did anyone see this ...about 7/7 bombings

stuff.hunter

... http://jforjustice.co.uk/77/ ... holly sh1t just watched it, seems to be true...
what do yis thinking

Jaafa

Summery for those of us who don't have an hour to spare, please?

stuff.hunter

simply.. inside job, was planned as emergency response units training but ... some 'guys' turned it up as real ..amazing: suicide bombers were shot dead by cops after blowing themselves up

El Inho

stuff.hunter wrote: »

simply.. inside job, was planned as emergency response units training but ... some 'guys' turned it up as real ..amazing: suicide bombers were shot dead by cops after blowing themselves up

that smiley face was disturbing

stuff.hunter

eldwaro wrote: »

that smiley face was disturbing

..my bad

chin_grin

stuff.hunter wrote: »

simply.. inside job, was planned as emergency response units training but ... some 'guys' turned it up as real ..amazing: suicide bombers were shot dead by cops after blowing themselves up

So basically a copy and paste 9/11 conspiracy theory?

stuff.hunter

chin_grin wrote: »

So basically a copy and paste 9/11 conspiracy theory?

its look alot more than theory only

clever_name

stuff.hunter wrote: »

its look alot more than theory only

A theory form the same man who thinks George Lucas wrote Star Wars while he was being directed by "the Force" and btw Star Wars is a true story according to him.

Also he wants Ian Mckellen publicly executed for being gay.

Still think its a god theory?

Brown Bomber

clever_name wrote: »

A theory form the same man who thinks George Lucas wrote Star Wars while he was being directed by "the Force" and btw Star Wars is a true story according to him.

Also he wants Ian Mckellen publicly executed for being gay.

Still think its a god theory?

None of the above has anything to do with the film.

Brown Bomber

stuff.hunter wrote: »

... http://jforjustice.co.uk/77/ ... holly sh1t just watched it, seems to be true...
what do yis thinking

You might be interested in this too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFllLvhgYm8

stuff.hunter

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You might be interested in this too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFllLvhgYm8

thanks mate,
btw why Muad'Dib got arrested if this film is a complete un-truth

Jonny7

stuff.hunter wrote: »

thanks mate,
btw why Muad'Dib got arrested if this film is a complete un-truth

He got arrested for perverting justice by sending this video to the judge and jury foreman in a related trial.

clever_name

Brown Bomber wrote: »

None of the above has anything to do with the film.

It has everything to do with the film, the film is the work of a man who beleives in "the force", he claims that only he knows that star wars is real and george Lucas was a tool of "the force". He wants gay people put to death when he takes control of the UK.

Why on earth would anyone take any of his crackpot ideas seriously?

Brown Bomber

clever_name wrote: »

It has everything to do with the film, the film is the work of a man who beleives in "the force", he claims that only he knows that star wars is real and george Lucas was a tool of "the force". He wants gay people put to death when he takes control of the UK.

Why on earth would anyone take any of his crackpot ideas seriously?

Re-wording your ad-hominen attacks against the maker of the film don't make them any less irrelevant to the content of the film -- which you haven't made a single comment on.

Dude111

stuff.hunter wrote:

simply.. inside job, was planned as emergency response units training but ...

Yup alot of ppl think that!

clever_name

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Re-wording your ad-hominen attacks against the maker of the film don't make them any less irrelevant to the content of the film -- which you haven't made a single comment on.

Attacks? all i did was state something that comes directly from his website - how is that attacking him? the website stated that gay people should be executed, that is his opinion - I stated that I feel that makes him a crackpot, hardly an attack.

As for the content of the film, its quite simple, he has zero credibility and I watched it with that fact in mind, remember the old saying even a broken watch gets the time right twice a day.

Honest question for you, do you find him credible? and if so how do you get past his more strange (i.e. star wars is real, kill gay people) beliefs?

Monty Burnz

Brown Bomber wrote: »

None of the above has anything to do with the film.

This is true, but if a man who thinks he is the true King of England and Israel, and that Hilter was a 'counterfeit Jew', along with a third of his army, and a hundred other crazy beliefs came to you with another conspiracy theory - would you agree that his track record suggests he lacks credibility?

Brown Bomber

clever_name wrote: »

Attacks? all i did was state something that comes directly from his website - how is that attacking him? the website stated that gay people should be executed, that is his opinion - I stated that I feel that makes him a crackpot, hardly an attack.

It is by definition an "attack", an ad-hominen attack. I'm not going to keep saying it so read this instead:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

clever_name wrote: »

As for the content of the film, its quite simple, he has zero credibility and I watched it with that fact in mind, remember the old saying even a broken watch gets the time right twice a day.

This is an admission of prejudice, which makes any opinions you have on the film worthless.

clever_name wrote: »

Honest question for you, do you find him credible? and if so how do you get past his more strange (i.e. star wars is real, kill gay people) beliefs?

I really don't know anything about the man.

Brown Bomber

Monty Burnz wrote: »

This is true, but if a man who thinks he is the true King of England and Israel, and that Hilter was a 'counterfeit Jew', along with a third of his army, and a hundred other crazy beliefs came to you with another conspiracy theory - would you agree that his track record suggests he lacks credibility?

Based on that, no. However, if Darwin thought the earth was flat it wouldn't make me reconsider his theory of evolution.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Based on that, no. However, if Darwin thought the earth was flat it wouldn't make me reconsider his theory of evolution.

But if Darwin had supported his theory only with his supposed ability to identify patterns and personal version of logic, then the fact that he believed in clearly nonsensical ideas would call it into question.

And since this is all Maud'Dib has and he believes stuff that is very clearly the product of delusion, the stuff you want to argee with is suspect.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

But if Darwin had supported his theory only with his supposed ability to identify patterns and personal version of logic, then the fact that he believed in clearly nonsensical ideas would call it into question.

Maybe it would maybe it wouldn't. It doesn't matter either way. Perhaps you might oblige by answering a question directly?

If Darwin considered the world to be flat would it diminish the/his theory of evolution?

King Mob wrote: »

And since this is all Maud'Dib has and he believes stuff that is very clearly the product of delusion, the stuff you want to argee with is suspect.

Strawman, I don't "want to agree" with anything. I am prepared to judge his claims on their own merits and not on the basis of other claims he has made.

Monty Burnz

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If Darwin considered the world to be flat would it diminish the/his theory of evolution?

If he believed the world to be flat, and himself to be Jesus, and the world to be blue cheese, and Star Wars to be the bible, and mice to be gods, and 100 other odd beliefs - then yes, it would diminish his theory. There is still a tiny chance that - by sheer randomness - his theory would be correct, but a posteriori, you could be pretty confident it would be total gibberish.

Jonny7

The July 7th Truth Campaign are pretty decisive in their rebuttal of the video.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Maybe it would maybe it wouldn't. It doesn't matter either way. Perhaps you might oblige by answering a question directly?

If Darwin considered the world to be flat would it diminish the/his theory of evolution?

I did answer the question directly.
No it wouldn't have, as evolution is supported by good evidence.
However if Darwin had solely relied on his own authority, claimed ability to see "patterns" and so forth, then the theory would be suspect.
It would doubly be so if the same authority and abilities lead him to a clearly silly and delusional idea such as the world is flat or that George Lucas is an instrument of the force.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Strawman, I don't "want to agree" with anything. I am prepared to judge his claims on their own merits and not on the basis of other claims he has made.

Except we both know that if anyone posted an official source, you wouldn't be as willing to judge the claims on their own merits.

The only reason you are giving this guy any sort of chance is because you happen to like what he says on that topic.

Brown Bomber

Monty Burnz wrote: »

If he believed the world to be flat, and himself to be Jesus, and the world to be blue cheese, and Star Wars to be the bible, and mice to be gods, and 100 other odd beliefs - then yes, it would diminish his theory. There is still a tiny chance that - by sheer randomness - his theory would be correct, but a posteriori, you could be pretty confident it would be total gibberish.

Monty, holding any of these beliefs would not refute Darwin's theory of evolution.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

I did answer the question directly.
No it wouldn't have, as evolution is supported by good evidence.
However if Darwin had solely relied on his own authority, claimed ability to see "patterns" and so forth, then the theory would be suspect.
It would doubly be so if the same authority and abilities lead him to a clearly silly and delusional idea such as the world is flat or that George Lucas is an instrument of the force.

And in the video in question does the filmaker rely "solely ...on his own authority, claimed ability to see "patterns"?

King Mob wrote: »

Except we both know that if anyone posted an official source, you wouldn't be as willing to judge the claims on their own merits.

The only reason you are giving this guy any sort of chance is because you happen to like what he says on that topic.

And now your making ad-hom attacks against me. You don't have to be Muad Dib to see "patterns" here.

clever_name

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It is by definition an "attack", an ad-hominen attack. I'm not going to keep saying it so read this instead:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

based on your own posts you have proved its not an ad-hominen attack.

From the link you posted;

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument

Two things,

First you admit that you "really don't know anything about the man" so you are in no position to say what is a fallacy.

Secondly several relevant facts about the man have been posted here, perhaps research him a bit before defending him, just a suggestion.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This is an admission of prejudice, which makes any opinions you have on the film worthless.

You honestly believe that if you think a source is unreliable your opinion on the subject is worthless?, so anyone who thinks Fox News is unreliable best not comment on anything as any opinion they have would be worthless?

Tell me are there any organizations or people you think are unreliable? Have you ever posted anything on here showing prejudice? if so according to you any opinions you have on the subject are worthless.

Monty Burnz

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Monty, holding any of these beliefs would not refute Darwin's theory of evolution.

It would not refute the theory, as I agreed. But it would probably mean that the theory that Darwin actually came up with was that animals were descended from alien biscuits. What we know as 'Darwin's theory' would have been discovered by someone sane.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And in the video in question does the filmaker rely "solely ...on his own authority, claimed ability to see "patterns"?

From what I have read, it's the same stuff he used to conclude that Star Wars is real, thus making it suspect.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And now your making ad-hom attacks against me. You don't have to be Muad Dib to see "patterns" here.

It's not ad-hom attack, it's simply a fact.
You discount any offical sources because they are offical, that's it.
It's no different to what you are saying we shouldn't be doing.

Except that they guy you are defending is presenting very very silly claims.

Brown Bomber

clever_name wrote: »

based on your own posts you have proved its not an ad-hominen attack.

From the link you posted;

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument

His views on Ian Mckellan and star wars are completely irrelevant to any facts/inferences presented/made in the film.

clever_name wrote: »

Two things,

First you admit that you "really don't know anything about the man" so you are in no position to say what is a fallacy.

My knowledge or lack of knowledge about Muad Dib or anyone/anything else is irrelevant to what is a fallacy. Your ad-hom's against the filmaker were fallacies. There is no two ways about it.

clever_name wrote: »

bSecondly several relevant facts about the man have been posted here, perhaps research him a bit before defending him, just a suggestion.

No. They are irrelevant to the film and the facts presented therein.

clever_name wrote: »

You honestly believe that if you think a source is unreliable your opinion on the subject is worthless?, so anyone who thinks Fox News is unreliable best not comment on anything as any opinion they have would be worthless?

No, I am saying that if you reach a conclusion based on pre-conceived notions, as you freely admitted to then your conclusion is biased and essentially worthless.

clever_name wrote: »

Tell me are there any organizations or people you think are unreliable? Have you ever posted anything on here showing prejudice? if so according to you any opinions you have on the subject are worthless.

Yes, I am human.

Monty Burnz

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No, I am saying that if you reach a conclusion based on pre-conceived notions, as you freely admitted to then your conclusion is biased and essentially worthless.

Can we look forward to you taking every Fox News bullsh!t report seriously from here on in, BB? After all, their ravings are still a lot more sensible than those of John Hill!

stoneill

What exactly is his point?

Government use media for their own use? Shock Horror!
Prepared Emergency Plan? That's the point of a plan.
Mock anti-terror drill? If Terrorists can think it so can emergency responders.
Bomb on a bus! - Jeeze - how come we didn't think of that!
Bomb on a tube - now how come we didn't consider that!

clever_name

Brown Bomber wrote: »

His views on Ian Mckellan and star wars are completely irrelevant to any facts/inferences presented/made in the film.

But completly relevent to his credibility, really why would anyone pay attention to what this guy says...

Brown Bomber wrote: »

My knowledge or lack of knowledge about Muad Dib or anyone/anything else is irrelevant to what is a fallacy. Your ad-hom's against the filmaker were fallacies. There is no two ways about it.

Again you have stated that you "really don't know anything about the man" so you are in no position to comment on any errors in my reasoning. You have admitted ignorance of the issue, your opinion is worthless.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No. They are irrelevant to the film and the facts presented therein.


No, I am saying that if you reach a conclusion based on pre-conceived notions, as you freely admitted to then your conclusion is biased and essentially worthless.

Are you serious? everyone has preconcieved notions about everything! Its called life.

Answer this - are you saying you have no preconcieved notions about anything?

Brown Bomber

Monty Burnz wrote: »

It would not refute the theory, as I agreed. But it would probably mean that the theory that Darwin actually came up with was that animals were descended from alien biscuits. What we know as 'Darwin's theory' would have been discovered by someone sane.

Right, but my only point is that nothing that Darwin believed, even if he later became a Creationist renders his theory false. Likewise, none of Muad Dib's religious beliefs effects the truth or otherwise of his 7/7 film. Unless they can be demonstrated to be intertwined.

Nobody has shown this to be the case but jumped in with ad-hominen attacks.

Monty Burnz

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Unless they can be demonstrated to be intertwined.

Fair point - but they are. His world-view is completely nuts, and this is just another facet of that twisted world-view. If you feel like a trip into insanity, spend an hour on his site reading - say - five or six of his beliefs/CTs/theories. The 7/7 one fits in very comfortably with the rest.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

From what I have read, it's the same stuff he used to conclude that Star Wars is real, thus making it suspect.

From what you have READ???
It's a film. Have you not even watched it???

King Mob wrote: »

It's not ad-hom attack, it's simply a fact.
You discount any offical sources because they are offical, that's it.

Well that's crap for a start. I'd be surprised if I don't link to more "official sources" than anyone else in the forum.

King Mob wrote: »

It's no different to what you are saying we shouldn't be doing.

Being a skeptic is fun!
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem-tu-quoque.html

And lest you forget, I am the kook here, surely you have higher standards???

King Mob wrote: »

Except that they guy you are defending is presenting very very silly claims.

I am not defending him. I am defending logic

Brown Bomber

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Fair point - but they are. His world-view is completely nuts, and this is just another facet of that twisted world-view. If you feel like a trip into insanity, spend an hour on his site reading - say - five or six of his beliefs/CTs/theories. The 7/7 one fits in very comfortably with the rest.

OK. But I watched his film years ago. I had no idea who he was at the time and no idea after, other than he was a mildly spoken North of England gentleman. I don't actually remember him bringing attention to himself in any way, or pushing any agenda beyond the supposed inconsistencies in the official 7/7 narrative. Though viewed with the benefit of hindsight I could concieivably reconsider.

Can we be sure he even held these same views he now holds in 2007? On Star Wars etc...

Brown Bomber

clever_name wrote: »

But completly relevent to his credibility, really why would anyone pay attention to what this guy says...

I am not claiming he is credible but that it is wrong to assume that because a person gets claim X wrong that claim Y is de-facto wrong also.

clever_name wrote: »

Again you have stated that you "really don't know anything about the man" so you are in no position to comment on any errors in my reasoning. You have admitted ignorance of the issue, your opinion is worthless.

I am in a position to comment on errors in your reasoning if you make errors in your reasoning. You seem to have taken it personally. I apologise if that's the case.

clever_name wrote: »

Are you serious? everyone has preconcieved notions about everything! Its called life.

Of course. However, to try to find the truth we should at least try to avoid it, right? You have intentionally opted-in to bias before witnessing the evidence.

clever_name wrote: »

Answer this - are you saying you have no preconcieved notions about anything?

Like I said, yes (edit:meant no). I am human.

enno99

Brown Bomber wrote: »

OK. But I watched his film years ago. I had no idea who he was at the time and no idea after, other than he was a mildly spoken North of England gentleman. I don't actually remember him bringing attention to himself in any way, or pushing any agenda beyond the supposed inconsistencies in the official 7/7 narrative. Though viewed with the benefit of hindsight I could concieivably reconsider.

Can we be sure he even held these same views he now holds in 2007? On Star Wars etc...

was there a thread about his arrest on here can anyone remember if this star wars / kill gays /etc came up

Brown Bomber

enno99 wrote: »

was there a thread about his arrest on here can anyone remember if this star wars / kill gays /etc came up

yep
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=59434074

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056563012

Probably more as well.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

From what you have READ???
It's a film. Have you not even watched it???

Because there is plenty of information about what the film is about both on his site and on this thread. From what i've read about the film and the fact that his logic leads him to believe very silly things, I don't see why I should waste my time any more that you should to check whether his Star Wars nonsense is true.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Well that's crap for a start. I'd be surprised if I don't link to more "official sources" than anyone else in the forum.

Lol.
:rolleyes:

Jonny7

Mexican stand-off - no one will watch the video


You can count me the hell out, last Muad'Dib video two weeks ago I almost had a brain aneurysm

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Because there is plenty of information about what the film is about both on his site and on this thread.

Correction, there is nothing on this thread regarding the content of the film. However, I did check the site and I hadn't realised that there was a transcript.
From this I learned that in the entire film transcrpt there is:

1. No mention of "Jesus"
2. No mention of "Jew"
3. No mention of Hitler
4. No mention of "Star Wars"
5. No mention of "gay"
6. No mention of "homosexual"
7. No mention of "McKellan"

So what exactly do you have a problem with?

From what i've read about the film and the fact that his logic leads him to believe very silly things, I don't see why I should waste my time any more that you should to check whether his Star Wars nonsense is true.

Well you should at least watch the film or not comment considering that it is the topic of conversation.

enno99

Please note: Due to having to avoid the "Mark of the Beast" we now
only accept cash.

http://jahtruth.net/wayintro.htm

nearly choked with laughing when I read that

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Correction, there is nothing on this thread regarding the content of the film. However, I did check the site and I hadn't realised that there was a transcript.
From this I learned that in the entire film transcrpt there is:

1. No mention of "Jesus"
2. No mention of "Jew"
3. No mention of Hitler
4. No mention of "Star Wars"
5. No mention of "gay"
6. No mention of "homosexual"
7. No mention of "McKellan"

So what exactly do you have a problem with?

I don't have a problem with it per se.
I do find his views hilariously bigoted and silly. And that's why I and most reasonable people don't take him seriously.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Well you should at least watch the film or not comment considering that it is the topic of conversation.

But why? You seem to have no issue dismissing his views on Star Wars without even looking into it?
Why is it a problem to bring up the fact that this guy doesn't exactly think straight?

FanadMan

The guy is a nut job - find quite a lot of what he said in the film and what he has written a bit questionable. It's a bit like adding 2 plus 2 and getting 3.9 - just not quite there!

And as for seeing patterns - I used to see patterns that nobody else did but then I stopped taking acid and that went away

Monty Burnz

Jonny7 wrote: »

Mexican stand-off - no one will watch the video

I watched some or all of it a year or two back - I think there was a thread here where I pointed out some of the rather strange assumptions and leaps of logic the video made.

clever_name

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I am in a position to comment on errors in your reasoning if you make errors in your reasoning. You seem to have taken it personally. I apologise if that's the case.

You have stated that you have no knowledge of the man, by your own admission you do not know the facts so any comments you made were form an uninformed position, no need to apologise no offence was caused.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Of course. However, to try to find the truth we should at least try to avoid it, right? You have intentionally opted-in to bias before witnessing the evidence.

Like I said, yes (edit:meant no). I am human.

Stating that someone feeling that a source lacks credibiity makes any opinions they have worthless or that having preconceived notions render opinions worthless while saying that you like everyone else have preconceived notions ... well lets be honest if that was the case we might as well shut down the internet.

As for "intentionally opted-in to bias before witnessing the evidence" come on be serious, are you saying you could read the Daily mail with no bias?

Ever if you could it would be a terrible idea, the credibility of a source of information should be considered before anything else imho, otherwise you will spend a lot of time being conned.

The honest truth is that a crackpot old man made a video that if watched in isolation asks some questions but when looked at in the bigger picture I feel most people would see it for what it is, one more part of a crackpots sad ravings.