Lord Christopher Monckton and Jim Corr.

uprising2

yekahS wrote: »

Here's a good video which shows the kind of faulty methods that Monkton uses...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM

I don't trust the guy, my gut instinct tell's me that.

He is a plant as far as I can see and an actor on the world stage, like "faircity" in a bigger way, he follows the plot given, and to be a good actor you need to fit into the role and be convincing, both he and faircity fail just as miserably as the other.

For his part on the "good" side he deliberately leaves himself open to being proven wrong, strenghtening the "bad" side's point of view, mockaton is a shill as far as I'm concerned.

thecommander

uprising2 wrote: »

He is a plant as far as I can see and an actor on the world stage, like "faircity" in a bigger way, he follows the plot given, and to be a good actor you need to fit into the role and be convincing, both he and faircity fail just as miserably as the other..

Always amazing why that conclusion is jumped to, that he's paid to say the wrong thing, or a disinfo agent. Why can't he just be wrong, or mad, or whatever.

uprising2

thecommander wrote: »

Always amazing why that conclusion is jumped to, that he's paid to say the wrong thing, or a disinfo agent. Why can't he just be wrong, or mad, or whatever.

Well if I remember correctly Jim Corr asked him had he looked into 9/11 and he answered "No, but if your willing to pay me to, I will" or something to that effect, so somebody is paying him for his "research", a tidy sum I'd imagine with his high profile in "society".

The payer pays the bills, mock a ton isn't flying here there and everywhere on his own few bob, the payer calls the shots and provides the script, a bad one at that according to what limited reading I've done into him.

Give less than 2 mins of your time to look at this, I got it just for you, but look at 11:00 to a little past 12:00 and you will say him say in a more refined version of mine that he only researches things for money, nothing else.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S760Srn8F6c

Oracle

Jim Corr agrees to summary judgment against him for €1.4 million in favour of ACC Bank at the Commercial Court: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0218/breaking36.html

RGDATA!

watching the late late I was struck by how much of a soapbox the medjugorje "visionary" got from Tubridy, compared to Corr a few weeks back.

In fact, she got to run off a spiel for several uninterrupted minutes, which she admitted she likes to do before taking questions. In contrast when Corr tried, upfront, to get to what he specifically wanted to talk about he was frustrated a few times, forced to spend all his time on 9/11 and eventually told "sorry, no time left". He showed the lady last night a lot more respect in comparison - why i don't know. Maybe Jim should have brought an interpreter and spoke as gaeilge

Oracle

Yeah maybe you have a point, I didn't see the last Late, Late, I agree the interview with Jim Corr seemed very much a set piece, From introduction to conclusion it was to give Corr a chance to chip in a few sentences, but not to really say a lot. Funny, contrary to most of the posters here, I liked Munckton, I hadn't seen him before, he came across as very likable and genuine to me. Corr on the other hand appeared tense, nervous and distracted.

That former Green party woman in the audience was awful, I can't stand her. She has the audacity to lecture Munckton when she resigned from the Greens simply because she didn't get a political appointment she was hoping for, very principled. I also thought the guy who spoke from the audience, with the American accent (not sure of his name) was a classic CIA agent. He was so obvious, he may as well have worn his security clearance badge.

Monty Burnz

Oracle wrote: »

I also thought the guy who spoke from the audience, with the American accent (not sure of his name) was a classic CIA agent. He was so obvious, he may as well have worn his security clearance badge.

So the CIA have infiltrated the Late Late Show audience now? I thought his points were pretty reasonable to be honest.

Superlativeman

Debated few on here about 9/11. Ya have to look at it logically and all the witnesses that saw a plant hit the Pentagon, etc. Plus, it was an admitted intelligence failure, but I can't honestly say inside job. Don't want to get into it. Did the research again and a lot of the debunkers' claims match up. Not saying that everything is OK, but 9/11, was not an inside job.

Also, Jim Corr is not credible. He could have at least said that NIST changed their story 5 times about building 7. Also, he's the guy from the Corrs.