Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Charlie Veitch 911 turnaround (New BBC documentary coming soon)

  • 17-08-2011 2:54pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭


    Some of you may know this clown. He first came to my attention at the time of the royal wedding; He was arrested beforehand & made headlines as a political activist who may have tried to disrupt plans on the day, also founder of the British "Love Police" (whatever that is).

    Well the BBC have made a documentary called '911 conspiracy road trip', to be aired around the tenth anniversary of 911 in which Charlie (AKA Damian Rockefeller) changes his mind on the week long trip and decides that he now believes the official version & views the 911 truth movement and his former buddies as 'conspiranoids'. He had been a well known activist for many years and a vocal proponent for the movement up until the week beforehand, so my question is this; What the **** is going on here? :pac:

    Many people are calling foul, and I have my own ideas. The guy had millions of followers on his youtube and elsewhere, and he even addresses the issue himself here- (As Damian)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8aMacEKaAU

    I am personally looking forward to this documentary airing...

    What is happening here? 13 votes

    Charlie changed his mind.
    0% 0 votes
    Charlie is an asshat.
    30% 4 votes
    Charlie is a Psy-op.
    30% 4 votes
    I like turtles.
    38% 5 votes


«1

Comments

  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    Obelisk wrote: »
    Some of you may know this clown. He first came to my attention at the time of the royal wedding; He was arrested beforehand & made headlines as a political activist who may have tried to disrupt plans on the day, also founder of the British "Love Police" (whatever that is).

    Well the BBC have made a documentary called '911 conspiracy road trip', to be aired around the tenth anniversary of 911 in which Charlie (AKA Damian Rockefeller) changes his mind on the week long trip and decides that he now believes the official version & views the 911 truth movement and his former buddies as 'conspiranoids'. He had been a well known activist for many years and a vocal proponent for the movement up until the week beforehand, so my question is this; What the **** is going on here? :pac:

    Many people are calling foul, and I have my own ideas. The guy had millions of followers on his youtube and elsewhere, and he even addresses the issue himself here- (As Damian)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8aMacEKaAU

    I am personally looking forward to this documentary airing...


    The obvious question is?

    Who is he, and why should I care about his opinion?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭Obelisk


    Di0genes wrote: »
    The obvious question is?

    Who is he, and why should I care about his opinion?

    The obvious question was mine. Who is?

    And you should probably not care, but know that he will be coming into the mainstream next month...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    Di0genes wrote: »
    The obvious question is?

    Who is he, and why should I care about his opinion?


    The obvious answer is.. Thats not just one question, really.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭Obelisk


    Di0genes wrote: »
    The obvious question is?

    Who is he, and why should I care about his opinion?

    I'm attempting to answer the first part of your question;

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7urCCCwDFY

    I could do with some help though, that's the point of my thread here.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    Obelisk wrote: »
    I'm attempting to answer the first part of your question;

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7urCCCwDFY

    I could do with some help though, that's the point of my thread here.

    I'm really not interested in some youtube squabble between truthers.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭Obelisk


    Di0genes wrote: »
    I'm really not interested in some youtube squabble between truthers.

    Oh right. And?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,584 ✭✭✭digme


    Obelisk wrote: »
    Some of you may know this clown. He first came to my attention at the time of the royal wedding; He was arrested beforehand & made headlines as a political activist who may have tried to disrupt plans on the day, also founder of the British "Love Police" (whatever that is).

    Well the BBC have made a documentary called '911 conspiracy road trip', to be aired around the tenth anniversary of 911 in which Charlie (AKA Damian Rockefeller) changes his mind on the week long trip and decides that he now believes the official version & views the 911 truth movement and his former buddies as 'conspiranoids'. He had been a well known activist for many years and a vocal proponent for the movement up until the week beforehand, so my question is this; What the **** is going on here? :pac:

    Many people are calling foul, and I have my own ideas. The guy had millions of followers on his youtube and elsewhere, and he even addresses the issue himself here- (As Damian)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8aMacEKaAU

    I am personally looking forward to this documentary airing...
    you do realize he's taking the piss in the video?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭Obelisk


    digme wrote: »
    you do realize he's taking the piss in the video?

    I do.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,584 ✭✭✭digme


    thank fck :)


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    Obelisk wrote: »
    Oh right. And?

    I dunno. You started the thread.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭Obelisk


    Di0genes wrote: »
    I dunno. You started the thread.

    Correct.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭Obelisk




  • Registered Users Posts: 186 ✭✭afrodub


    I found the Love Police videos on youtube very entertaining and Charlie Was a most powerful and direct speaker with and without megaphone.

    So just what went wrong !? IMO I think he was got at by TPTB and given a stark choice continue and face prison / or a ruined life.I anticipate the BBC docu on 911 anniversary will be a predictably slanted MSM hit piece.

    There is the chance Charlie could be a trojan on behalf of truthers and that after airing the doc he will turn the tables on them,just a wishful thinking ideal scenario,time will tell !!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭Obelisk


    afrodub wrote: »
    I found the Love Police videos on youtube very entertaining and Charlie Was a most powerful and direct speaker with and without megaphone.

    So just what went wrong !? IMO I think he was got at by TPTB and given a stark choice continue and face prison / or a ruined life.I anticipate the BBC docu on 911 anniversary will be a predictably slanted MSM hit piece.

    There is the chance Charlie could be a trojan on behalf of truthers and that after airing the doc he will turn the tables on them,just a wishful thinking ideal scenario,time will tell !!

    Thanks for the response. I've not seen all his videos, I watched all the 'Damian Rockefeller' ones though- He sure knows a bit about the Luciferian Philosophy i'l say that!

    I agree with your sentiments, whatever is going on in no way do I believe that he just 'changed his mind' on day 2 of the trip. Bollocks!

    There is no doubt that the documentary will be slanted, BBC are well known for their take on the conspiracy theories.

    I like your theory but definately agre that it is wishful thinking!

    Do you think he may have been a psy-op all along?

    Many are thinking that, and to be honest it would be a good one, we know that this is what goes on and that they are very good at it.

    As you say, time will tell and that's what makes it interesting!


  • Registered Users Posts: 186 ✭✭afrodub


    In the early days of the Love Police videos which I highly recommend ,the sheer brilliance and power of Charlie`s oratory and his challenge and exposure of `authority`was simply stunning viewing. Charlie did pay a price for those challenges and was arrested I believe 14 times during this period.

    This in itself brought into question in my mind,just how did he even get into the U.S.A. given their notoriously strict policies on visas.Charlie admitted to a brief spell in the Brit.Army,I speculate during this period he was picked out and was groomed for his future role as a limited hangout,road to nowhere,pied piper of the `truth movement`.

    At this limbo stage pre broadcast of the BBC 911 docu I still hold out that Charlie will come good,alternatively I am prepared that indeed I like many were had,and this was indeed a very well executed psyop.Create further distractions,factions and confusion and maintain the ludicrous and discredited MSM position as to what occurred on 911.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    afrodub wrote: »
    In the early days of the Love Police videos which I highly recommend ,the sheer brilliance and power of Charlie`s oratory and his challenge and exposure of `authority`was simply stunning viewing. Charlie did pay a price for those challenges and was arrested I believe 14 times during this period.

    This in itself brought into question in my mind,just how did he even get into the U.S.A. given their notoriously strict policies on visas.Charlie admitted to a brief spell in the Brit.Army,I speculate during this period he was picked out and was groomed for his future role as a limited hangout,road to nowhere,pied piper of the `truth movement`.

    At this limbo stage pre broadcast of the BBC 911 docu I still hold out that Charlie will come good,alternatively I am prepared that indeed I like many were had,and this was indeed a very well executed psyop.Create further distractions,factions and confusion and maintain the ludicrous and discredited MSM position as to what occurred on 911.

    Sounds like a awful lot of work to discredit a completely discredited movement.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭Obelisk


    afrodub wrote: »
    In the early days of the Love Police videos which I highly recommend ,the sheer brilliance and power of Charlie`s oratory and his challenge and exposure of `authority`was simply stunning viewing. Charlie did pay a price for those challenges and was arrested I believe 14 times during this period.

    This in itself brought into question in my mind,just how did he even get into the U.S.A. given their notoriously strict policies on visas.Charlie admitted to a brief spell in the Brit.Army,I speculate during this period he was picked out and was groomed for his future role as a limited hangout,road to nowhere,pied piper of the `truth movement`.

    At this limbo stage pre broadcast of the BBC 911 docu I still hold out that Charlie will come good,alternatively I am prepared that indeed I like many were had,and this was indeed a very well executed psyop.Create further distractions,factions and confusion and maintain the ludicrous and discredited MSM position as to what occurred on 911.

    Ah I see! You have a hint of emotional attachment to the case, well your certainly not the only one.

    Apart from that, I agree totally with everything you just said there.

    Must check his love police videos, I know they were popular


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    10th anniversary of 9/11. Hard to believe.


    Also 10th anniversary of the "War on Terror" of course still going strong...
    We're going to be seeing plenty of history revision saturating the screens and pages of MSM over the next month.

    More fearmongering and state sponsored islamophobia coming your way guys!


    Ta for the info OP. BBC doc on 9/11? Hmm.. That'll be an interesting watch.
    Wouldn't be surprised at all if this guy Charlie didn't either get threatened or paid off or both at some stage who knows when.
    I mean it's just too convenient isn't it? A bit of closure and comfort and a happy ending of sorts for the viewers in TV land...
    Betcha they don't make a doc about the many others going in the other direction after reading NIST...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,552 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    I suppose it's too far fetched that this guy might have just changed his mind based on research?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    King Mob wrote: »
    I suppose it's too far fetched that this guy might have just changed his mind based on research?

    Quite right. That's also possible.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭Obelisk


    ed2hands wrote: »
    King Mob wrote: »
    I suppose it's too far fetched that this guy might have just changed his mind based on research?

    Quite right. That's also possible.

    Possible, but highly unlikely. Approach with scepticism!


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    Obelisk wrote: »
    Possible, but highly unlikely. Approach with scepticism!

    The fact that a guy can be persuaded the 9/11 wasn't a inside job, through logic facts and reasoning.

    is to your mind unlikely, but
    ,I speculate during this period he was picked out and was groomed for his future role as a limited hangout,road to nowhere,pied piper of the `truth movement`.

    Could be more plausible?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,552 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Obelisk wrote: »
    Possible, but highly unlikely. Approach with scepticism!
    Why is it unlikely?

    Why is a vast, complex and seemingly nonsensical conspiracy is much more likely than a guy just learned something more and changed his mind?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭Obelisk


    Because, somebody who has done their research over the last ten years and was a big part of the movement doesn't just change their mind like that overnight is why.

    Of course, it is possible that's why I put it as an option in the poll above.

    It's going to be interesting to see what will be presented as the evidence that 'changed his mind' all of a sudden.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,552 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Obelisk wrote: »
    Because, somebody who has done their research over the last ten years and was a big part of the movement doesn't just change their mind like that overnight is why.

    Of course, it is possible that's why I put it as an option in the poll above.

    It's going to be interesting to see what will be presented as the evidence that 'changed his mind' all of a sudden.
    But how exactly do you know it was "overnight".
    He could have been having doubts about the conspiracy narrative for some time, or he could have become disillusioned with the truth movement and came to realise that they were all wrong.

    Again, how is this less likely than a global psy-op conspiracy apparently lasting for years?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭Obelisk


    Read the thread for further clarification.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    Obelisk wrote: »
    Because, somebody who has done their research over the last ten years and was a big part of the movement doesn't just change their mind like that overnight is why.

    I've never heard of him. He's not exactly Richard Gage or David Ray Griffin .


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭Obelisk


    Di0genes wrote: »
    Obelisk wrote: »
    Because, somebody who has done their research over the last ten years and was a big part of the movement doesn't just change their mind like that overnight is why.

    I've never heard of him. He's not exactly Richard Gage or David Ray Griffin .

    You not hearing of him doesn't take away from the fact that he's had literally millions of people following him, giving him donations and generally thinking the sun shines out of his arse for the last 2 years.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,552 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Obelisk wrote: »
    Read the thread for further clarification.
    And nothing in the thread addresses my question.
    That's why I asked it, to advance the discussion.

    So why is him simply changing his mind less likely than a complex global conspiracy?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭Obelisk


    King Mob wrote: »
    Obelisk wrote: »
    Read the thread for further clarification.
    And nothing in the thread addresses my question.
    That's why I asked it, to advance the discussion.

    So why is him simply changing his mind less likely than a complex global conspiracy?

    Read the background information link I posted.

    The other lad Afrodub made some good points too.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,552 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Obelisk wrote: »
    Read the background information link I posted.

    The other lad Afrodub made some good points too.
    So I suppose actually engaging in the discussion is out of the window too...:rolleyes:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭Obelisk


    King Mob wrote: »
    Obelisk wrote: »
    Read the background information link I posted.

    The other lad Afrodub made some good points too.
    So I suppose actually engaging in the discussion is out of the window too...:rolleyes:

    If actually reading the thread is out first then I guess so, yes. (SMH etc)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    This documentary is on BBC3 now. Over at 10 though. Didnt know that dude from Kilbarrack was involved :(

    Repeats @ 12:30


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    Charlie turned on day 1 :pac:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭Obelisk


    Muppet! Cant wait to look @ it, there is another one on again tomoro night cant think of the name offhand but have it on record. Pricks!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,145 ✭✭✭lolo62


    i couldnt believe it how quickly he changed his mind...didnt know in advance by the way, have seen this guy on youtube though.

    why are they rounding up a group of inexperienced kids/youtube celebrities and a stand up comedian to make a documentary about something like this?

    personally i dont think there is any big conspiracy behind charlies mind change, he just didnt have the backbone when it came to the crunch

    the fact that they arent bringing in the so-called 'authorities' on this is what is suspicious to me...i would love the conspiracy to be disproved at this point but i cant help but wonder why they arent making a documentary with the people making the most noise on this if they dont have anything to hide.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭Obelisk


    lolo62 wrote: »
    i would love the conspiracy to be disproved at this point but i cant help but wonder why they arent making a documentary with the people making the most noise on this if they dont have anything to hide.

    That's the problem, dont we all mate.

    On the plus side, 'Charlie' memes are on the up again... (Where have we seen that before?)

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056367085

    Charlie Veitch, truth seeker, described as an ex-banker by the bbc, returns from his road trip with a change of heart. He releases a video filmed in new york where he is obviously relishing his time under the neon signs in one of the biggest shopping areas in the world, and praises various famous singers who had written about new york. People become enraged at this as he has spent the past 2 years soliciting donations and producing videos railing against the established order, shopping and commercialism. He responds by calling David Icke crazy, and Alex jones a fat texan conspiracy theorist, and those that are annoyed haters.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    Here ya go Oblisk and anyone whoo misssed it.

    9/11 conspiracy road trip, bbc3




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭Obelisk


    Hahaha. SNAP :D Lokks SHIIIIIITE :confused: Maxwell the pariah, what a crock of bollocks! **** these shams :pac: Charlie Veitch quote….
    My anarchism and libertarian mindset has strengthened. So I’ve spent 5 years listening to the conspiratorial view – then I got the opportunity to grill the historical/accidental view of 9/11 proponents. Where I stand now is that America’s defences got caught with their pants around their ankles. I do not think there was high level evil complicity in the events of that day. Yes, I have changed my mind.


    The first five minutes set the standard BBC tone, with a voice over by Mr Maxwell, where he reinforced the ‘official’ story and stated that he was “as certain as certain can be that Osama Bin Laden ordered the attacks”. This was followed by an introduction to the five “theorists”, interspersed with shots of them crying and shouting at each other. Without going to far off track, you may remember (from my “Popcorn For The Mind” blog series) that I looked into the media use of “love-bombing”, “divide and conquer” and “herd mentality” tactics in it’s programming. It’s certainly something worth looking out for in a re-watch of this program. These first five minutes are classic examples of social engineering aspects, with all the hallmarks of certain organisations: from Tavistock to Common Purpose. Methods that would have raised a knowing smile from the likes of researcher, Brian Gerrish!

    Andrew Maxwell pointed out that it was “unbelievable” that there were people out there who questioned the “truth” about 9/11. He first took the group to WTC Ground Zero, believing that by simply going there it would change their mind and giving them a “reality check”. This trite act is akin to taking a group of Ufologists to the desert in New Mexico and hoping they’ll raise their hands to the sky and shout, “My God I’ve Seen The Light!”. It trivialises any real attempt to present a critical analysis of 9/11 research, right off the bat.

    He went on to declare that the 9/11 Commission was “totally independent”… you only have to look into the people involved (including the farcically initial period with Henry Kissinger) to know that this is just a biased and misleading comment.

    The specific theories were represented by half a dozen of the (what I consider anyway) weaker aspects of 9/11 speculation. “Amateur pilots couldn’t have done it”. The program then went on to take the group to a flight school where one was taken up in a tiny two man plane and proceeded to fly it above Manhattan for ten minutes. The ‘expert’ flight instructor commented that “if you’re tender with the controls, you’ll probably land it first flight”. He claimed it was easy to navigate and land on a runway, but also said that it was “easier to fly a big jet”. If that were the case, then why isn’t everybody flying jets for British Airways within a day of signing up?! They then dropped in a sound bite of Shazin saying that she thought it would be easy to do it with a Boeing. Well I’m convinced already!…

    This section was closed with the statement: “All they had to do was fly straight and level”. Clearly this is a ridiculous observation. You need only look at the ‘official’ flight path, altitude and angle of Flight 77...

    Next up was the view that the US government screwed up their security procedures. This was quickly dismissed by a quick recollection of the ‘official’ account, with every aspect including the word “Did”. United Airlines pilot Buck Rogers (yes really!) made a staggering remark that there had never been one single aircraft hijacking in the US before 9/11. Where do these people learn their history?!

    At this point, it was obligatory to show the group arguing and shouting at each other, whilst Mr Maxwell (apt name!) called them “childlike” and “gullible”. Next stop was the controlled demolition theory. No physics, simple mathematics or laws of gravity here. Just demolition ‘expert’ Brent Blanchard (do some serious research on this man, you’ll be surprised what you find…) and his reassuring claim that “buildings NEVER fall OVER”, they are simply “compressed”. By now, Charlie Veitch was presented as having an epiphany: “It makes sense now”. The producers must have rubbing their hands with glee.

    Onto the means used to create a controlled demolition and Rodney was next to be ridiculed. “You would think that a science grad would be more rational”, said Andrew Maxwell (another example of nothing more than insult). Another ‘expert’ displayed combustion of a steel girder which was barely scratched, thus the “conspiracy theory” was definitively debunked. Charlie Veitch was, again viewed, voicing his opinion: “It’s becoming more and more unlikely that this stuff was used to bring down buildings… and planes DID mess up the buildings”. At this point, they showed Charlotte upset because “Charlotte has been relying on Charlie to back her up”.
    Onto The Pentagon . The producers obviously didn’t want to touch this one at all, for fear of showing themselves up. They simply presented the ‘official’ commission approved animation of Flight 77’s impact… the one that removes an engine from the schematics in order that it fit’s the pattern of damage (see parts 7 and 8 of my 9/11 blog series, to understand this crucial evidence). Maxwell said here, “Do you think a missile could go in there unnoticed by the public… I think that’s nuts”. Please Mr Maxwell, much more of your profound knowledge and I’ll have to admit defeat and close my blog down…

    At this point I nearly choked from laughing when he said, “What’s more important, the truth or the right answer!”. If it wasn’t such a serious matter, I’d have almost mistaken it for a “Carry On…” film. More arguing and he accuses them of “sulking”. He finally shows himself for the dignified and morally superior being by walking off and saying, “**** Them!”. He then claims that the group “selectively hear things” and mentions something about Israel and MI5, claims that “Santa does not exist, how do you know he doesn’t exist… this is ludicrous”.

    A demonstration of physics followed, in order to explain the crash of Flight 93. This involved a pebble and a mound of flour, followed by the group throwing some eggs and water bombs. Seriously! You couldn’t make this stuff up!

    Onto voice analysis of the ‘passengers’ of ‘93 and an expert who bravely commented that the calls could have been edited or faked, however they were not really practical in “realtime”. Lots of crying for the finale, as the group met the mother of Mark Bingham. She said that her son often used his first name and surname in personal conversations because of habits he’d picked up in his profession and commented that people “on the internet” had “not many brains”.

    The whole ordeal ended with more arguing and shouting and the final position of the group regarding 9/11. Charlie Veitch was praised as a “realist” because of his decision to renounce the “conspiracy” path and join the rest of the sheeple. At which point I could pretty much feel my brain running out of my ears and decided that an hour in the company of the BBC’s psychological manipulation machine was more than enough…

    Maxwell is some muppet.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    Another perspective on the situation...



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    Another perspective on the situation...

    You have to wonder when someone thinks it's more likely that a technology that doesn't exist (i.e. holographic planes) is more likely than the official version of events.

    Seriously if you have to invent ways for it to happen it really doesn't help anyone else to believe you.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    meglome wrote: »
    You have to wonder when someone thinks it's more likely that a technology that doesn't exist (i.e. holographic planes) is more likely than the official version of events.

    Seriously if you have to invent ways for it to happen it really doesn't help anyone else to believe you.


    When they do invent this technology you will be the first to know and if anyone has any further accusations regarding false flags using secret technology, they can cross reference it with you to arrive at the truth.

    We'll all call you, the... "secret technology current existance knower." :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    When they do invent this technology you will be the first to know and if anyone has any further accusations regarding false flags using secret technology, they can cross reference it with you to arrive at the truth.

    We'll all call you, the... "secret technology current existance knower." :rolleyes:

    My best guess is holographic technology would have limited military use. It's not as if holographic planes would show up on radar and fool the enemy. However it would have massive consumer usage and would be worth a fortune. Money talks and no one has anything even in the same ballpark as it would take to project those planes on 911, and that's ten years on.

    If you believe a story that involves a non-existent technology there is something seriously wrong with your logic and thought processes.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    I dont believe it, just throwing "another perspective" on the Charlie story out there, no need to get your knickers in a twist. The girl in the video doesnt believe holographic planes were used, nor does Charlie and nor do I.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    I dont believe it, just throwing "another perspective" on the Charlie story out there, no need to get your knickers in a twist. The girl in the video doesnt believe holographic planes were used, nor does Charlie and nor do I.

    Unless I'm mistaken she is more inclined to believe holographic planes rather than the official story so my point stands.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    meglome wrote: »
    Unless I'm mistaken she is more inclined to believe holographic planes rather than the official story so my point stands.

    All she said was, regarding Charlie.."just because you saw no evidence for it, doesnt mean it didnt happen."

    Doesnt mean she has an opinion on it. She simply doesnt believe the official story. And who can blame her. It's not easily believable by any standards. I think few people would believe it happened exactly how the gov said it did.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    All she said was, regarding Charlie.."just because you saw no evidence for it, doesnt mean it didnt happen."

    Doesnt mean she has an opinion on it. She simply doesnt believe the official story. And who can blame her. It's not easily believable by any standards. I think few people would believe it happened exactly how the gov said it did.

    Look I can't know that the government reports are completely accurate. But I can look at the differing claims and see how they stand up to the government reports. Here's the problem... the CT's often contradict one another, they sometimes use tech that doesn't exist, they consistently use out of context quotes to imply they mean something else, they makes connections betweens things but don't actually explain what the connection is, they often leave out evidence as it doesn't agree with them, they cut video to show it means something else, they talk constantly about explosions but can't show one shred of real evidence that there were any explosives, etc etc. So given the choice of who to believe on 911, I choose the people who are not proven liars.. i.e the official reports.

    I'm sorry you find the official reports unbelievable but find the often outlandish claims from the CT believable. I'll follow the logic and evidence thanks very much.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    meglome wrote: »
    Look I can't know that the government reports are completely accurate. But I can look at the differing claims and see how they stand up to the government reports. Here's the problem... the CT's often contradict one another, they sometimes use tech that doesn't exist, they consistently use out of context quotes to imply they mean something else, they makes connections betweens things but don't actually explain what the connection is, they often leave out evidence as it doesn't agree with them, they cut video to show it means something else, they talk constantly about explosions but can't show one shred of real evidence that there were any explosives, etc etc. So given the choice of who to believe on 911, I choose the people who are not proven liars.. i.e the official reports.

    I'm sorry you find the official reports unbelievable but find the often outlandish claims from the CT believable. I'll follow the logic and evidence thanks very much.

    The official reports are unbelievable because they are not true. It was admitted that the report was hampered at every level by the pentagon and the whitehouse. Both chairmen of the report said it was set up to fail.

    You find it easier to believe the report even though your being told by it's chairmen that basically it's not the truth, yet you call conspiracy theorists outlandish ? lol


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    The official reports are unbelievable because they are not true. It was admitted that the report was hampered at every level by the pentagon and the whitehouse. Both chairmen of the report said it was set up to fail.

    You find it easier to believe the report even though your being told by it's chairmen that basically it's not the truth, yet you call conspiracy theorists outlandish ? lol

    You'll find that people covered their asses so they didn't look bad, i.e. hiding incompetence. That's what I took from what was reported. That does not mean the physics of what happen is wrong, not even close.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,552 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    You find it easier to believe the report even though your being told by it's chairmen that basically it's not the truth, yet you call conspiracy theorists outlandish ? lol
    So you believe that the people overseeing the 9/11 commission say that their final report is inaccurate? Do any of them say that the NIST report or any technical reports are inaccurate?
    Why would they do so?
    Why aren't they in on the conspiracy and then just say that the reports are super awesome and explain everything?
    How come they are allowed to say otherwise, if they do indeed say as much?

    Because the truth is that you are being fed out of context quotes from these people, who do in fact stand behind their final report.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement