The Reality of the conspiracy is coming into public awareness more and more

jessop1

David Icke: Was he right?
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=5761670487291528915&hl=en-GB

This was shown on uk channel 5 at 11pm last night, so would have had a fairly large audience. It gives a fair account of Icke and even if the word "reptilian" is enough to set you off on a guffawing frenzy and just turn off, you cant deny that the events he has talked about in his books over the last 15 years have actually been unfolding as predicted.

There is something very wrong with the way this world is run, icke has been writing about it for years, to much ridicule from the controlled mainstream media and the closed minded "sheeple" who unquestioningly accept what they are told - but more and more people are waking up and questioning this.

David shayler, an ex M15 agent who was pursued under the official secrets act by the british government for exposing criminality in that organisation also brought this whole conspiracy subject up (unexpectedly) in a prime time sky news interview and gave a very credible portrayal of whats going on.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=9060379095349825616&q=shayler+sky+news

Dont expect either of these guys to give you the full picture in these programs, which are only 45mins and 30mins long. But what both Icke and Shayler (and many more researchers who are either ridiculed in the public eye or are unheard of in the mainstream media) are saying is enough to make any discerning person cock up their ears and want to understand more about whether this is true or not. And the more you look, the more you will find that there is some very credible evidence backing this up and very clearly showing that the "powers that be" are lying through their teeth about whats happening in the world - 9/11, 7/7 afghanistan, iraq, iran etc.

If you think this is all pile of rubbish, thats your prerogative and please feel free to go back to sleep (your children will not thank you though) but if you think there is something to it, please circulate these videos to as many people as you can.

Peace y'all!

cockmynut

I do respect scientists and scholars in the 9/11 Truth Movement however I think that I would have taken a good bit of LSD to start agreeing with David Icke.

flogen

Any details on who was behind this programme?
After a half hour all I'm seeing is pure pro-Icke propaganda, that's hardly any better than the propaganda he claims to be fighting...

jessop1

Icke's theories on the lizards are a bit hard to swallow, but havent films and the media programmed us all to place anything to do with space aliens into the realms of fantasy? even though we live in a universe so vast and so little understood by humanity that we would be foolish to rule out the possibility...

Putting the reptilian stuff to one side, Icke and many other reserchers & writers have put forward some very credible evidence showing the chasm between that the way this world is actually compared to the way it is portrayed to be by the tightly controlled mainstream media.

if you can accept the credibilty of the droves of scientists and engineers who say that the official story of 9/11 is a physical impossibility and the buildings could only have been brought down in that way by a controlled demolition, any discerning person has to be asking themselves why the powers that be would do such a thing and what else have these people been up to, how deep does the rabbit hole go? Icke and many other researchers have written extensively about the covert grip of control the illuminati, ie the global elite have over world events. And their findings are very disturbing indeed. Its something we should all be very worried about but most of us just want to go back to sleep...

ps the programme was produced by channel five in the uk. apparantly the producer was some chap from northern ireland who attended a lecture of icke's some years ago..

So Glad

Yeah, nobody can say that conspiracy theorists haven't gotten decent airtime now. This is good news, shows that people are opening their minds a little. Although there is one thing with these conspiracy theorists that seriously piss me off, considering that they are trying to convince people. Why is it that every theorist has their own rediculous assumptions. It's almost like they are trying to out-do themselves!

"THE PLANES WERE HOLOGRAMS!!"

"YEAH? WELL ALL OUR PRESIDENTS ARE REPTILES!!!"

"YEAH?? WELL I SEEN GEORGE BUSH PLANT BOMBS IN THE WTC!!!"

Etc etc.

Y'see, these guys have a real nice presentation going on and actually have people listening and believing untill they say these things (note the deafening silence when Shayler mentioned (or insinuated) holographic planes). It's like the cook who is baking a cake and it's looking really nice and your just about to eat a piece when the cook stands over it and takes a big hairy dump on top of it. Becomes a little less inviting after that...

You wouldn't eat from that restaraunt in any hurry again, if you know what I mean.

mymind

We have governments wanting to seperate Church and State yet basic fundimentals of government were born on religious texts and beliefs. It seams we are battleing much more than Ideas, freedom, legislation, political rights or humanistic issues. We as a global society are being driven as it were to make a choice based on a central belief system. To finally achieve a goal towards total politacal and legislative progress to deminish individual freedoms. Making central monitary curency along with central politics and religion takes away voice. Progress will not stop to glean the process and weedout the non followers.

Everyone wants to know without having faith in the equation. Who should we believe? Which God should we follow? To what fotune teller do we trust? To what prophet do we listen? What star do we follow?

Consider truth: Truth can always be tried and tested and will always come back in answer. Is smoking bad? test smoke for years. conciquence cancer. answer yes.

Open your heart: For we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, powers and rulers of darkness of this world and spiritual wickedness in high places.

bonkey

jessop1 wrote:

you cant deny that the events he has talked about in his books over the last 15 years have actually been unfolding as predicted.

You mean that island off Scotland has sunk? Goodness...that was kept quiet. When did it happen?

Icke's theories on the lizards are a bit hard to swallow, but havent films and the media programmed us all to place anything to do with space aliens into the realms of fantasy?

I would have said that education has programmed me to put anything without credible evidence to back it up into a realm such as fantasy, fiction, speculation, etc.

even though we live in a universe so vast and so little understood by humanity that we would be foolish to rule out the possibility...

We would also be foolish to accept possibility whilst ignoring probability as it is this distinction which marks the line between openmindedness and gullibility.

Openmindedness tells me it is possible that the guy offering the money with his spot-the-lady card-trick is honest. Gullibility makes me ignore probability and put my money down.

if you can accept the credibilty of the droves of scientists and engineers who say that the official story of 9/11 is a physical impossibility and the buildings could only have been brought down in that way by a controlled demolition,

If one wishes to describe the tiny minority who say its impossible as "droves", then one should describe the overwhelming numbers who disagree with them as "hordes".

At such a point, those who support the "droves" and reject the "hordes" will generally argue that its not about a majority, and science isn't a democracy....which would then beg the question as to why they sought to add the credibility of weight-of-numbers to their case in the first case.

any discerning person has to be asking themselves why the powers that be would do such a thing and what else have these people been up to,

"Discerning" should not equate to "asking why it has been done" but rather to "asking whether or not it has been done".

You can be discerning and reject Icke out of hand. You can be discerning and accept his word as the spoken truth of some new Messiah.

Because thats another point....being discerning doesn't make you right in either case.

how deep does the rabbit hole go?

Adding matrix quotes doesn't make your case more convincing.

Its something we should all be very worried about

What, exactly, should we be worried about? Or is this yet another "buy or steal his work to find out" post?

but most of us just want to go back to sleep...

Thats cause we're sleeple. Sheeple sleeple people....thats us.

jessop1

oh..its you again. Oh well, I guess I'll have to respond in kind.

bonkey wrote:

You mean that island off Scotland has sunk? Goodness...that was kept quiet. When did it happen?

sorry, I should have said many of the events he predicted :rolleyes: :rolleyes: what are ye like with yer nit picking.

bonkey wrote:

I would have said that education has programmed me to put anything without credible evidence to back it up into a realm such as fantasy, fiction, speculation, etc.

Replace education for indoctrination and your accurate there. Your indoctrination has dictated to you what you should view as "credible" or not. Try to open your mind just a little.

bonkey wrote:

We would also be foolish to accept possibility whilst ignoring probability as it is this distinction which marks the line between openmindedness and gullibility.

this universe is so vast you have absolutely no idea what is probable beyond your immediate realm of existence. you cant say whats probable or possible on the other side of the universe or in universes that may exist in other dimensions. And neither can conventional science, no matter how much you wish this to be so.

bonkey wrote:

Openmindedness tells me it is possible that the guy offering the money with his spot-the-lady card-trick is honest. Gullibility makes me ignore probability and put my money down.

ridiculous analogy to compare with something which is so much more profound, and poorly understood as the nature of the universe.

bonkey wrote:

If one wishes to describe the tiny minority who say its impossible as "droves", then one should describe the overwhelming numbers who disagree with them as "hordes".

more irrelevant ****e talk. And by the way the 9/11 truth movement is backed by a hell of a lot of demololition experts, explosives experts, physicists, aviation experts, military insiders, the list goes on and on. To call them a tiny minority is utterly disingenuous of you. Very easy to verify the weight behind the 9/11 truth movement this with some simple google searches. The only reason their voices arent heard clearly is because the evil scum responsible for 9/11 (the american givernment, cia, mossad, mi6 and their illuminati controllers) control most of the mainstream media. But their grip is loosening. Also, its worth noting that many key "scientists" backing the government lies have declined to enter into public debates with the 9/11 truth movement scientists.

bonkey wrote:

At such a point, those who support the "droves" and reject the "hordes" will generally argue that its not about a majority, and science isn't a democracy....which would then beg the question as to why they sought to add the credibility of weight-of-numbers to their case in the first case.

your right science isnt a democracy - its a dictatorshop. And more often than not in the past, whats accepted as science is later disproven utterly. Have you ever heard this famous quote:
""It's been said that the truth goes through three stages. First it's ridiculed. Then it's violently opposed. Then it's accepted as self-evident" have a think about that. Because your closed-mindedness has you firmly stuck in the first stage.

bonkey wrote:

You can be discerning and reject Icke out of hand. You can be discerning and accept his word as the spoken truth of some new Messiah.

Because thats another point....being discerning doesn't make you right in either case.

blah blah whatever

bonkey wrote:

Adding matrix quotes doesn't make your case more convincing.

you're mean

bonkey wrote:

What, exactly, should we be worried about? Or is this yet another "buy or steal his work to find out" post?

the fascist world govenment which is almost upon us. And you neednt buy or steal icke's work to find the evidence of this. Many many researchers across the world are coming to the same conclusions. Google and and open minded, discerning brain is all you need to find this out. I know you have google, but alas...

bonkey wrote:

Thats cause we're sleeple. Sheeple sleeple people....thats us.

You undoubtedly are sir.


Now bonkey boy, how long do you think the mods will allow this ridiculous pulling posts apart business and quotes taking up half a page? will they pull the thread before it turns into debate stifling reams of quotes? is that your aim?

So Glad

Bravo, Jessop1. Get ready for a big quote-'em-up showdown!

So Glad

And, regarding opening your mind to the slight possibility that maybe you don't know everything, here is a great oul newsletter by crazy oul David Icke.

Read if you want, no rush.

Hello all,

As we start another year, at least according to the calendar of the Roman Church, there is much to celebrate as minds open on a scale never seen before in known human history.

While the mainstream media is dominated by the agenda of the hidden elite and things appear to be getting worse by the day, the transformation of human consciousness is also gathering pace at an ever more remarkable rate.

For others to join this global awakening all they really need is an open mind. Everything else comes from that.

It takes an immense effort to uncover the hidden truth behind world events because to get to the heart of what is happening requires research over a great swathe of subjects, many of them unconnected at first sight, and nearly all of them are a massive credibility stretch for those living in the 'real world' that I hear so much about.

What such research demands more than anything is an open mind, free of preconceived ideas or belief, and a lack of concern about what others may think of you. Belief edits information that challenges the belief, and fear of what others think blocks the communication of facts that you know will attract ridicule and condemnation.

So it is, not only for researchers and writers, but also for those who are faced with their information. Many dismiss it immediately simply because it challenges their ingrained beliefs.

Preconceived belief and fear of what others will say are prisons of the mind that maintain so many in mental, emotional and, often, physical servitude. Only when you let them go can freedom and the infinity of knowledge, understanding and wisdom be ours.

We talk about open minds and closed minds and this concept is literally true. There are infinite levels of reality, but there are two main points of observation for those experiencing physical form. There is the 'body' or 'five-sense' reality and there is what I call Infinite Consciousness or 'All Possibility'.

The body level of reality is where most people operate. It is here that we 'think' our thoughts and 'feel' our emotions. The body is a holographic biological computer, by which I mean it is a computer with the ability to think for itself up to a point.

We see this in the way it responds to problems, be it healing a cut in the skin or storing toxins in the fatty tissues to prevent harm to the rest of the body. Every second a fantastic number of decisions are being made by the genetic computer-mind that we call the body as it responds and regulates to keep itself alive.

Yet, as usual, so few people seem to wonder how this is possible and what force is making these decisions. It is a key question to understanding our reality, but, incredibly, it is so rarely asked.

It is crucial to understand that the body is a biological computer that can think and feel for itself and the brain acts as the central processing unit that filters the information traffic received through the five senses and other sources.

We believe that our thoughts and emotions are 'us', but they are not. They are located in the body computer and if you go into a quiet space and detach from thought and emotion you can observe them from another reality and see that they are not you. When you step back into observer mode, the thoughts and emotions float by as the computer continues to respond according to its programmed reality.

The genetic structure is a highly sophisticated and advanced 'hard drive' which inherits traits from its 'family' line and also downloads information and responses from its daily experience, which are passed on to the next 'generation'. This is why someone may be instinctively frightened of dogs or water when they have had no negative experiences with either.

What we call procreation is like downloading information from two hard drives onto another. Often the information from one hard drive will dominate and people will say 'he looks like his dad' or 'she is just like her mother'.

This can be true of mental and emotional straits as well as the purely physical and our inherited programs are not just passed down from our parents. There can be characteristics from further down the line, which have been dormant or filed away, and when they are accessed by the child he or she will be 'just like his great grandfather' or someone even further back.

These traits are computer programs, like software downloads, and they can influence, even control, behaviour for an entire physical 'lifetime'. But it doesn't have to be like that; it is a choice once we understand the virtual reality game we are currently playing out.

The inherited program can be changed by experience, for example. How many times do we hear people say that such and such an experience 'changed my life'? These experiences, especially powerfully emotional ones, download information to challenge the traits and beliefs in the inherited hard drive and so the program changes. We experience this as altered perception and behaviour.

Those manipulating global events know all this and the knowledge is communicated through the generations of 'elite' families at the highest levels of the secret society network. To have this understanding while you systematically keep it from the people, is to have all you need to control the masses by programming their sense of perception.

'Don't tell me the world is not real ... I can see it with my own eyes ...'

This is happening minute by minute through the media, especially television, and the ludicrously-named 'education' system. From the earliest age children are being programmed unknowingly by their parents and then the state takes over to download perception through school and university - 'This is how it is, this is the truth, this is the "norm".'

Oh yes, and if you don't accept the 'norm' you are wrong, crazy or dangerous.

This is what is happening to people by the second as they download perception from the media, 'education, 'science', and all the rest. They are being programmed to see the world in the desired fashion and to perceive reality only through the five senses - the body computer.

Look at the way society is structured and operates. It is designed to entice, entrap and stimulate the five senses because if we perceive only at that level of reality we become life-long prisoners of the genetic program.

The plan to microchip everyone at birth is designed to externally suppress our ability to perceive beyond the body - the box - because once we open our minds to greater possibility the power of the body programmes is immediately diminished.

This is why visionaries in all their forms have always been seen as dangerous throughout the ages by the prevailing authority. What visionaries do is offer another version, or versions, of possibility that challenge the belief that there is only one possibility - the one the authorities seek to sell and indoctrinate.

The basic technique of control is simple: tell the people what to think and suppress anyone or anything that would encourage them to think another way. Look at what we call society and you will see this all the time.

'Preparing to program, press enter, download complete ...'

The manipulators are terrified that people will break through the vibrational walls of the computer program and access their Infinite Consciousness - that which operates at the level of All Possibility. There are no limitations within Infinite Consciousness and whenever we think in terms of limitation it is the body program at work.

Infinite Consciousness is like the ocean and the body program is like a droplet of water disconnected from that ocean. The disconnection comes, quite simply, from having our attention focussed on being the droplet. In fact, we are not disconnected at all because we are always the ocean, but our focus - our belief in what is real - can so concentrate the mind on 'physical' reality that we don't see the obvious.

There is a video going round the Internet in which the viewer is told to concentrate on the number of times two balls are thrown by a group of people. At the end the viewer is asked 'Did you see the gorilla?' Most, it seems, do not, and yet when the video is played back someone in a gorilla costume clearly walks across the screen.

The reason that most don't see it is because their attention, their focus, is on the balls as the instructions have told them. It is the same with our daily lives. We are constantly told to focus on this or that - all five-sense activities - and so we miss the 'gorilla' ... the Infinite Consciousness that we really are.

All we need to break this cycle is an open mind. When we open our minds to all possibility we allow into our reality the infinite, unprogrammed, consciousness that I call All Possibility. When we open our attention spectrum to include all possibility that is what we naturally connect with.

Perceive the ocean and you'll be the ocean.

Applied to the gorilla video, instead of focusing only on the balls as they move around we open our minds, and therefore our sight, to include the whole picture. When we do this the gorilla is clear to see.

Once we refocus from the small to the all our whole perception of ourselves and life itself begins to transform and we become a nightmare to control and manipulate. The first thing you realise is that all the things that we take seriously or worry about are actually irrelevant bollocks from the perspective of Infinite Consciousness.

They are merely the things we are told and encouraged to focus on so we don't see the guy in the gorilla suit.

You also start to see what people are really saying and intending, even though their words may appear to be saying something very different. This is because you are looking into this world from a much higher point of vision than you were when the program was running your perception.

You are in this world 'physically', but not of this world in terms of your understanding of reality. Instead of being just a participant, you become an observer-participant.

This can be very hard to start with because while you are seeing another vision of possibility most of the people around you will still be in the program, which is indoctrinated to see only limitation. To the programmed mind, you have 'gone crazy' or you are 'a weirdo'.

I went through years of public ridicule myself when I began to speak of these things, but if you refuse to bend and keep walking your path you will find that your world starts walking with you.

It is easier now than ever to 'come out' because so many minds are opening as the vibrational change that, in part, manifests as global warming, breaks down the concrete shells that have held humanity in the illusion of disconnection and limitation.

If you want to make this same journey, all you need is to open your mind to all possibility. Get yourself a blank sheet of mental paper with no beliefs or preconceived ideas of what is or isn't. Then watch your life change course as another hand grasps the wheel and leads you out of the maze.

That 'hand' is not some external entity, some 'guide', it is a higher, more enlightened, expression of you. It communicates through knowing and intuition, not thought. We feel it in the heart, not the head. The program thinks and tries to work it all out, while Infinite Consciousness intuitively knows because it is the All-Knowing.

It is not that we need to learn anything. It is that we need to stop clinging through fear to the wreckage of indoctrinated belief, religious, 'scientific', or whatever.

It is belief that holds us in the headlights and once it is gone only All Possibility - All Knowing - remains. Please don't let anyone kid you that waking up from our spiritual slumber, our hypnotic state, is some great complicated process that requires years of meditation or visits to some guru.

It's not true. It is as easy or as hard as we choose to make it.

Belief manifests vibrationally as like a concrete energy field that shuts out the infinite. Stop believing and those vibrational walls will collapse through lack of sustenance and everything will change.

No, it can't be that simple, my guru said so when I paid him the last cheque.

Oh, yes it is.

jessop1

Thanks for posting the newsletter so glad.

I'd love to see bonkey pull that one apart line by line... with any luck he'll crash his 'puter..:D .. sorry, I'll get me coat.

So Glad

Hur hur hur....'puter...

billy the squid

jessop1 wrote:

Thanks for posting the newsletter so glad.

I'd love to see bonkey pull that one apart line by line... with any luck he'll crash his 'puter..:D .. sorry, I'll get me coat.

Refer to another user in such a manner and you will be needing it ... your coat that is.

jessop1

sorry crap joke no offense intended.

Diogenes

jessop1 wrote:

more irrelevant ****e talk. And by the way the 9/11 truth movement is backed by a hell of a lot of demololition experts, explosives experts, physicists, aviation experts, military insiders, the list goes on and on.

Please give a copy/example of these experts and their qualification.

To call them a tiny minority is utterly disingenuous of you. Very easy to verify the weight behind the 9/11 truth movement this with some simple google searches. The only reason their voices arent heard clearly is because the evil scum responsible for 9/11 (the american givernment, cia, mossad, mi6 and their illuminati controllers) control most of the mainstream media. But their grip is loosening.

How is their grip "loosening"? Whats causing it to loosen.

Okay lets stop for a minute.

CTer's keep saying the mainstream is controlled by the NWO, how? Exactly how. I'd love to know. And instants like Icke getting on telly or Shayler, are what? I mean the NWO control the media, so how does Icke keep getting on telly? Is the job of NWO media controller just a part time job?

Also, its worth noting that many key "scientists" backing the government lies have declined to enter into public debates with the 9/11 truth movement scientists.

Fact link evidence?

Now bonkey boy, how long do you think the mods will allow this ridiculous pulling posts apart business and quotes taking up half a page? will they pull the thread before it turns into debate stifling reams of quotes? is that your aim?

Actually if you look in politics, or humanties, anyone discussing anything of weight in the inter used this, it allows you to see what the other poster is refering to.

bonkey

And yet again we see the well-established pattern.

Disagreement with a believer is mocked, the disagreer insulted, and the standard "open your mind, just a little" logic used as though it has already been established that there is no openmindedness in my objections.

Jessop1 would have us believe that science is a dictatorship. Its a strange dictatorship that has progressed and improved at a rapidly-increasing pace since the formulation and formalisation of the scientific method.

Indeed, the very objections against science that jessop1 et al level ignore the very concept of the scientific method as well as what science really is.

Science deals with the measurable. It forms predictive models. The only thing it says about the beliefs proliferated by Icke or indeed any metaphysical area is very simple:

If it has an observeable effect on the universe, then its effects can be modelled, predicted and measured. Conversely, if its effects cannot be modelled, prediucted and measured, then it has no observeable effect.

Its that simple.

Science rests on a basic premise of falsifiability. If you don't make falsifiable predictions, you cannot be dealing with science. If you do make falsifiable predictions, then a single result contrary to the prediction says that your model is wrong. If we are to believe that Icke has some sort of ability to see the future, then we are owed an explanation as to why he gets some stuff so spectacularly wrong. Do we get this? No, we don't. We get ridicule and admonitions that its "obviously" our closed-mindedness which is the problem.

I get accused of pedantry because I take things to mean what they say...in this case because I want it to be clear that saying someone's predictions have come true is not entirely the same as saying that some unquantified number of predictions, of unqualified specificity have come true.

I also would like to point out that I find it vastly amusing to compare the writing of Icke (as shown in his newsletter) with the writing of what I would consider to be a fairly typical "believer" - jessop1.

Icke :

I went through years of public ridicule myself when I began to speak of these things, but if you refuse to bend and keep walking your path you will find that your world starts walking with you.

jessop1 :

oh..its you again. Oh well, ...
...what are ye like with yer nit picking...
...Try to open your mind just a little...
...more irrelevant ****e talk...
...blah blah whatever...
...Now bonkey boy...
...with any luck he'll crash his 'puter...

I can see you truly have taken Icke's message to heart.

So Glad

Science works only if the given theory works the same way every time, but quantum physics cannot be observered or monitored (The Slits experiment) and it almost has a mind of its own. Would it not be plausible that a lot of interesting things have avoided scientific scrutiny and are only available to the open-minded observer?

bonkey

So Glad wrote:

Science works only if the given theory works the same way every time,

I'm not sure what it is you're saying. If what you mean is that a scientific theory is only good as long as it accurately predicts the outcome correctly each and every time, then I agree.

but quantum physics cannot be observered or monitored (The Slits experiment)

Quantum physics can indeed be observed and monitored. What do you think the slits experiment is, if not an observation and monitoring of a quantum effect?

I think I know what you are driving at - which is that there is a degree of uncertainty which - thus far - is believed to be an inherent aspect of Quantum Theory, but that doesn't detract from the fact that there is Quantum Theory. Its astonishingly accurate and useful as a theory as well.

and it almost has a mind of its own.

There has always been a tendency to attribute some sort of guiding "mind" to things we don't understand. As science has progressed we've learned, for example, that weather doesn't have a mind of its own, but rather that its a vastly complex chaotic (in the mathematical sense) system.

The attribution of "mind" suggests guidance. With quantum effects, the underlying uncertainty is - as far as we can currently tell - truly random. It is possible that its not random. Its possible that it is deterministic in a manner we don't yet understand. Its also possible that there is a guiding force - an intelligence - but nothing (including Icke's preachings) currently gives us any method of distinguishing its effects as being other than pure randomness. So why is it wrong to say its random and what, if anything, would we gain from saying "its controlled by some higher power" ???

Would it not be plausible that a lot of interesting things have avoided scientific scrutiny and are only available to the open-minded observer?

Is it plausible that a lot of interesting things have avoided scientific scrutiny? I would say that its not only plausible, but certain.

Are these things available to the "open-minded observer"? Well, first I'd have to ask you to define what you mean by "open minded"? I find it interesting that proponents of this open-mindedness seem to have a knowledge of science whilst simultaneously dismissing science as some sort of limiting discipline, the knowledge of which prevents someone from being open-minded.

If its possible to be knowledgeable about science and retain open-mindedness, then its incorrect to dismiss people simply for putting weight behind science. If, on the other hand, open-mindedness requires a limit to how much one knows about science, then the criticism of science is taken from a position of ignorance. Interestingly, the dismissal of Icke's work is usually not accepted by the "open-minded" on the grounds that those dismissing it are speaking from a position of ignorance. Is this not a double standard?

You can't have it both ways. Either one can know about science and still be open-minded, or one can only dismiss science from a position with insufficient knowledge to know whether or not the dismissal is valid.

I'd also ask whether or not these interesting things you refer to have any effect on the what is generally considered the real world. If they don't, then how do you distinguish between a flight of fancy, a delusion, or something real-but-only-for-the-open-minded? If, however, they do have an impact then they have a measurable effect by definition. A measurable effect means there is no possible way that their effect cannot be scientifically analyzed.

Consider Icke's "Matrix model" (for lack of a better description). If the computer simulation we're inside is indistinguishable in every way from the scientific model we have of the universe (including all scientific progress made in the future), then the scientific model is perfectly valid for what it is intended to do and dismissal of it is incorrect. If it is distinguishable, then let its supporters show where it succeeds where science fails.

The "outside" of this Matrix model seems no different in concept to the religious concept of heaven, in that absolutely no measurable impact on the known universe has been shown to exist. At that point, what does it matter if its real or not? It changes nothing. If, on the other hand, it is alleged to have an impact, then that impact should be measurable.

Its possible that there are "higher realms" which have no inward impact, but in this case, their lack of inward impact means that we have no way of distinguishing between the infinite number of possibilities which could exist. There is no way to say that Icke is right, and all other beliefs are wrong. There is no way to distinguish between Icke's belief and the ravings of a madman. There is also no impact on our daily lives as it changes nothing whether or not it is true.

Given that there are - as I said - an infinite number of possibilities, then the chances of Icke's vision being correct are suddenly vanishingly small.

In many respects, Icke's beliefs are a form of belief. They are a faith, bordering on a religion, and they contradict many tenets of established religions. What grounds do we have to suggest that they are the correct vision, and that every religion that exists or has existed is wrong?

I have no objection to anyone having faith in whatever they choose to. My objection arises when - as is all too common - science is simultaneously hijacked and attacked. We hear about how its a tyrannical dictatorship which is limiting our minds, but the same people who then turn around and calmly (or not so calmly at times) explain how so much of it is both correct and compatible with these new beliefs!!!

As a parting though, lets look at a comment of Icke's message that you posted :

The basic technique of control is simple: tell the people what to think and suppress anyone or anything that would encourage them to think another way.

It would seem that Icke is telling us what to think, and that those who have accepted his word are telling us that everything else is wrong, that we need to discard it, and accept this new way of thinking.

How is that any different? How is Icke doing anything but attempting to change the controller? And if that's what he's doing, what possible reason do we have to believe that his control would be any more benign than the control of those who have come before him who talked the good talk but - as Icke maintains - did so to deceive.

<edit to add>
Consider one last possibility: Icke is an agent of forces of evil and his purpose is to offer us an apparently-attractive new way of life, but which is just another new stage of deception and enslavement, as religion, democracy, and everything which has come before has also allegedly been.

How could you tell the difference????? How can you have any certainty that you are not the unwitting slaves of the latest gambit to ensure we never gain our freedom, just as all of those who have embraced all previous such deceptive freedoms have been???

If you have an open mind, you can't dismiss the possibility, right?

So far, the open minded haven't offered any way of distinguishing one open-minded possibility from another...so it would seem to be equally likely at least. Given that Icke's view of the world suggests that this is a recurring pattern, it would seem even more likely that this is the case, rather than that the alleged controllers have somehow slipped up and finally allowed someone to successfully propagate a true message of redemption.

After all, they allegedly have more control now then ever....so why hasn't Icke been silenced?

So...are we open-minded? Do we accept the possibilities that :

- Icke is right
- Icke is wrong and an agent of deception, weaving a few carefully chosen lies into a web of convincing truth...just enough to ensure we stay enslaved.
- Icke is wrong, because Icke is crazy
- Icke is wrong, because of any other of an infinite number of possibilities.

Keep an open mind...right? Can't just dismiss any of them...so...of the infinite possibilities....why put weight behind the one chance that he's right and not behind the infinite chances that he's wrong.

jessop1

Fao Diogenes:

1 - Evidence of experts calling the 9/11 official story b/s
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/
http://www.911truth.org/
http://liftingthefog.org/press.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/11/12/18329055.php`
and don’t forget…
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054895733/

2 – how do NWO Control the media? Same way they control banking, business, energy etc – ie you only have to control a few key people at the top. The major players in all big business strangely enough are members of the same secret societies as the likes of bush, blair, cheney, Chirac etc etc etc…. go figure.
how is their grip loosening? The more the evidence propagates through the non-mainstream channels (and there are many channels and lots of evidence) the less the mainstream media can ignore it. The truth will come out for all to see eventually. And btw, shayler took the sky news presenter by surprise, that wasn’t scheduled he hijacked the program that was supposed to be discussing the Russian spy case exclusively.

3- refusal of government scientists to enter 9/11 public debate:
http://www.teamliberty.net/id282.html
that’ll get you started. Try google for more.

4 – responding to individual points is one thing but when you respond to every sentence with a paragraph, this will stifle debate utterly.

I’ll respond to bonkeys post shortly.

oscarBravo

jessop1 wrote:

I’ll respond to bonkeys post shortly.

Please do. Please pay particular attention to this point, which I'll quote for emphasis:

bonkey wrote:

Consider one last possibility: Icke is an agent of forces of evil and his purpose is to offer us an apparently-attractive new way of life, but which is just another new stage of deception and enslavement, as religion, democracy, and everything which has come before has also allegedly been.

How could you tell the difference????? How can you have any certainty that you are not the unwitting slaves of the latest gambit to ensure we never gain our freedom, just as all of those who have embraced all previous such deceptive freedoms have been???

If you have an open mind, you can't dismiss the possibility, right?

Excellent point, well made. Bravo.

Diogenes

jessop1 wrote:

Fao Diogenes:

1 - Evidence of experts calling the 9/11 official story b/s
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/
http://www.911truth.org/
http://liftingthefog.org/press.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/11/12/18329055.php`
and don’t forget…
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054895733/

No sorry Jessop you said

a hell of a lot of demololition experts, explosives experts, physicists, aviation experts, military insiders, the list goes on and on.

As proven in the boards.ie thread you linked to the bulk of "scholars" have liberal arts phd's are there is a distinct lack of the people with the specific experience you claim they have.

So I'll ask again can you name the deomolitions experts, the explosivies experts, the physicists, the aviation experts, and military insiders, who you claim support the conspiracy theorists.

I'm asking you to name the people with the specific skill and backgrounds you claim support the conspiracy theory. You are waving in the general direction of the usual guff.

2 – how do NWO Control the media? Same way they control banking, business, energy etc – ie you only have to control a few key people at the top. The major players in all big business strangely enough are members of the same secret societies as the likes of bush, blair, cheney, Chirac etc etc etc…. go figure.

Um what? Are you saying that a few key people can control the world's media? That they check and control every journalist working doing every story on every newspaper and station? How could a few "key people" ensure that the websites, every news broadcast, every editorial, every journalist in dozens of tv stations and hundreds of newspapers toes the line. Please explain it. Who are these people? Publishers? Editors? Journalists?

how is their grip loosening? The more the evidence propagates through the non-mainstream channels

You mean like youtube? Google video? Why haven't the NWO just taken them over as well?

(and there are many channels and lots of evidence) the less the mainstream media can ignore it. The truth will come out for all to see eventually. And btw, shayler took the sky news presenter by surprise, that wasn’t scheduled he hijacked the program that was supposed to be discussing the Russian spy case exclusively.

Yeah and his wacky tangent just looked insane. I'm sorry David "holographic planes" Shayler is prove the NWO don't have as such power as you like, there's no way if the NWO were on top of it, that'd he'd have gotten a job in M15 in the first place.

3- refusal of government scientists to enter 9/11 public debate:
http://www.teamliberty.net/id282.html
that’ll get you started. Try google for more.

Don't wave me in the direction of google. There's plenty of examples of people challenging and debating CTers as well. It's an interesting link, it doesn't say for example, whom in the NIST the "citizens" challenged. The NIST is compromised of thousands of scientists and experts, I'd be curious to see how the challenge was delivered, and to whom, and on what terms.

4 – responding to individual points is one thing but when you respond to every sentence with a paragraph, this will stifle debate utterly.

You're making some fairly wild and unsubstantiated claims, usually in a single sentence it usuall takes more than single sentence to point out the issues that you raise.

jessop1

bonkey wrote:

And yet again we see the well-established pattern.

Disagreement with a believer is mocked, the disagreer insulted, and the standard "open your mind, just a little" logic used as though it has already been established that there is no openmindedness in my objections.

From what I've seen, your tone is perpetually mocking and your objections utterly lacking in open-mindedness.

bonkey wrote:

Jessop1 would have us believe that science is a dictatorship. Its a strange dictatorship that has progressed and improved at a rapidly-increasing pace since the formulation and formalisation of the scientific method.

Indeed, the very objections against science that jessop1 et al level ignore the very concept of the scientific method as well as what science really is.

Science deals with the measurable. It forms predictive models. The only thing it says about the beliefs proliferated by Icke or indeed any metaphysical area is very simple:

If it has an observeable effect on the universe, then its effects can be modelled, predicted and measured. Conversely, if its effects cannot be modelled, prediucted and measured, then it has no observeable effect.

Its that simple.

Science rests on a basic premise of falsifiability. If you don't make falsifiable predictions, you cannot be dealing with science. If you do make falsifiable predictions, then a single result contrary to the prediction says that your model is wrong. If we are to believe that Icke has some sort of ability to see the future, then we are owed an explanation as to why he gets some stuff so spectacularly wrong. Do we get this? No, we don't. We get ridicule and admonitions that its "obviously" our closed-mindedness which is the problem.

OK, science deals with the measurable, observable. What about things we cant measure or observe? Or is there nothing else to measure or observe? Do you know everything there is to know? Think - 600 years ago the cleverest scholars of the day would have told you that the earth is flat. The globe theory was falsifiable because every one would fall off the bottom of the world right? The flat earth theory was measurably and observably true by virtue of this fact. Then gravity came along und unfalsified the falsifiable.

Also, the integrity of what is accepted scientific fact across so many areas of life is highly questionable. Most of the major scientific research in the last century has been funded by major corporations or wealthy sponsors. Do you think there is even the slightest possibility the findings could have been skewed or interpreted in favour of its sponsors? The same is true of government sponsored research, just look at the FDA in America and how they are so influenced by powerful companies like GM giant Monsanto. Some scary **** going on there right now.

Bonkey please open your mind to the possibility that metaphysical theories may one day be measurable and observable by conventional science.

Metaphysics deals with (among other things) the theory that the universe is geometrical in nature. Now check out this article:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/10/1008_031008_finiteuniverse.html

Re: Ickes predictions, its not magic, - his research (and that of many others) has illustrated this agenda unfolding throughout history. It is known that the NWO objective is centralisation of power. The problem-reaction-solution technique has been observed and illustrated. Once you know the objective and the technique it is relatively easy to extrapolate the next event. Icke used this logic to predict a 9/11 type event or events which would be used to accelerate the agenda. 9/11 happened. Madrid happened. 7/7 happened. The acceleration happened.

You see bonkey, while you are huffing and puffing about all this being bull****, some very bad stuff has actually been happening in the world. Sooner rather than later, we are going to feel the real effects of this here.

Icke and many others have long predicted WWIII in this time period and all the signs seem to be pointing to that.

This resulting depopulation and fear created would faciliate the next step in the agenda - a reduced micro chipped human population. People are already having rfid chips inserted under their skin. A massive security event like nuclear war would give governments the excuse needed to compel people to accept the microchip.

bonkey wrote:

I get accused of pedantry because I take things to mean what they say...in this case because I want it to be clear that saying someone's predictions have come true is not entirely the same as saying that some unquantified number of predictions, of unqualified specificity have come true.

I also would like to point out that I find it vastly amusing to compare the writing of Icke (as shown in his newsletter) with the writing of what I would consider to be a fairly typical "believer" - jessop1.

Icke :

jessop1 :



I can see you truly have taken Icke's message to heart.

now you are being mean again

Fao: Oscarbravo
That quote was actually to so glad, but I’ll be happy to give you my view on it.

Yes, it is entirely possible that Icke is disinfo. We live in a world of utter deception and it has been said that there is none such deception more effective than that which is closest to the truth.

Sorry to disappoint you but I don’t hold Icke up as some godhead figure who is beyond question. I’ve read a couple of his books, he makes some compelling points about the conspiracy, backed up with substantial evidence, well worthy of further consideration. He also makes some very interesting metaphysical points about the nature of existence and consciousness which cant be empirically “measured or observed”, proven or disproven – yet.

Fao: Diogenes
Most notable in recent times is Physicist Dr Steven Jones. He is reputable or at least he was until he came out with his report. I gave you the link. I’ll make you a deal - you get me the names and credentials of the experts in all those fields who back the official story and I’ll do likewise for the truth movement experts.

Yes, a few (relatively speaking) key people can control the mainstream media. No they cant control every journalist and station. But the big stations/media companies can buy up the little independent ones and increase their grip. They cant fully control the web or the alternative media but they are working on ways to do this.

Once they control the mainstream media, they can use this to tell unsubstantiated lies to the accepting sheeple. They can portray alternative media sources as the lunatic fringe. But as the information propagates more and more, it does so exponentially, thus their grip of control of information is loosening.

Yep, shayler could be disinfo. see my response to oscar above.

I will wave you to google. There are plenty more reports about how various noted 9/11 experts are refusing public debate.

The fact is, these experts do exist. But more importantly, Masses of evidence exists.
Heres an interesting video for you. Parts 2 & 3 worth watching too:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7143212690219513043&q=9%2F11+demolitions

So Glad

Bonkey made some great points that I have thought about seriously myself. What if Icke is just another method of religeon?

Icke stresses that he does not want people to "Idolize" him in any way, or make religeons of any sort. We are just supporting his ideas. Just because I agree with him doesn't mean I'll walk with anything he says or try to convince people in him name.

I never said I disagree with science! Science is the most amazing way to learn and become aware of your surroundings! The only thing I disagree about science is the amount of scientists in high places who discount anything they consider rediculous or out of the norm (with a critisising smirk on their face) as if they know EVERYTHING.

I also disagree with the amount of scientist who believe that everything is a big link of accidents. Like the human form is just trillions and trillions of atoms accidently joining together to make something so complex. I don't think everything was make by trillions of convenient accidents.

oscarBravo

So Glad wrote:

Bonkey made some great points that I have thought about seriously myself.

[...]

We are just supporting [Icke's] ideas. Just because I agree with him...

I respectfully submit that you haven't thought about bonkey's points enough.

Why do you support Icke's ideas? Why do you agree with him? What evidence is there that his ideas are any more factual and reliable than any other ideas, whether mainstream or fanciful?

oscarBravo

jessop1 wrote:

From what I've seen, your tone is perpetually mocking...

Pot kettle black. Allow me to requote (and forgive me if I'm being "mean" by doing so):

jessop1 wrote:

oh..its you again. Oh well, ...
...what are ye like with yer nit picking...
...Try to open your mind just a little...
...more irrelevant ****e talk...
...blah blah whatever...
...Now bonkey boy...
...with any luck he'll crash his 'puter...

I haven't seen anything in bonkey's posts that better fits the term "mocking" - but feel free to show me otherwise.

jessop1 wrote:

The globe theory was falsifiable because every one would fall off the bottom of the world right? The flat earth theory was measurably and observably true by virtue of this fact.

Unless you can link to historical examples of people falling off the bottom of the world, I suspect you misunderstand the concepts of measurability and observability.

jessop1 wrote:

Most of the major scientific research in the last century has been funded by major corporations or wealthy sponsors. Do you think there is even the slightest possibility the findings could have been skewed or interpreted in favour of its sponsors?

Yes. That's the beauty of science: it makes falsifiable predictions. Therefore, if any scientific "discovery" is factually inaccurate (because of funding bias or for any other reason) it can be disproven.

jessop1 wrote:

Icke and many others have long predicted WWIII in this time period and all the signs seem to be pointing to that.

...and economists have accurately predicted ten out of the last three recessions.

Here's a prediction for you: it will rain for three days, then it will be dry for two days, then it will rain for three more days. Just wait and see: I'll be proven right.

Note that I didn't say when or where, therefore I can't be proven wrong. Do you see the problem?

jessop1

oscarBravo wrote:

Pot kettle black. Allow me to requote (and forgive me if I'm being "mean" by doing so): I haven't seen anything in bonkey's posts that better fits the term "mocking" - but feel free to show me otherwise.

try the first line of his first response to my original posting and go from there. I made the posting in a courteous and respectful manner and and like his responses to me on other threads, he starts out with sarcasm from the get go. I only responded in kind.
Sorry you cant see this but I suspect you are a big bonkey fan with a bonkey bias.

oscarBravo wrote:

Unless you can link to historical examples of people falling off the bottom of the world, I suspect you misunderstand the concepts of measurability and observability. Yes. That's the beauty of science: it makes falsifiable predictions. Therefore, if any scientific "discovery" is factually inaccurate (because of funding bias or for any other reason) it can be disproven. ...and economists have accurately predicted ten out of the last three recessions.

Sorry, but this response is just ridiculous. What I cited is the classic example of how accepted science can be turned on its head by later discoveries. It illustrates how that which is measurable, observable or falsifiable by todays measurement and observability techniques/standards can be falsified by later developed techniques or knowledge. Of course there is merit in scientific measurement but its not infallible, due to factors like bias, ignorance and resistance to change. Conventional science and its advocates do need to keep an open mind that maybe, they don’t know everything there is to know and that what they think they know could be incorrect.

oscarBravo wrote:

Here's a prediction for you: it will rain for three days, then it will be dry for two days, then it will rain for three more days. Just wait and see: I'll be proven right.

Note that I didn't say when or where, therefore I can't be proven wrong. Do you see the problem?

…sigh… as a matter of fact Icke did give a general timeframe for the 9/11 prediction.

And I sincerely hope (but unfortunately also sincerely doubt) that your sarcasm re: the possibility of WWIII is well founded, because the alternative is not nice for any of us.

Anyway, my original intention in this post was simply to propagate the information as much as I could, not to defend against a 3 pronged sarcastic attack from the pedantic bonkey and his pedantic fan club.

I’m saying that some of Icke’s (and others’) information on what is actually going on in the world and how it is controlled is well worth looking into further. If you don’t agree, fair enough, best of luck to you.

Diogenes

Fao: Diogenes
Most notable in recent times is Physicist Dr Steven Jones. He is reputable or at least he was until he came out with his report. I gave you the link.

Yes and as pointed out Jones has been forced to retire, here's a leter by the head of the civil engineering department at BYU

Dear Editor,

After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his "Conspiracy Theory" relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).

I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.

The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents.

Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.

D. Allan Firmage

Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU

I’ll make you a deal - you get me the names and credentials of the experts in all those fields who back the official story and I’ll do likewise for the truth movement experts.

That'd be quite a list, literally thousands of people contributed to the NIST report.

Here's what I will do I will list off all the people who were consulted in the writing of the Popular Mechanics article;

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=9

You will see;

Air Crash Analysist, Air Defense, Aviation, Image Anaylists, and Structural Enigneers. Among them, demolitions experts, civilian and military personal, physicists, and civil engineers. Over 50 people. For one article debunking conspiracy theorists.

I think thats a very substantial list

So please, for the third time I ask who are the

a hell of a lot of demololition experts, explosives experts, physicists, aviation experts, military insiders, the list goes on and on.

You claim support the conspiracy theorists.

Yes, a few (relatively speaking) key people can control the mainstream media.

And again I ask how? Please explain how a few, relatively speaking, key people can control the mainstream media. How many are we talking about what positions

No they cant control every journalist and station. But the big stations/media companies can buy up the little independent ones and increase their grip.

But that doesn't make any sense. Take the two examples you used to start this thread. How did Shayler get on sky news in the first place? Surely as head of the UK 9/11 truth movement, the NWO would have a press embargo on anyone reporting or speaking to him.

Ditto Icke, if the NWO control mainstream media, how come Icke keeps making programs on the mainstream media.

Those are two perfect examples of paradoxs

They cant fully control the web or the alternative media but they are working on ways to do this.

Ways, like? Okay here's an example if the NWO control the media surely Murdoch is either NWO or controlled by the NWO. How come conspiracy theorists pages are still up on myspace after he takes over.

Once they control the mainstream media, they can use this to tell unsubstantiated lies to the accepting sheeple. They can portray alternative media sources as the lunatic fringe. But as the information propagates more and more, it does so exponentially, thus their grip of control of information is loosening.

Repeating the same nonsense over and over isn't progating information it's spam.

I will wave you to google. There are plenty more reports about how various noted 9/11 experts are refusing public debate.

And plenty of examples of CTers refusing to debate experts.

The fact is, these experts do exist. But more importantly, Masses of evidence exists.
Heres an interesting video for you. Parts 2 & 3 worth watching too:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7143212690219513043&q=9%2F11+demolitions

I am not watching goddamn 911 mysterious another time.

Gordon

jessop1 wrote:

Anyway, my original intention in this post was simply to propagate the information as much as I could, not to defend against a 3 pronged sarcastic attack from the pedantic bonkey and his pedantic fan club.

I’m saying that some of Icke’s (and others’) information on what is actually going on in the world and how it is controlled is well worth looking into further. If you don’t agree, fair enough, best of luck to you.

Boards.ie is not your platform for propagating information/disinformation. It is a discussion board. If you wish it to be your medium for information propagation I suggest you pay for advertising.

jessop1

Diogenes wrote:

Yes and as pointed out Jones has been forced to retire, here's a leter by the head of the civil engineering department at BYU.

This illuminati shill D. Allan Firmage offer no evidence whatsoever to challenge the detail of in steven jones' report. Only lies.

http://worldtradecentertruth.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf

JOnes' dismissal is a warning shot to other academics not to speak out what they believe like Jones did.

Diogenes wrote:

That'd be quite a list, literally thousands of people contributed to the NIST report.

Here's what I will do I will list off all the people who were consulted in the writing of the Popular Mechanics article;

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=9

You will see;

Air Crash Analysist, Air Defense, Aviation, Image Anaylists, and Structural Enigneers. Among them, demolitions experts, civilian and military personal, physicists, and civil engineers. Over 50 people. For one article debunking conspiracy theorists.

I think thats a very substantial list

wow. just wow. I ask any discerning person to read the neo con pack of absolutely unsubstantiated lies in that ridiculous popular mechanics report with a load of unknown names at the end and not saying who said what.

Diogenes, I am beginning to think you are a paid debunker. Only an idiot could take the lies in that report at face value.

Diogenes wrote:

So please, for the third time I ask who are the ....experts...You claim support the conspiracy theorists.

Jones report itself lists a number of experts in various areas blowing the NIST lies out of the water.

But here are some more resources:
Aviation: http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/
Demolition: http://www.911blogger.com/node/3231
Physics: Steven Jones and others mentioned in his report eg Prof Thomas Eagar
Army Intelligence, FBI and more: http://patriotsquestion911.com/

Now you can go and find some experts who support the lies and I can get some more truthers, but in the end, all the discerning person has to go on is the evidence itself. I urge all reading this to read the jones report, watch the demolitions video., look at the detail offered by the truthers. Then weigh this against the detail given by the popular mechanics report and any other debunking report you can find. and make your own mind up.

Diogenes wrote:

And again I ask how? Please explain how a few, relatively speaking, key people can control the mainstream media. How many are we talking about what positions

Thousands in on it, with limited copmartmentalised knowledge. Hundreds controlling it at the top again with compartmentalised knowledge and only the elite at the top with the full picture. And virtually all mainstream journalists are afraid to speak the truth. The giant mainstream media companies are relatively few in number and their owners have immense power to control the information that gets through.

Diogenes wrote:

But that doesn't make any sense. Take the two examples you used to start this thread. How did Shayler get on sky news in the first place? Surely as head of the UK 9/11 truth movement, the NWO would have a press embargo on anyone reporting or speaking to him.

As I already told you, Shayler was on sky to talk about the russian spy. He unexpected added the 9/11 stuff. And a press embargo would be just a little obvious wouldnt it??:rolleyes:

Diogenes wrote:

Ditto Icke, if the NWO control mainstream media, how come Icke keeps making programs on the mainstream media.

Channel 5 is an independant station.

Diogenes wrote:

Those are two perfect examples of paradoxs

rubbish

Diogenes wrote:

Ways, like? Okay here's an example if the NWO control the media surely Murdoch is either NWO or controlled by the NWO. How come conspiracy theorists pages are still up on myspace after he takes over.

Ways like Internet2, which is coming soon. Dissenting sites will have to remain on the (by then much slower) current internet.

Also, well done on the ridiculous example. Dont you think it would look a tad suspicious if the conspiracy stuff disappeared from myspace/youtube when murdoch bought them? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: grow up. In this example, they can continue to allow some stuff through and call it lunatic fringe while still having the ability to selectively censor what they want.

Diogenes wrote:

Repeating the same nonsense over and over isn't progating information it's spam.

ditto, re: your utterly crap attempts at debunking.

Diogenes wrote:

And plenty of examples of CTers refusing to debate experts.

http://www.teamliberty.net/id278.html

"As of August 1, 2006, the 9/11 Commissioners, NIST scientists, and other key personnel responsible for the government’s non-sustainable account of what happened in the United States on September 11, 2001 all refuse to participate in the National 9/11 Debate that was originally scheduled for September 16, 2006 in Charleston, SC.

Consequently, the National 9/11 Debate date has been moved forward to March 10, 2007. "

lets see what happens in march. I'll bet it gets postponed again, thats if the nuclear war or a nuke attack on a us city doesnt happen before then.

Diogenes wrote:

I am not watching goddamn 911 mysterious another time.

Of course you are not. Because you a paid or deluded debunker and no truth is enough for you.

Gordon wrote:

Boards.ie is not your platform for propagating information/disinformation. It is a discussion board. If you wish it to be your medium for information propagation I suggest you pay for advertising.

Good contribution Gordon. thanks for that.

jessop1

sorry about the double post. mods, could you remove the 1st one
thanks

miju

done

Diogenes

jessop1 wrote:

This illuminati shill D. Allan Firmage offer no evidence whatsoever to challenge the detail of in steven jones' report.

Oh it's it ironic, a little too ironic, don'cha think

Please offer evidence that Allan Firimage is a illumanti shill.

Only lies.

http://worldtradecentertruth.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf

Do you really need me to post up and debunk every line of Jones report because I will.

http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm

JOnes' dismissal is a warning shot to other academics not to speak out what they believe like Jones did.

Alternatively, and just going out on a limb here, Jones was forced to retire because his paper was a load of nonsense.

wow. just wow. I ask any discerning person to read the neo con pack of absolutely unsubstantiated lies in that ridiculous popular mechanics report with a load of unknown names at the end and not saying who said what.

Please list what what are unsubstantiated lies in the "ridiculous" popular mechanics paper. Don't just continue with Ad Homien's present facts to be debunked.

Unknown, Do you know any household names in aviation engineering? Or structural engineering?

You asked for a list of experts, I provided names, organisations, colleges, professors, military advisors.

Diogenes, I am beginning to think you are a paid debunker. Only an idiot could take the lies in that report at face value.

Ad Homien. And classic CTer.

Jones report itself lists a number of experts in various areas blowing the NIST lies out of the water.

Then please cut and paste them here.

But here are some more resources:
Aviation: http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/

And finally we're getting somewhere.

Firstly here's some irony I posted out some specific names and your deride me, you post out a link to a website without any names.

In fact pilots doesn't even mention a single name in it's credentials page
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/credandexper.html

So no not a single aviation expert is named.

Demolition: http://www.911blogger.com/node/3231

Is this all you've got? Bonkey demolished the Danny Jowenko business ages ago. It's clear from the video Jowenko is watching this for the first time, isn't aware of the facts, or background to the collaspe.

Physics: Steven Jones and others mentioned in his report eg Prof Thomas Eagar

Please provide evidence that Eager supports Jones.

Army Intelligence, FBI and more: http://patriotsquestion911.com/

Again there's no evidence there. There's quotes from intelligence experts, members of parliament condemning intelligence failures, thats not evidence of military insiders supporting the CT.

So if I have this clear you claim that there are "hordes" of

of a lot of demololition experts, explosives experts, physicists, aviation experts, military insiders, the list goes on and on.

I provide a list of scientists, structural enigneers, military, physicists, and you dismiss them as "unknown", yet you can only come up with one name for your CTers, Jones. A discredited scientist.

Now you can go and find some experts who support the lies and I can get some more truthers, but in the end, all the discerning person has to go on is the evidence itself. I urge all reading this to read the jones report, watch the demolitions video., look at the detail offered by the truthers. Then weigh this against the detail given by the popular mechanics report and any other debunking report you can find. and make your own mind up.

So do I for that matter.

Thousands in on it, with limited copmartmentalised knowledge. Hundreds controlling it at the top again with compartmentalised knowledge and only the elite at the top with the full picture.

And these thousands don't have the ability to put two and two together and figure this out.

And virtually all mainstream journalists are afraid to speak the truth.

Why? How? Wouldn't this have meant that Andrew Gilligan wouldn't have reported the Kelly whistle blow?

The giant mainstream media companies are relatively few in number and their owners have immense power to control the information that gets through.

Really? How? Explain this.

As I already told you, Shayler was on sky to talk about the russian spy. He unexpected added the 9/11 stuff. And a press embargo would be just a little obvious wouldnt it??:rolleyes:

Um er what? So forcing a journalist embargo into investigate the conspiracy theories isnt obvious, but suggesting a Shayler embargo is a little obvious.

jessop a little consistency is all we ask.

Channel 5 is an independant station.

No, er it's not, Bertelsmann's a giant german media congolermete own it.

rubbish

Really why? Simply put, if the mainstream media is controlled by the NWO why do Shayler and Icke turn up with depressing frequency on mainstream media.

Ways like Internet2, which is coming soon. Dissenting sites will have to remain on the (by then much slower) current internet.

Are you talking about the two tire web?

Also, well done on the ridiculous example. Dont you think it would look a tad suspicious if the conspiracy stuff disappeared from myspace/youtube when murdoch bought them? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: grow up.

More ad homien, frankly I'm surprised they stay up, seeing as they abuse copyright laws. Again there's a wealth of reasons this videos could be taken down, they're not, you've got to try harder.

In this example, they can continue to allow some stuff through and call it lunatic fringe while still having the ability to selectively censor what they want.

Examples..

http://www.teamliberty.net/id278.html

"As of August 1, 2006, the 9/11 Commissioners, NIST scientists, and other key personnel responsible for the government’s non-sustainable account of what happened in the United States on September 11, 2001 all refuse to participate in the National 9/11 Debate that was originally scheduled for September 16, 2006 in Charleston, SC.

Consequently, the National 9/11 Debate date has been moved forward to March 10, 2007. "

lets see what happens in march. I'll bet it gets postponed again, thats if the nuclear war or a nuke attack on a us city doesnt happen before then.

Again thats just speculation, rampant speculation. I've already debunked your point re the national debate, team liberty didn't explain who they approached, what terms the debate where suggested, whom moderates the debate. But hey, way to keep progating the information...

Of course you are not. Because you a paid or deluded debunker and no truth is enough for you.

More ad homiens. Hey I wonder when my NWO cheque comes in, hopefully it'll pay my vet's bill.

jessop1

At this stage, I cant be arsed spending any more time responding to your ridiculous pedantry.

The truth will eventually be exposed for all to see.

jessop1

and by the way, the answers to virtually all of your points are actually in the links I provided. I'm wont be bothered retyping or cutting and pasting for your benefit.

I would just reiterate for the benefit of all open minded discerning people reading this - Look at the links I provided. Look at the links bonkey & diogenes posted. Make your own mind up.

Peace y'all :cool:

billy the squid

jessop1 banned for one week for referring to diogenes as an idiot.

I sugggest you lot calm the fcuk down.

civdef

wow. just wow. I ask any discerning person to read the neo con pack of absolutely unsubstantiated lies in that ridiculous popular mechanics report with a load of unknown names at the end and not saying who said what.

If you don't know of those names it says more about you than anything else. I have textbooks by two of them on the shelf above the computer I'm typing this on, have been at a lecture given by one of them, and in the field of fire engineering (ie populated by people who have a bit of interest in fires making buildings fall down) - they'd be famous names.

Diogenes

billy the squid wrote:

jessop1 banned for one week for referring to diogenes as an idiot.

I sugggest you lot calm the fcuk down.

I cannot speak for anyone else but I'm perfectly calm, just boggled at Jessop's 'never heard of 'em" while posting a link to a website of a bunch of blokes who don't give their credentionals or are being misquoted to support a conspiracy.

Alanis, if you're reading this "raiinnnnn on your wedding day isn't irony", the above is.

bonkey

So Glad wrote:

Bonkey made some great points that I have thought about seriously myself.

Thanks

What if Icke is just another method of religeon?

Icke stresses that he does not want people to "Idolize" him in any way, or make religeons of any sort. We are just supporting his ideas. Just because I agree with him doesn't mean I'll walk with anything he says or try to convince people in him name.

Ask yourself which is more likely to attract followers in the modern world - someone who does ask you to idolise them, or someone who does not?

Democracy was not created by people who asked us to idolise them, yet we are supposed to believe that it was either a tool of controlling powers, or that it has been subverted by said powers.

In the former case, its hard to see how Icke's teachings are any different. In the latter case...its hard to see how Icke's teachings are any different and its hard to see how democracy itself is the problem.

With the possible exception of religion (I say possible because from what I know religious founders generally encouraged their followers not to idolize them), you can replace democracy in the above with anything which is being labelled as part of the control mechanism that we are supposedly living under.

So just cause Icke says "don't worship me" doesn't mean he's not an agent for evil trying to lead us away from the truth. Hell, I'd expect an agent of evil to use that very tactic.

And sure...you don't follow him. You don't believe every word he says. But you still don't know that he isn't leading you away from enlightenment rather than towards it. You can believe he is, but again, this seems to be just another incarnation of closed-mindedness, if believing he's wrong is also closed-mindedness.

Ultimately, the point I'm driving at is that allegations of closed-mindedness are utterly pointless. Closed-mindedness is not about what you believe. Its about where you draw the limits of belief and faith in anything.

I believe in science as a modelling tool. I believe in its ability to address anything which can be shown to effect our phsyical existence...right down to a quantum level at present, and potentially beyond that if there is a beyond that we can ever detect in the future. I also recognise that it has limits. Science offers a way of envisaging the how that is highly useful. It doesn't even attempt to address the why.

If someone wants to believe in a different how, they're more than entitled to. This doesn't invalidate science. You can have more than one model for the same thing.

If someone wants to believe in a why, then science has nothing to do with it.

The problem arises when someone tries to sell a how or a why by attacking science, undermining its usefulness and at the same time trying to borrow its mantle of respctability.

We're told that scientists are pulling the wool over our eyes....whilst at the same time how cool theory X is because it so closely matches the findings of these deceivers. How does that make sense?

flogen

Meant to do this before (and this is not part of the argument going on, which I've only read part of), but my reason for disregarding this "documentary" completely is as follows:

The only people speaking to camera are Icke himself, his wife (who met him as a fan), his ex-wife (who is his manager and so a beneficiary of any of his success), his kids and fans of his. There is no one involved who offers any remedy to the idea that Icke is right, no dissenting voice or questions posed.

To prove his previous theories as credible, Icke and his wife list a number of statements he has made in previous publications of his. This amounts to about 4-5 short paragraphs of work which are, in my mind, quite vague. This is a handful of lines from the 14 or so books he has had published - it would only be fair to have a more critical eye read through them to show his hits and misses... I could write a 400 page book of predictions right now and I'm sure at least some of them could be suggested to be true in 10 years time - it's simple probability.

Finally, Icke offers absolutely no evidence to his theories (in this programme at least - I can't comment on his total work). He just says that X is happening, Y will happen and he knows this because some force is telling him.
As silly as it sounds, I wouldn't close my mind to the theory of reptilian beings if he were to present ANYTHING credible to back it up, instead he makes the statement as fact and expects us to accept it as such.

Diogenes

jessop1 wrote:

Heres an interesting video for you. Parts 2 & 3 worth watching too:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7143212690219513043&q=9%2F11+demolitions

Released today from the makers of "screw loose change" is

Screw 911 mysteries A video debunk of this "documentary". It points out the massive factual inaccuracies conjecture and speculation of the film.

cockmynut

I watched five minutes of it today in college and saw nothing of substance. Questioning one of the makers' sanity and relying on quotes by the "experts" do not count, really, so I quickly lost interest.

I might take the time to watch the whole thing sometime, but I generally find that all video documentaries rely on sensationalism, playing on the emotions of the target audience and taking things out of context. Both official conspiracy theorist and alternative conspiracy theorist documentaries do this.

I would imagine that, soon enough, there will be a review of Screw 9/11 Mysteries on 9-11 Research or some site, and it will get a bashing of equal proportions to the one that LC 2nd Edition got.

Diogenes

cockmynut wrote:

I watched five minutes of it today in college and saw nothing of substance. Questioning one of the makers' sanity

Actually you should watch the start again the filmmaker claims he developed his theory after he "literally did not sleep for a week.

Screw9/11 mysteries merely point out the effects of extreme deprivation which include, paranoia, dementia, and hallunications, so either our film maker

A) Was in an altered mental state when he developed his theories.

Or

I lying or at the very least exaggerating facts with seconds of the start of the documentary. Which does not auger well for the rest of the piece.

and relying on quotes by the "experts" do not count, really, so I quickly lost interest.

In what world does the opinion of experts in their field not count?

I might take the time to watch the whole thing sometime, but I generally find that all video documentaries rely on sensationalism, playing on the emotions of the target audience and taking things out of context. Both official conspiracy theorist and alternative conspiracy theorist documentaries do this.

Firstly what do mean by offical conspiracy theories? I think you'll find that videos are much more popular with conspiracy theorist than debunkers. Screw 9/11 mysteries like Screw Loose Change, is a rebuttal to conspiracy theorists who instead of trying to build a coherant rational argument, shove yet another blooming video in your face.

I would imagine that, soon enough, there will be a review of Screw 9/11 Mysteries on 9-11 Research or some site, and it will get a bashing of equal proportions to the one that LC 2nd Edition got.

Actually Screw911mysteries will also get a website like Screwloosechange where the documentaries arguments are laid out in a more convential and detailed theme.

cockmynut

Diogenes wrote:

Actually you should watch the start again the filmmaker claims he developed his theory after he "literally did not sleep for a week.

Screw9/11 mysteries merely point out the effects of extreme deprivation which include, paranoia, dementia, and hallunications, so either our film maker

A) Was in an altered mental state when he developed his theories.

Or

I lying or at the very least exaggerating facts with seconds of the start of the documentary. Which does not auger well for the rest of the piece.

Yes, I have seen 9/11 Mysteries and I know exactly what he claims. If that claim were true, it is likely that he would have died. However, even though one of either cases must be true, it has little relevance as he was not the only person who was involved in the production of the documentary. I fail to see the point of it being brought up in Screw 9/11 Mysteries because it has absolutely nothing to do with the film's arguments and was just a silly little introduction.

In what world does the opinion of experts in their field not count?

I wasn't aware that other worlds had been visited by humans yet, so how can either of us know? Their opinions are extremely relevant, however the opinions of engineers such as Prof. Hugo Bachmann, Charles N. Pegelow, David L. Griscom, Jörg Schneider, Jack Keller and Judy Wood (despite her being a bit of a nutcase) would have been nice, for the sake of neutrality. So-called "experts" can be horribly wrong, such as those who have pushed the fires-melted-the-steel theory (see here), which is more absurd than the notion of the tooth fairy. Obviously these people didn't and/or don't know much about simple physics, especially now that NIST's latest analysis shows most of the fires to be far below 600 degrees celsius. (Use Google, I'm sure you'll try to prove me wrong.)

Firstly what do mean by offical conspiracy theories?

Conspiracy = a plot by two or more people to commit a crime or atrocity.
Theory = a hypothesis which takes evidence and purports to solve a mystery.

"IT WAS AL-QAEDA LOL" = conspiracy theory
"IT WAS THE GOVERNMENT ROFL" = conspiracy theory

I think you'll find that videos are much more popular with conspiracy theorist than debunkers. Screw 9/11 mysteries like Screw Loose Change, is a rebuttal to conspiracy theorists who instead of trying to build a coherant rational argument, shove yet another blooming video in your face.

To correct you, you seem to believe that using the term "debunker" will add a certain amount of credibility to your position and to those who share your views. In reality, like I have pointed out, whether you believe the official story or the MIHOP theory, you are a conspiracy theorist. Also, there have been numerous debunkings of and rebuttals to articles, websites and experts such as Popular Mechanics, 9/11 Myths and Prof. Eagar, by those who you segregate from the "debunkers" category. 911research.wtc7.net is host to many, and if you utilise Google I'm sure you will find many more.

Actually Screw911mysteries will also get a website like Screwloosechange where the documentaries arguments are laid out in a more convential and detailed theme.

I'll look forward to reading it.

As a point, I do support any and all efforts which honestly try to highlight errors and fallacies, and for this reason I reject Loose Change, 9/11 In Plate Site, the Pentagon no-jetliner theory, and so on. However, your so-called "debunkers" (mostly in the mass media such as PM, from what I've seen) have a bad habit of also using similarly bad tactics, including ad-hominem attacks, ridicule and straw-man arguments.

Diogenes

cockmynut wrote:

Yes, I have seen 9/11 Mysteries and I know exactly what he claims. If that claim were true, it is likely that he would have died. However, even though one of either cases must be true, it has little relevance as he was not the only person who was involved in the production of the documentary. I fail to see the point of it being brought up in Screw 9/11 Mysteries because it has absolutely nothing to do with the film's arguments and was just a silly little introduction.

No sorry it does. Any credible film maker or journalist would be appalled if something that wasn't factually accurate was included in their documentary. For a film maker to come out with something patiently untrue in their opening statement is a worrying start to a film.

I wasn't aware that other worlds had been visited by humans yet, so how can either of us know? Their opinions are extremely relevant, however the opinions of engineers such as Prof. Hugo Bachmann, Charles N. Pegelow, David L. Griscom, Jörg Schneider, Jack Keller and Judy Wood (despite her being a bit of a nutcase) would have been nice, for the sake of neutrality. So-called "experts" can be horribly wrong, such as those who have pushed the fires-melted-the-steel theory (see here),

I'm sorry I'm blind sided by your logic. 911mysteries is a documentary which is blatantly un neutral. A polemic for CD CTers, and you're complaining that the film makers who debunk it, aren't being neutral? What? Why should the S9/11M filmmakers display this "neutrality", when the film they're picking apart didn't do this in the first place? Thats a huge double standard.

Remember the purpose of S911M is not to make a seperate film, but to point out the flaws of an existing work.

Oh and Judy Woods, a "bit" of a nutcase? She's bloody barking mad.

which is more absurd than the notion of the tooth fairy. Obviously these people didn't and/or don't know much about simple physics, especially now that NIST's latest analysis shows most of the fires to be far below 600 degrees celsius. (Use Google, I'm sure you'll try to prove me wrong.)

The general rule of thumb cockmynut, on this forum, the onus on providing evidence is on the person making the claim. It is bad manners to wave someone in the direction of google. So you'll pardon me if I don't run around disproving something you can't be bothered proving.

Conspiracy = a plot by two or more people to commit a crime or atrocity.
Theory = a hypothesis which takes evidence and purports to solve a mystery.

"IT WAS AL-QAEDA LOL" = conspiracy theory
"IT WAS THE GOVERNMENT ROFL" = conspiracy theory

Thats an interesting semantic twist there. I think you're taking the common accepted defintion of a conspiracy theorist;

someone who postulates on the existence of secret agreements between two or more people or government to perform unlawful acts.
www.pbs.org/strangedays/glossary/C.html

Someone who sees events of the world in terms of conspiracies. This is a very general definition. The JFK field erroneously uses it to mean someone who proposes a specific conspiracy in the assassination. It is sometimes also used to mean someone who believe that a conspiracy killed JFK, regardless of whether the person knows the specific conspiracy. This use is identical to JFK conspiracist.
www.karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Definitions.html

A conspiracy theory is a theory that claims an event or series of events is the result of secret manipulations by two or more individuals or an organization, rather than the result of a single perpetrator or natural occurrence. Conspiracy theories often defy an official or dominant understanding of events, and proponents sometimes substitute zeal for logic.
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theorist

And pushing you're pushing the boundaries, by that rational everyone is a conspiracy theorist, the term becomes diluted and meaningless.

Its a nice ruse, a semantic goalpost shifting, because people who spread conspiracy theories are generally regarded with distain. Somewhat similar to the rebranding of Anti Abortionists, as "Pro-lifers", you hope make the conspiracy theorists sound more mainstream, and rational.

To correct you, you seem to believe that using the term "debunker" will add a certain amount of credibility to your position and to those who share your views. In reality, like I have pointed out, whether you believe the official story or the MIHOP theory, you are a conspiracy theorist.

Your definition of conspiracy theorist is far broader than the traditional defined definition of conspiracy theorists.

Also, there have been numerous debunkings of and rebuttals to articles, websites and experts such as Popular Mechanics, 9/11 Myths and Prof. Eagar, by those who you segregate from the "debunkers" category. 911research.wtc7.net is host to many, and if you utilise Google I'm sure you will find many more.

Again waving me in the direction of google. Thats the third time you've claimed theres a decent rebuttal to the PM article, could I trouble you for a link to a copy?

As a point, I do support any and all efforts which honestly try to highlight errors and fallacies, and for this reason I reject Loose Change, 9/11 In Plate Site, the Pentagon no-jetliner theory, and so on. However, your so-called "debunkers" (mostly in the mass media such as PM, from what I've seen) have a bad habit of also using similarly bad tactics, including ad-hominem attacks, ridicule and straw-man arguments.

Some do. However I think if you could examine ratio of people who are reduced to ridicule, ah hominems and straw man arguments compared to the ratio of people who use science, logic and facts, the former catergory will be greater among the "tradtional" conspiracy theorists, and the latter group will be made up of mostly debunkers. It's not scientific, but one only needs to listen to the PM verus Loose Change debate, to see who maintains the higher ground.

jessop1

Well said cockmynut. Valid points all of them. Met with the usual pedantic diatribe from diogenes, designed to stifle debate.

cockmynut

Diogenes wrote:

No sorry it does. Any credible film maker or journalist would be appalled at including something that wasn't factually accurate was included in their documentary. For a film maker to come out with something patiently untrue in the opening statement is a worrying start to a film.

I think you put too much faith in "credible" film-makers and journalists, but I think we'll simply agree to disagree here.

I'm sorry I'm blind sided by your logic. 911mysteries is a documentary which is blatantly un neutral. A polemic for CD CTers, and you're complaining that the film makers who debunk it, aren't being neutral? What? Why should the
S9/11M film makers display this "neutrality", when the film they're picking apart didn't do this in the first place.

I wholly agree that 9/11 Mysteries is not at all neutral, and I do not support the film, but you seem to support Screw 9/11 Mysteries while simultaneously berating 9/11 Mysteries, which is no better. Therefore, supporting one for its supposed righteousness while belittling the other for containing fallacies is hypocritical, as Screw 9/11 Mysteries, in its first few minutes, can claim the achievement of using distortions and misleading the viewer into thinking that:

1) All experts agree that there was no controlled demolition, when this is provably false.
2) All experts are right about everything, when I and others have clearly demonstrated that many experts who talk about the WTC routinely make complete fools of themselves, especially those who embrace the aforementioned fire theory, the pod theory and the hologram theory.

Remember the purpose of S911M is not to make a seperate, but to point out the flaws of an existing work.

And it does so by utilising the same methods as the film it claims to criticise, if not worse.

Oh and Judy Woods, a "bit" of a nutcase? She's bloody barking mad.

Not exactly the face I'd hope to wake up to with a hangover, either.

The general rule of thumb is the person who makes a claim, is the person who has to support it. It is bad manners to wave someone in the direction of google. So you'll pardon me if I don't run around disproving something you can't be bothered proving.

Right you are, and I do apologise.

NIST Final Report, see page 31.

Also, I have to correct myself, I did not mean the fire or air temperatures, I meant the steel column temperatures.

Thats an interesting semantic twist there. I think you're taking the common accepted defintion of a conspiracy theorist

And pushing the boundaries so you make everyone a conspiracy theorists.

Actually, I'm just a person who maintains that the view of the majority can be, and often is, wrong. The term "conspiracy theory" has been used as a derogatory way of dismissing claims of conspiracy involving people with power, despite some theories having been proven to be true or completely consistent with the facts, such as Watergate, Iran-Contra, the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, the existence of Operation Northwoods and Loyalist/British collusion.

My definition of "conspiracy theory" is, in fact, what it means. The official story has little substance in my view, and is no more fact than any other theory put forward. The only reason it gets the seal of approval by the masses is because it's the official line. This stupid little detail does not change its nature: a conspiracy theory which has yet to be proven.

Its a nice ruse, a semantic goalpost shifting, because people who spread conspiracy theories are generally regarded with distain.

Your definition of conspiracy theorist is broader than the traditional defined definition of conspiracy theorists.

That is, if you accept the definition peddled by the mass media and government apologists. I'm sure it's great to use such disdain against people who push conspiracy theories which are denied by governements, and also to think up fanciful theories (ironic), related to psychology, paranoia and upbringing, about why people would believe their government would do X Y Z. However, I am not engaging in "semantic goalpost shifting" as you put it - this is a position I have always taken, before even beginning to consider the possibility that non-official conspiracy theories could be true, which is the case with most people.

Again waving me in the direction of google. Thats the third time you've claimed theres a decent rebuttal to the PM article, could I trouble you for a link to a copy?

You can find a rebuttal, and links to several other variants here. I'm just surprised that you had no idea such rebuttals existed, more of which can be read here.

Some do. However I think if you could examine ratio of people who are reduced to ridicule, ah hominems and straw man arguments compared to the ratio of people who use science, logic and facts, the former catergory will be greater among the "tradtional" conspiracy theorists, and the latter group will be made up of mostly debunkers. It's not scienctific but one only needs to listen to the PM verus Loose Change debate, to see who maintains the higher ground.

If you are referring to the pod people and the fringe crowd in the 9/11 Truth Movement who believe that holograms or UFOs were involved, I agree with you. However, the majority of the movement is made up of people who will try to stick to science, logic and facts, and as far as I can see, most of the people in the movement who I know are very calm and logical people who will only get angry once they are put up against people who will ridicule them - or treat them with "disdain" as you put it.

Again, using the term "debunkers". What is a debunker exactly? One who debunks? In that case, both sides of the argument have debunkers, like I said before. You (by which I mean both you personally and most who actively flaunt the official story) continue to use colloquial and meaningless terms to try and conjure up some credibility for yourself and official story defenders, the same way as the term "conspiracy theorist" is used to promote mass dismissal and ridicule of those who question the official line.

Your comment about the PM vs Loose Change debate is pointless, as no one article, website, person, group or documentary is representative of the whole movement. In fact, it may have introduced most people to questioning 9/11, however I believe most quickly cop on to the fact that LC is a rather big distortion. It is a terrible documentary which, like official conspiracy theory apologists in the mass media, relies on manipulating the emotions of the viewer and seriously distorts facts, evidence and quotes. The LC production team obviously has little desire to confirm their claims before putting them out into the open and Dylan Avery is nothing short of an absolute spastic (I'm resorting to insults, but I don't care, he deserves it) who cares for nothing but making money, fame and the serious researchers and academics in the movement look like fools.

PM does not hold the higher ground because, as is shown in the link I provided, they pretend that idiotic theories such as the pod are mainstream within the 9/11 truth movement.

cockmynut

jessop1 wrote:

Well said cockmynut. Valid points all of them. Met with the usual pedantic diatribe from diogenes, designed to stifle debate.

Well in fairness, I do have a bit of respect for him / her as strange as that may sound, but thanks.

bonkey

jessop1 wrote:

Well said cockmynut. Valid points all of them. Met with the usual pedantic diatribe from diogenes, designed to stifle debate.

Designed to stifle debate? If he and those who share his viewpoint kept silent, then on this forum there would be exactly one point of view offered.

It would seem that Diogenes is trying to promote debate by challenging the views offered, whereas you are the one trying to stifle it with your constant denigration of anyone who doesn't share your POV.

UnHolyMoe

Diogenes wrote:

Actually you should watch the start again the filmmaker claims he developed his theory after he "literally did not sleep for a week.

By using the word "literally" I persume you mean he did sleep sometime during that week?

Diogenes

UnHolyMoe wrote:

By using the word "literally" I persume you mean he did sleep sometime during that week?

Er no, literally means, literal, actually without exaggeration.

If he said "I pratically didn't sleep for a week", I would assume some asleep was had. But the use of the qualifier, literally, he's claiming he didn't sleep at all for a week.

cockmynut, it's late I shan't be getting to your post, tonight, and I have a hectic weekend ahead, but I'll get off a reply at some point

UnHolyMoe

Diogenes wrote:

Er no, literally means, literal, actually without exaggeration.

If he said "I pratically didn't sleep for a week", I would assume some asleep was had. But the use of the qualifier, literally, he's claiming he didn't sleep at all for a week.

So he did'nt go a full week without sleep. That's all I wanted to know.