal! You should hear them going on about where Obama was born suggesting he wasn't born in Hawaii - I won't try and repeat the slurs and racist nastiness - but Larry Bates actually says that the reason that Obama won't release his birth certficate is because it shows his real name of... you guessed it "Mohammed". Un be-fucking-lievable.

As for "Presidential Candidate" Charles Collins, also cited at the start of the "documentary" is actually twice failed candidate Charles Collins. In the New Hampshire primary of 1996 he received 42 votes and the Republicans barred him from debates. In 2000, the Republicans wouldn't have him so he tried for the Reform party where he got 295 votes to Pat Buchanan's 2,214... So a presidential candidate in the loosest possible terms... a bit like saying Screaming Lord Sutch was a candidate for Prime Minister (though he had a bit more credibility.

By the way... when was this made? The speaker talks about the time when "they", the money-lenders will cause the crash but says it's unlikely to happen before the 1996 elections... so when he said there was a little time to act he was talking about 12 years or more.

He says that when "they" cause the crash it will leave only the very rich and the very many poor as in "most of the world"... oh and "slave labour" in "Red China"will take all the jobs in America...
It's a complete joke and the whole thing stinks of anti-semitism and the old International Jewish Banking Conspiracy.

Of course there is a real danger from over-powerful multi national organisations and the world bank does huge damage in developing countries by monetary policies that allow US and multinational corporations to take control of key industries. I don;t believe we are waiting for "them" (the Jews clearly) to purposely collapse the entire banking system to eradicate the middle classes.

Nasty anti-semitic bollocks...

[Alan_X]

Fuck me! I've just watched a bit more... apparently all that nonsense I'd always believed about Oliver Cromwell is bollocks. The English Civil War was all about Cromwell being paid by the "Money-Changers" (that's the Jews to you and me) to kill the King and take over the money supply...

And the City of London was created by the "Money Changers" (the Jews again) when they took over a square mile of London in the 17th century. There was me thinking that the Romans built the original walls and that it had been the centre of british commerce since the middle ages. Still what the fuck do I know when there's anti-semitic right-wing religious nut-jobs who clearly know better.

[Alan_X]

I'd also question the idea that tally sticks were ever used as currency. Split tallies record bilateral transactions. I suppose it's possible to sell on one half of a tally stick for money but that's not the same as currency.

[BIGdavalad]

Fuck me! I've just watched a bit more... apparently all that nonsense I'd always believed about Oliver Cromwell is bollocks. The English Civil War was all about Cromwell being paid by the "Money-Changers" (that's the Jews to you and me) to kill the King and take over the money supply...

Which is pretty impressive for a minor MP and a relatively junior cavalry commander.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

Nasty anti-semitic bollocks...

I find it truly shocking that less than a century after 6 million Jews died as part of the final solution to the great Jewish banking conspiracy there are still plenty of gullible fucking halfwits around who are willing to swallow the same thing re-packaged for a new century.

[Slave]

I find it truly shocking that less than a century after 6 million Jews died as part of the final solution to the great Jewish banking conspiracy there are still plenty of gullible fucking halfwits around who are willing to swallow the same thing re-packaged for a new century.

I'm sorry but that's bang out of order. The person making the documentary may have had an anti-semitic agenda however I don't. I didn't even equate the money-changers to Jews. Maybe I am naive but to me the documentary had no racial overtones whatsoever. Maybe I wasn't looking hard enough but I just took it on face value.

The reason I posted it on here is because I found the documentary fascinating. I had no idea whether there was any factual basis behind it and left it open for someone with a greater grasp of the subject to enlighten me.

It seemed a well researched piece and I thought it was well presented but I certainly didn't feel so persuaded that I was willing to do what Mr F. suggested:

Still if that's the sort of person you want to base your world views on do carry on.

I mean FFS I wasn't trying to convince anybody that the documentary was correct in its assumptions which I am pretty sure my first post indicated.

That brings me to this documentary. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3VUsNPTAV0

I found it fascinating. I know a lot of the topics were mentioned in Zeitgeist but I feel this documentary was far better presented. I'm no expert in economic matters so I am sure there are numerous errors in it. Still it's well worth a look and if someone on here who understands Economics better than I do can give me an assessment on it, I'd be grateful.

The quotes from Lincoln, Rothschild, Friedman et al. I believed gave the documentary a legitimacy that perhaps it didn't deserve. For instance this quote from James Madison

History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling the money and its issuance

Was the fourth president of the United States anti-semitic as well? Was I supposed to have derived from that quote that Madison was talking anout Jews? Give me a break!

I admitted I knew little about the subject which is why I wanted some others opinion on it, so I don't particularly appreciate either of your insidious comments. If you were that offended by the material then perhaps you should have deleted it rather than resorted to ad hominem attacks.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

I'm sorry but that's bang out of order. The person making the documentary may have had an anti-semitic agenda however I don't.

In fairness mate I never suggested that you did.  In fact, I re-edited my post prior to firing it off to remove any such suggestion. My comment was more a tirade at the world in general, and the people who churn out and perpetuate this guff, not at any specific posters on here.

[Slave]

In fairness mate I never suggested that you did.  In fact, I re-edited my post prior to firing it off to remove any such suggestion. My comment was more a tirade at the world in general, and the people who churn out and perpetuate this guff, not at any specific posters on here.

I naturally assumed that as you quoted Alan immediately after he had accused me of basing my world-view on an anti-semitic, right-wing Christian, that you agreed with his accusation. If not then I apologise for the indignation that was directed at you.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

I naturally assumed that as you quoted Alan immediately after he had accused me of basing my world-view on an anti-semitic, right-wing Christian, that you agreed with his accusation. If not then I apologise for the indignation that was directed at you.

No probs and I likewise apologise for not being clearer about the generality of my frustration

[Slave]

@Alan F:

Can I just say add that I thought the documentary was about the banking cartels like the Rothschilds, Schiffs, etc. To me these families could have been Jewish, Nigerian, fucking Eskimo, it would have made little difference, and I can't quite see why you believe that race was the motive behind the documentary. After watching I was left with the impression that monetary reform was the central tenet of the piece, I honestly can't recall Jews being mentioned.

Although you did state:

paid by the "Money-Changers" (that's the Jews to you and me)

So I ask again are the Jews really who James Madison was referring to when he said:

"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling the money and its issuance."

If so then I am astounded. Was he not talking about those banking cartels. If so then surely some of the points raised in the documentary are worth discussing. For instance did Nathan Rothschild not say:

I care not what puppet is placed on the throne of England to rule the Empire, ...The man that controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire. And I control the money supply

The reason I posted the documentary here was to discuss and debate some of these interesting questions and their implications and not to defend myself against anti-semitic accusations.

Another interesting quote from Friedman

I know of no severe depression, in any country or any time, that was not accompanied by a sharp decline in the stock of money and equally of no sharp decline in the stock of money that was not accompanied by a severe depression

Surely this indicates how important the issuance of money is within a country and why many notable politicians such as Abraham Lincoln fought against it being in the control of private hands.

When you answer the questions can you stick to the main point I am trying to make without worrying about what religion the editor's daughter is or how many tally sticks it takes to build the City of London please.

[Alan_X]

Dodgydon. like Kev, I'm not accusing you of being anti-semitic but I do think you should be more critical of the things you watch. Who are Patrick Carmack, Larry Bates and Bill Still and where did that video come from?

Ask a few basic questions... who are these "experts" who's word you are happy to accept? When someone claims to be an "economics author" or a "Presidential Candidate" don't accept their word for it. Even a quick check on line would have shown you that one of the key contributors is one of the most digusting individuals you could possibly meet. I don't know if you listened to any of Larry Bates radio shows but they really made me feel sick.

You might think it doesn't matter who is saying these things - I do.

The video proposes monetarism as the answer which is a failed idea as far as I'm concerned. Do you agree with it despite the damage it did to this country in the eighties?

As for who the "Money Changers" are why not go to the source:

2. THE MONEY CHANGERS IN JERUSALEM

Just who are these Money Changers to whom James Madison referred? The Bible tells us that, 2,000 years ago, Jesus Christ twice drove the Money Changers from the Temple in Jerusalem.

Apart from when the Temple Guards were forced to the ground in the Garden of Gethsemane, these were the only times Jesus used physical violence. What were Money Changers doing in the Temple?

When Jews came to Jerusalem to pay their Temple tax, they could only pay it with a special coin, the half-shekel. This was a half-ounce of pure silver, about the size of a quarter. It was the only coin at that time which was pure silver and of assured weight, without the image of a pagan Emperor.

Therefore, to Jews, the half-shekel was the only coin acceptable to God. But these coins were not plentiful. The Money Changers had cornered the market on them; then they raised the price – just as with any other monopolised commodity — to whatever the market would bear.

In other words, the Money Changers were making exorbitant profits because they held a virtual monopoly on money. The Jews had to pay whatever they demanded. To Jesus, this injustice violated the sanctity of God's house....

...These certain Jews were the 'money-changers' and their agents. They wanted him dead because they were losing money after what he did to them in the Temple.
The people did not like being ripped off by these guys and Jesus had called them thieves in front of a large crowd...

...So the death of Jesus was innocent blood on the hands of the bankers. So it makes perfect sense for the anti-christ to be from the Rothchild banking/money-changer family...

Patrick S J Carmack author of the Money Changers and co-producer of the Money Masters "documentary"

http://www.light1998.com/Rothschilds-Book/moneychangers/moneychangers.htm

Maybe I'm thick but the message is pretty clear to me...

Do I think the banks have too much control over us - yes. Do I think that multi national companies have too much control over us - yes. Are there links between the great and the good that allow them to manipulate our lives - yes and that has always been the case to a greater or a lesser extent...

...but do I believe the "Money-Changers" killed Jesus, were responsible for the English Civil War, the Russian Revolution, the Battle of Waterloo, the First and Second World wars and every other major conflict in the last two thousand years just to gain control of the money supply and eradicate the American middle classes (which is what the film actually claims) then sorry, no I don't.

As for picking on irrelevancies about tally-sticks and the origin of the City of London (or lies as I prefer to call them) then I'm sorry but if someone tells lies in support of their argument I take it to heart.

[Jagdip]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-fDgXzAj_o

DR Naik - A profound muslim professor with his views on 9/11. Repeats a lot of statements already made on this thread.

[Alan_X]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-fDgXzAj_o

DR Naik - A profound muslim professor with his views on 9/11. Repeats a lot of statements already made on this thread.

Seriously, what the fuck is that meant to prove?... Just a regurgitation of the bollocks in Loose Change.

[Jagdip]

Seriously, what the fuck is that meant to prove?... Just a regurgitation of the bollocks in Loose Change.

Firstly Admin Sir, it's not my views and I didn't post the video to prove anything. I personally don't form an opinion on the whole issue because we will never get to the bottom of it, but hearing debates from both sides of the story - is very interesting. I just found his talk interesting and shared it with the rest. I'm sure there will be some who find it more useful.

Disclaimer: It's not me preaching my views. I'm not Muslim.

[Jagdip]

Seriously, what the fuck is that meant to prove?... Just a regurgitation of the bollocks in Loose Change.

In my opinion, this is the most interesting threads on RAWK and people have raised great issues and debates and to add an informative clip which summarises what some posters on here have already said, I don't see the need to be so unreasonable in such a firm manner

[Alan_X]

In my opinion, this is the most interesting threads on RAWK and people have raised great issues and debates and to add an informative clip which summarises what some posters on here have already said, I don't see the need to be so unreasonable in such a firm manner

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask why you posted it.  I can't see how it can be classed as "informative" when it's a just second/third hand report of a fourth rate "documentary".

You said he was a profound muslim scholar which while interesting means absolutely nothing when it comes to analysing whether the conspiracy theories are true or not.

[Jagdip]

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask why you posted it.  I can't see how it can be classed as "informative" when it's a just second/third hand report of a fourth rate "documentary".

That's your opinion on the clip.

You said he was a profound muslim scholar which while interesting means absolutely nothing when it comes to analysing whether the conspiracy theories are true or not.

Merely an introduction into who the man in the clip was.

Just out of interest, have you been to Ground Zero? My interest in this issue stemed from my recent visit to NYC. I expected something different whilst visiting Ground Zero - not enough patriotism. I remember reading through this thread before my visit and some of the views shared by other posters were in the front of my mind.

Anyways, instinct isn't enough to form the basis of an opinion but can be the start of finding the underlying truth.

If men as individuals surrender to the call of their elementary instincts, avoiding pain and seeking satisfaction only for their own selves, the result for them all taken together must be a state of insecurity, of fear, and of promiscuous misery.

[Rorus]

Here's some related curiosities about 911.

I'll post the first and link to the others.

<snip>

[Alan_X]

Here's some related curiosities about 911.

I'll post the first and link to the others.

<snip>

Post your own thoughts. I've asked a load of questions on here. Have the decency to answer some of them and don't just cut and paste the same old shite.

[Alan_X]

That's your opinion on the clip.

Merely an introduction into who the man in the clip was.

Just out of interest, have you been to Ground Zero? My interest in this issue stemed from my recent visit to NYC. I expected something different whilst visiting Ground Zero - not enough patriotism. I remember reading through this thread before my visit and some of the views shared by other posters were in the front of my mind.

Anyways, instinct isn't enough to form the basis of an opinion but can be the start of finding the underlying truth.

My opinion is that it's a man who has no expert knowledge regurgitating drivel produced by other people who have no expert knowledge.

The fact that you posted it makes you what?... What's your opinion about it?... That it has some value?.. If so what? Does it prove that the disaster was an inside job?.. or that you're credulous devourer of conspiracy theories?

No I haven't been to Ground Zero, it's seven years since the event. What were you expecting and why would that have any bearing on the forensic and scientific investigations that clearly establish what happened, or the evidence of your own eyes?

Do you actually understand the meaning of that Einstein quote?

"If men as individuals surrender to the call of their elementary instincts... <snip> the result for them all taken together must be a state of insecurity, of fear, and of promiscuous misery".

[Rorus]

Post your own thoughts. I've asked a load of questions on here. Have the decency to answer some of them and don't just cut and paste the same old shite.

Ok. I wasn't answering your questions merely posing some of my own in a certain fashion. If you read the links you would realise they were not to be categorised as such.
There was not one mention of controlled demo, no planes, etc..

The articles pertained to the boring detail of the paper trail and the hard evidence of governmental and corprate maleficence.

My thoughts? That there is a onion like structure to the crime and every layer peeled reveals another, hitherto unknown facet to the crime. The towers themselves are a distraction in quite the same manner that the gunman/men argument is with the Kennedy murder. Who organised and paid for the hit rarely gets asked.

It is so obviously a crime beyond the capabilities of barely trained 'jihadis' as to be itself a distracting train of thought. Many of the people who perceive the cover up are caught up in the web of proof regarding the collapse and don't focus attention on the white collar, business and financial aspects. After all, the paper trail is what would convict people of criminality. Better for the debunkers to attract all debate into the maze of circular argument and pretend that is all that matters.

The lady, Siebel Edmunds claims to have hard evidence (for which she is gagged by state secrets act) that would send known politicians and business men to jail for their hand in the crime. The less glamorous aspects anyway; money laundering, drug smuggling and insider trading. There are links to criminality going back years such as BCCI.

There are other aspects to the general occurrences of the day and the intended/unforeseen consequences which simply put, are not for me to post here. There is plenty of resources out there for the curious.

You know, all in, really I don't give a fuck. I find it interesting now and again to read an alternate take of consensus reality. The world out there is vastly different for many different people and even then depending on their own subjective perspective. I'm happy to debate anything with anyone for the most part however.
To be quite honest though, I find the demo stuff facinating but pointless. Instinct and mathematical probability point towards controlled demo but the mainstream press have that 'debunked' in many peoples eyes. A waste of energy. I don't know if a plane or a missile hit the pentagon and I don't care. How were the planes allowed to get to their destinations (for the most part)? Well, now you're getting into the realms of PTECH and the paper trail.

It's all rather interesting but kind of pointless and futile. There is more to life than proving that the boogyman exists.


I'll post the links again, or if you prefer, I'll PM them to interested parties as not to offend the sensibilities of moderated reasoning.

[The Bill Hicks Appreciation Society]

Interview with the late Aaron Russo, who claims Nick Rockerfeller told him there was going to be an 'incident' and out of that incident they would invade afghanistan etc

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/7nD7dbkkBIA" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/7nD7dbkkBIA</a>

Now what perplexes me is what possible motivation is there for a rich, successful film maker to lie about such things, especially when the man was dying anyway.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

I'll post the links again, or if you prefer, I'll PM them to interested parties as not to offend the sensibilities of moderated reasoning.

I think you're misunderstanding the stance.  Feel free to post links but outline why you have posted them and why you agree with them. What you think they prove etc etc.

Just posting some bollocks from the rich resources of shite available all over the interweb does not a debate make.

[Balance]

There do seem to be a lot of people in here who post some bollocks conspiracy theory then, when questioned about it, say "well I was only posting it because I thought it was informative/interesting. Doesn't have anything to do with me".

It's this uncritical attitude towards the dissemination of information that has caused the glut and spread of bullshit conspiracy theories. Information does not equal knowledge; if it's obviously rubbish then don't post it, don't spread it, let it die. In the age of the internet, though, every idea, every scrap of information - no matter how ludicrous - is passed on and passed on.

Meaning and truth are lost in a tidal wave of ambiguous theories; all of which supposedly have some merit simply because they "offer an opposing point of view", or in other words simply because they exist.

[Dr Cornwallis]

Alan, I feel your pain but there still ARE some unanswered questions regarding the black boxes, the Pentagon 'crash' and the vast hole in the ground in middle America.  Also, as the good doctor points out, a large plane flying at high speeds just a few feet over a highway would most probably result in a fair few cars being blown about.

[Balance]

Alan, I feel your pain but there still ARE some unanswered questions regarding the black boxes, the Pentagon 'crash' and the vast hole in the ground in middle America.  Also, as the good doctor points out, a large plane flying at high speeds just a few feet over a highway would most probably result in a fair few cars being blown about.

...but you're misplacing the burden of proof. The burden isn't on the authorities (or poor Alan...) to answer questions or explain why this or that didn't happen. The burden is on a conspiracy theorist to explain what did happen and offer evidence of their claims. No one with any degree of credibility has done this, and not a shred of reliable evidence has been produced of anything occurring contradictory to the official version of events.

[Alan_X]

Alan, I feel your pain but there still ARE some unanswered questions regarding the black boxes, the Pentagon 'crash' and the vast hole in the ground in middle America.  Also, as the good doctor points out, a large plane flying at high speeds just a few feet over a highway would most probably result in a fair few cars being blown about.

There are no significant unanswered questions about the Pentagon crash. It was a plane, it is known which plane, it is also known who was on it and the damage it did.

Why would it? It never has when I drive along the road at the end of the runway at Heathrow. It's another one of those "common sense" arguments that simply doesn't bear any scrutiny.

Have a think about it... a jet engine works on the principle of Newton's 3rd law of dynamics, which states simplisticly that any action has an equal and opposite reaction. So say the plane is traveling forward at 500 mph, unless it's accelerating it is exerting a thrust on the air in order to continue going forward. The jet leaving the back of the engine (at around 500mph) is effectively stationary in the air.

So where does this huge blast capable of turning cars over come from?

If a plane was parked on the ground with its brakes on and put on maximum thrust it would send out a huge thrust but still not enough to turn a car over. If it's in motion there is simply no way that would happen.

Now that's just off the top of my head and I'm happy to be corrected if wrong.

[Alan_X]

...but you're misplacing the burden of proof. The burden isn't on the authorities (or poor Alan...) to answer questions or explain why this or that didn't happen. The burden is on a conspiracy theorist to explain what did happen and offer evidence of their claims. No one with any degree of credibility has done this, and not a shred of reliable evidence has been produced of anything occurring contradictory to the official version of events.

Cheers. You're right that the burden of proof is with the Conspiracy theorists but they never take it up. It's always vague coincidences, fractured cilps from tv news sources or quotes taken out of context.

And here's a jumbo jet landing at St Maarten just a few feet over the beach. Why aren't the people thrown about?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HF-3mCfgiu4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAPjOSrkC84&NR=1

[Rorus]

I think you're misunderstanding the stance.  Feel free to post links but outline why you have posted them and why you agree with them. What you think they prove etc etc.

Just posting some bollocks from the rich resources of shite available all over the interweb does not a debate make.

It's a very fair point when explained as such. I thought I had offended Alan's Masonic overlords or something.

Post your own thoughts. I've asked a load of questions on here. Have the decency to answer some of them and don't just cut and paste the same old shite.

I still don't think I posted the same old shite at all. Read it and make you mind up for sure.

 The Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11

 "Where drugs, arms and oil intersect"

 Remembering September 10, 2001

 Michael Chertoff and the sabotage of the Ptech investigation




I posted a few of my thoughts and read your questions. 'I haven't a clue' is the stock answer for most of them. I think that applies both ways though assuming that the events of the day were unconventional (occurred once in living memory. call that unique then).
As I said in my post, the actual collapse of the towers serves to distract the majority of people away from what went on behind the scenes in terms of money changing hands and therefore hard evidence of criminality perpetrated by American citizens.

The financial aspect isn't denied just ignored by the investigation. Put options of uncanny accuracy which imply foreknowledge. That's 'insider trading' not to mention that implication of how one might be in possesion of such info. (Same thing happened in the ftse just before 7/7 funny enough. A run on the pound..)

Of course stock marked traders are to be trusted and valued as recent experience has taught us.

[Alan_X]

It's a very fair point when explained as such. I thought I had offended Alan's Masonic overlords or something.

I still don't think I posted the same old shite at all. Read it and make you mind up for sure.

 The Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11

 "Where drugs, arms and oil intersect"

 Remembering September 10, 2001

 Michael Chertoff and the sabotage of the Ptech investigation

I posted a few of my thoughts and read your questions. 'I haven't a clue' is the stock answer for most of them. I think that applies both ways though assuming that the events of the day were unconventional (occurred once in living memory. call that unique then).
As I said in my post, the actual collapse of the towers serves to distract the majority of people away from what went on behind the scenes in terms of money changing hands and therefore hard evidence of criminality perpetrated by American citizens.

The financial aspect isn't denied just ignored by the investigation. Put options of uncanny accuracy which imply foreknowledge. That's 'insider trading' not to mention that implication of how one might be in possesion of such info. (Same thing happened in the ftse just before 7/7 funny enough. A run on the pound..)

Of course stock marked traders are to be trusted and valued as recent experience has taught us.

First off there are answers to all those questions. It's just that they've been given by independent scientists and investigators paid by the government and therefore unacceptable to CT nuts. Whereas the moronic warblings of idiots like David Ray Griffin, Steve Jones and others are taken as gospel. Saying "the actual collapse of the towers serves to distract the majority of people away from what went on behind the scenes..." is a bit rich don't you think?... 3,000 people killed and many people's lives devastated and you thionk it's more important to worry about some made-up-nonsense about financial plots?

So first easy question: do you believe that the towers collapsed in the way described in the 9/11 report? Yes/No*

*delete as applicable.

I really don't know what those links are meant to prove... vague coincidences and innuendo... and?...  Have you actually bothered to check whether all of those claims are true?

As for the options[?] of "uncanny accuracy which imply foreknowledge..."  what are those exactly?... and you clearly can't see the irony of claiming that stock market traders were somehow aware of a vast plot to attack America but couldn't prevent the sub-prime fiasco, losing their jobs and billions of dollars in the process.

It's the same lack of awareness that suggests the clueless fucks who have taken America from being the single most powerful country in the world eight years ago to a screaming basket case today with a lame-duck President begging for a bail-out live on TV, are the same people who were capable of the vast conspiracy that would create the "New American Century".

As for dragging in the 7/7 attacks in to it. I don't remember a run on the pound after the attacks and I work in London. There is no doubt as far as I;m aware about who carried out the 7/7 attacks or how they did it. Are you suggesting they committed suicide attacks to make money for stock market traders?... sorry if I find that a bit far fetched...

Show me some actual evidence and I might get interested, otherwise it's just the same old bollocks...

[The Manhattan Project]

Most conspiracies are bunk.

JFK, Area 51, Faked Moon Landings, September 11th etc...



All bollocks.

[The Bill Hicks Appreciation Society]

Area 51

Are you actually saying there is no Area 51?

[The Manhattan Project]

There is an Area 51, but I don't believe they have aliens or alien technology there.

[kesey]

 You're right that the burden of proof is with the Conspiracy theorists but they never take it up.

Aspartame when ever your ready Alan.           


* Modified *

What about MK Ultra?  Vaccine dangers?         

C'med fella Iam bored shitless here.     

[blurred]

If a plane was parked on the ground with its brakes on and put on maximum thrust it would send out a huge thrust but still not enough to turn a car over.

Not true, actually, Alan, it was on Top Gear a few series ago where they tried to drive a car behind a stationary plane with its engines on full-blast and it sent various cars absolutely flying.