BBC reported WTC7 collapse 30 minutes before it happened

Diogenes · 04-03-2007 01:45PM

jessop1 wrote:

No need to tell me that, it shines through in everything you write on this forum.

Ad homien. Are you even aware of the irony of your debunker guide? You tick every box that you accuse those you debate aganist.

Are you willing to publish these stories and details online with your name against them? If not, why not?

Um because I have no proof? I have the claim of a dead man. See I exist in a world were facts are relevant. Where you need to stand over what you say. Where you have to know what you say is true, and if you cannot prove it, there are consequences. If I cannot prove something, I cannot publish or broadcast it.

I'm aware this is an alien world for you.

Fear of reproach legal or otherwise? And you expect us to believe journalists aren’t afraid to expose the most powerful and barbaric criminals in the world???

There's a really telling quote from Guy Price who produced the BBC 911 conspiracy theories files

Guy Price wrote:

We approached this as a journalistic excerise. We didn't just google things, we went out there and interviewed primary sources and checked the facts.

Jessop1, I don't think there's a single journalist in the world who wouldn't wet their pants at the thought of the 911 conspiracy theories are real. It's just all your "smoking guns" are either conjecture, speculation, outright lies, or just plain wrong. They do not stand up to rigorous srutiny.

Absolutely. Through a combination of outright power at the top of the pyramid, compartmentalised knowledge and control through fear, of course its feasible.

You are being disingenuous again. (you never stopped actually). You are using a number of dirty debunker tactics here. Ridiculing the very idea for a start. Plus these:

Folks, this is exactly what Diogenes is doing here. There is plenty that warrants further investigation but Diogenes is disingenuously trying to ridicule the who topic into silence by implying that if I don’t have enough proof to prosecute the perpetrators in a court of law then the whole thing is ridiculous BS not worth discussing. I see what you are at Diogenes, very dirty tactics as usual.
[/quote]

What evidence have you presented that the NWO control the media?

Smoke and mirrors, disingenuous again. So who is responsible for what goes on the wire feeds and how come all the major stations all pick the same stories from the wire feeds??? I’m presuming there are more than 6 – 8 stories on a wire feed on any given day…

You're presuming again So Glad. I take it to mean you don't know how this works. There are several different feeds throughout the day. But Sattelite time costs money. Crews cost money. If there's a massive train crash in India you send your crew there and thats the story that they send today.

Why hasn’t any of this info been splashed all over the evening news? Why isn’t everyone and sudry as aware of this as they are of the name litvinenko or abramovich or whatever? Even if some of this gets published in some mainstream journals or high brow papers, unless its shown repeatedly on the evening news, most people remain unaware of the true extent of whats going on. Those who control the media know this. You know this. This is how I know you are being terribly disingenuous.

So it's my fault the Sun and the Star don't cover international affairs. That most people really don't care about this sort of stuff?

Lebanon:
http://www.uruknet.info/?s1=55&p=24885&s2=21
http://fromisraeltolebanon.info/ (site down at the moment)
Look at these if you want to see the real horror of what the N.W.O. does. Be warned These are not for the faint hearted.

Do you think I don't believe some awful things happened during the Israeli Lebannon conflict.

Also, here are some links showing the real Lebanon. The n.w.o. don’t want people to have this perception of the country… much easier to get away with mass murder if people think it’s a barbaric and backward terrorist hell hole. Isnt this the impression most people have of Lebanon?:

Aren't you making a terrible assumption about what people think Lebanon is like. Do you want me to get into a discussion about what Lebanon was like in the 70s, how it fell under Syrian infulence the problems with Southern Lebanon under Hezabollah control, and the North. Issues Christian Lebanonese have?

I work with people from the Lebanon Jessop1. Don't tell me what opinion I have of the country.

http://www.kahlil.org/lebanonpics.html
[link to www.kahlil.org]
[link to www.lgic.org]
[link to www.lgic.org]
[link to www.lgic.org]
[link to www.lgic.org]
[link to www.lgic.org]
[link to www.lgic.org]

They don’t look too much different to us do they? That’s not what the n.w.o. and its shills want us to think though…

Wow you've gone from asking us do people think the Lebanon is a terrorist hell hole, to telling us the NWO want us to think it is.

Depleted Uranium:
http://www.rense.com/general70/deathmde.htm
(warning, very very graphic, honest truth seekers, this will break your heart.)

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=8218

Oh, and its on its way here as we speak.

http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2006/DU-Europe-Moret26feb06.htm

Diogenes I await your sick attempts to explain this away by saying some poxy establishment medical journal hasn’t researched it or some such vile derision.

The reality of d.u. and the true extent of its horror is being kept from the western world population. We have the n.w.o and all of its repugnant shills in the media to thank for that.

Jessop1 I'm getting tired of the personal abuse.

jessop1 · 04-03-2007 02:16PM

more of the usual obfuscation/disingenuousness/dirty tactics from Diogenes.

FAO: mods - no personal attack/abuse was made in this or any of my postings, despite diogenes attempt to make you think so.

Diogenes · 04-03-2007 02:43PM

jessop1 wrote:

more of the usual obfuscation/disingenuousness/dirty tactics from Diogenes.

FAO: mods - no personal attack/abuse was made in this or any of my postings, despite diogenes attempt to make you think so.

jessop1 wrote:

repugnant shills in the media

:rolleyes:

jessop1 · 04-03-2007 02:49PM

Diogenes wrote:

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

where is the personal attack? :rolleyes:

Nick_oliveri · 04-03-2007 04:00PM

Guys, STFU with this tit for tat crap. Or else Ma will be in to redden both yer arses with the wooden spoon.

There's a really telling quote from Guy Price who produced the BBC 911 conspiracy theories files

Originally Posted by Guy Price
We approached this as a journalistic excerise. We didn't just google things, we went out there and interviewed primary sources and checked the facts.

They weren't checking the facts showing that PBS Nova animation of the tower falling with the cores still standing.

miju · 04-03-2007 06:11PM

jessop1 wrote:

FAO: mods - no personal attack/abuse was made in this or any of my postings, despite diogenes attempt to make you think so.

i can see that jessop1 nor are you posting links to questionable material either

though please take personal arguments to PM thanks

Diogenes · 04-03-2007 07:07PM

miju wrote:

i can see that jessop1 nor are you posting links to questionable material either though please take personal arguments to PM thanks

jessop1 · 04-03-2007 08:05PM

Diogenes wrote:

<link removed>]

Did you even look at the images at this link?
<link removed>

Whats your problem with the link? Its harrowing alright, but what else are you suggesting? that its inappropriate and shouldnt be allowed? that I shoud be banned?? this is reality, this is what zionists who control the western world and its media are actually doing, it needs exposing.

This is what you are ultimately supporting by trying to divert people from understanding what the people in control of us are doing. Our own government is complicit in this, by allowing the war machine to use our airports and resources. All you offered in challenge of this Diogenes was that the rense site sells some product or other. That response is pathetic and dare I say it, repugnant.

Miju, thanks for your measured response, (at least you didnt ban me

) - I may have got a bit hot under the collar over this but mutilation and murder of innocent babies and civilians really gets me riled.

jessop1 · 04-03-2007 08:16PM

Nick_oliveri wrote:

Guys, STFU with this tit for tat crap. Or else Ma will be in to redden both yer arses with the wooden spoon.

They weren't checking the facts showing that PBS Nova animation of the tower falling with the cores still standing.

LOL. Actually Nick, theres a hell of a lot more thats questionable about that bbc hitpiece. see this:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_watson.html

There are a number of reports thouroughly debunking that program.

actually, the whole series is one big hitpiece. Their doing the Oklahoma bombing at 9pm tonight, without a doubt it will be another hitpiece.

Diogenes · 05-03-2007 04:23PM

jessop1 wrote:

LOL. Actually Nick, theres a hell of a lot more thats questionable about that bbc hitpiece. see this:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_watson.html

There are a number of reports thouroughly debunking that program.

actually, the whole series is one big hitpiece. Their doing the Oklahoma bombing at 9pm tonight, without a doubt it will be another hitpiece.

jessop1 I'll reply later in full, however just to point out you posted on another thread that prisonplanet.com was on a list of psyops disinfo sites. How can you then link to it as credible proof?

Nick_oliveri · 05-03-2007 04:50PM

jessop1 wrote:

but mutilation and murder of innocent babies and civilians really gets me riled.

There were photos of this in the link you posted? Gawd damn, thank a deity i didnt have time to click into that when the link was there!

I will quote a true Prophet in relation to arguements.

humanji wrote:

Would it be an idea for a change in the charter or at least in peoples treatment of the topics on this forum? I mean, maybe discuss things in more of a friendly manner. Maybe people try and see things from the opposing side, no matter how much they disagree with it.

For example, how about Ickes lizard men. I don't believe they exist, but simply saying so isn't going to get this forum anywhere. If we discused who they could be, where they could be from and why they would be here and give pros and cons to the theory behind them rather than folding are arms and sitting in a silent huff.

Anyways, that's just what I think. This could be an interesting forum, if both sides of the arguments try talking to each other instead of shouting each other down.

Now who wants a hug?

Diogenes · 06-03-2007 08:01AM

jessop1 wrote:

- I may have got a bit hot under the collar over this but mutilation and murder of innocent babies and civilians really gets me riled.

Jessop1 I don't think there are many people on this planet who don't get upset at graphic imagary of mutilated and murdered babies.

Heres the thing, photos aren't evidence that these children's injuries are the result of DU. Which is why I asked for a credible medicial journal's report into the matter.

I'm frankly suspicious of the motives of a website that parades such images, without offering proper medical evidence as to the causes of those horrific injuries, are they merely trying to shock and appall you, appeal to your emotive side, to disgust you to the point that you believe them without seeing proper medical evidence. Very few illinesses can be diagnosised using a still image, an illiness or condition that hasn't been seen before cannot be diagnosised by still images.

I mean the site doesn't say were these children born this way? Were they exposed to DU ammo at some point? If the later, how? If the former, why aren'tm Iraqi doctors making a bigger deal about this?

dSTAR · 08-03-2007 08:45AM

Diogenes wrote:

The flaw with that claim is [that] news making is a colaberative effort, particularly tv news. The number of people involved makes such a conspiracy implausible. Theres thousands of people needed to be involved in such a conspiracy. How do you keep them all quiet?

Have we forgotten the United States pretext for the invasion of Iraq? The US claimed that there was irrefutable evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD). This was done with the worldwide collaboration of the major news networks and agencies.

Well guess what? It turns out that there WEREN'T any WMD. Yet millions of people were lied to by politicians and the media. Sometimes the bigger the lie the more people will believe it!

On a side note I worked for the Irish Press as a junior sub editor many moons ago. In fact it was around the time of the Gulf War. It so happened that I got into quite a heated argument with the deputy editor regarding the immorality of the invasion of Iraq. The very next day I was summoned to the office of one of the head honchos across in Tara House.

He asked me in a nice friendly manner what my views were on American foreign policy. I expressed them in a calm level-headed manner as he sat there nodding almost in agreement. After I was done he got up and told me that my services would no longer be required. To add insult to injury he said he could arrange a session with a psychologist to discuss my anger management.

In that moment any illusions I had of the mainstream media being there to inform the public of the truth were shattered. Not only that but my father who was a senior executive in the Irish Press could not do anything to stop me from being dismissed. My point being that if you don't go along with the massive lies that are being told you are a threat to the status quo and either removed, marginalized or silenced.

Ciaran500 · 08-03-2007 09:06AM

dSTAR wrote:

Have we forgotten the United States pretext for the invasion of Iraq? The US claimed that there was irrefutable evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD). This was done with the worldwide collaboration of the major news networks and agencies.

There was plenty of anti war stuff going around in the press coming up the second Iraq war.

dSTAR · 08-03-2007 10:29AM

Ciaran500 wrote:

There was plenty of anti war stuff going around in the press coming up the second Iraq war.

Overwhelmingly the western media is supporter of American Foreign Policy with dissent allowed (within limits!) to keep the pretense of a fair and balance press/media. Why isn't someone like Noam Chomsky a Professor of Linguists at MIT or John Pilger (an Australian investigative journalist) given the attention they deserve?

I would venture to say their message exposes the lies, cover-ups and mass manipulation by the mainstream media and as such they represent a threat.

I challenge any intelligent person to read a book or paper by either of these two instead of telling me it is all the paranoid rantings of conspiracy theorists.

Heres a 10 minute Noam Chomsky video. I know the amount of videos being posted is getting a bit much but its well worth a watch.

Manufacturing Consent in America - Not the original documentary.

Diogenes · 08-03-2007 11:15AM

dSTAR wrote:

Overwhelmingly the western media is supporter of American Foreign Policy with dissent allowed (within limits!) to keep the pretense of a fair and balance press/media. Why isn't someone like Noam Chomsky a Professor of Linguists at MIT or John Pilger (an Australian investigative journalist) given the attention they deserve?

I do love how conspiracy theorists assume I've never heard of or read any Chomsky or Pilger.

I would venture to say their message exposes the lies, cover-ups and mass manipulation by the mainstream media and as such they represent a threat.

You do know Pilger has been making films for ITN/Granada for decades don't you? Films criticising Sanctions in Iraq between the Wars, the West's disgraceful proping up the Indonesian regime in East Timor, films attacking the military junta that rule's Burma. How about his brilliant film on the export of British weapons to states that use them on their own people.

All these films attacked the status quo, the US and British governments, and were broadcast by the same media you claim collaborate with the United States/British Governments

I challenge any intelligent person to read a book or paper by either of these two instead of telling me it is all the paranoid rantings of conspiracy theorists.

Heres a 10 minute Noam Chomsky video. I know the amount of videos being posted is getting a bit much but its well worth a watch.

Manufacturing Consent in America - Not the original documentary.

Here's Noam Chomsky discussing 911 conspiracy theories;

Take, say, the physical evidence. There are ways to assess that: submit it to specialists -- of whom there are thousands -- who have the requisite background in civil-mechanical engineering, materials science, building construction, etc., for review and analysis; and one cannot gain the required knowledge by surfing the internet. In fact, that's been done, by the professional association of civil engineers. Or, take the course pursued by anyone who thinks they have made a genuine discovery: submit it to a serious journal for peer review and publication. To my knowledge, there isn't a single submission.

On the 911 truth movement

I think this reaches the heart of the matter. One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis. That is, I suspect, why the 9/11 movement is treated far more tolerantly by centers of power than is the norm for serious critical and activist work. How do you personally set priorities? That's of course up to you. I've explained my priorities often, in print as well as elsewhere, but we have to make our own judgments.

Chomsky on false flags.

The concept of "false flag operation" is not a very serious one, in my opinion. None of the examples you describe, or any other in history, has even a remote resemblance to the alleged 9/11 conspiracy. I'd suggest that you look at each of them carefully.

http://blog.zmag.org/node/2779

bonkey · 08-03-2007 11:16AM

dSTAR wrote:

Have we forgotten the United States pretext for the invasion of Iraq? The US claimed that there was irrefutable evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD). This was done with the worldwide collaboration of the major news networks and agencies.

When you say "wordwide collaboration", what exactly do youmean?

The worldwide media certainly helped the US disseminate their message. However, they also had no shortage of reporting of the opposite side. Hans Blix, for one, had no shortage of airtime saying "no, they're wrong". Even the likes of CNN were being nicknamed "Communist News Network" for daring to question the alleged slam-dunk evidence.

Well guess what? It turns out that there WEREN'T any WMD.

Indeed. And how do we know this? We know it because the very same media reported it.

Yet millions of people were lied to by politicians and the media. Sometimes the bigger the lie the more people will believe it!

I'm not sure how many people really believed there were WMDs. The general consensus here (on, say, the Politics forum) was that there might be WMDs, but that the US didn't present a strong case, overstated much of its evidence. Whether or not people here (again, say, on the Politics forum) supported the case for war had more to do with whether or not they believed the risk was worth taking and whether or not they had any faith in the UN weapons inspectors then it was in the absolute truth of the US administration's case.

The media showed both sides. If people were misled, its because one side made a more convincing case, or struck the right chords. It was not because the media helped cover up any truth.

In that moment any illusions I had of the mainstream media being there to inform the public of the truth were shattered.

Fair enough. From what you're saying, it seems to me that you would support a media who decide for themselves what is truth and only allow information supporting that to be disseminated.

When you agree with their stance, obviously this is ok. When they get it right, obviously this is hard to argue against. But when you disagree, or they get it wrong...where does it leave us?

The media were definitely more US-leaning then they might have been...but I really don't think a credible case can be made to say that the media en masse refused to question the US case and made sure the public only got one side of the story.

My point being that if you don't go along with the massive lies that are being told you are a threat to the status quo and either removed, marginalized or silenced.

But thats not the situation you described at all. YOu described a situation where you criticised the immorality of the actions of the US government. YOu don't describe a situation where you suggested the media should handle this differently, should refuse to cooperate, or anything.

Nowhere did you describe a situation where you suggested not going along with teh massive lies or being a threat to the status quo. YOu claim you simply stated your opinion on the morality of the actions being taken by the administration. You can dislike something and still go along with it and/or not threaten the status quo.

So I would suggest that either you are not giving us an entirely accurate picture of the position(s) you calmly related to management or that your summation of you being a threat to the status quo is inaccurate.

jc

dSTAR · 08-03-2007 12:18PM

Diogenes wrote:

I do love how conspiracy theorists assume I've never heard of or read any Chomsky or Pilger.

For a start I never implied you had never heard of Chomsky or Pilger. Please re-read the post. I simply stated that they generally don't get heard on mainstream media. I am well aware that the fact that you are having this discussion puts you in a very small minority of people that can be even be bothered pulling themselves away from their soaps or sports. Ask the average person (even an 'educated' person) on the street have they heard of either and in the majority of cases they will look back at you with a blank face.

Just for your information I am not a conspiracy theorist. How convenient for you to label anyone who challenges the status quo as a conspiracy theorist rather than try to understand their point.

When you say "wordwide collaboration", what exactly do youmean?

Rupert Murdoch owned and controlled media or the handful of others that control the dissemination of news worldwide.

If people were misled, its because one side made a more convincing case, or struck the right chords. It was not because the media helped cover up any truth.

Nice try but no cigar. What you are trying to tell me is the reason people were misled was because one side were more convincing in their argument. Are you serious?

So I would suggest that either you are not giving us an entirely accurate picture of the position(s) you calmly related to management or that your summation of you being a threat to the status quo is inaccurate.

Admittedly much of the argument is forgotten. As far as I can recollect my main beef was to do with the Irish Press withholding the reality of Americas invasion from the Irish public and supporting the refueling of US planes in Shannon. I held up a photo of a dead Iraqi girl lying in the street and said why don't you run this on the front page instead of pictures of President Bush smiling?

bonkey · 08-03-2007 12:33PM

dSTAR wrote:

Nice try but no cigar. What you are trying to tell me is the reason people were misled was because one side were more convincing in their argument. Are you serious?

Yes. I'm very serious.

Are you suggesting the media did not cover Hans Blix saying that the Americans were wrong? That they did not cover anyone questioning whether or not the evidence produced at the UN was really as convincing as the Americans claimed it was? That the only story we were presented with by all and sundry was that there was no doubt in anyone's mind anywhere but that Saddam had Bio, Chem and nuclear weapons? That not one single paper or news station, pre-invasion, ran a poll showing the public's stance on the issue?

I have to ask in return....are you serious?

Admittedly much of the argument is forgotten.

Fair enough. Then I would argue that neither of us can be entirely certain of exactly what happened, and thus it would be wrong to draw conclusions from it...even if one could meaningfully draw conclusions about worldwide media coverage from a single instance in one particular media centre.

Don't get me wrong...I have no belief that the media was or is unbiased, but I also do not for a second believe that teh public was led along by the nose and the media pretended that the US had everyone's agreement and that there was no dissension.

I would (without hesitation) agree that people who choose not to inform themselves properly were poorly informed. I would (with slight hesitation) agree that this includes to a lesser or greater extent the majority of the population. I would not agree that there was a coverup to prevent people from finding the truth.

If the media gave 10 pages to Bush saying "of course theyve got nuclear bombs, and they're coming to kill your children", and then a single column on one page to Blix and others saying "thats just ridiculous", then sure...there was bias. What there wasn't, however, was the inability to note that people like Blix were saying "thats just ridiculous" and to find out why they were saying it.

Diogenes · 08-03-2007 12:48PM

dSTAR wrote:

For a start I never implied you had never heard of Chomsky or Pilger. Please re-read the post. I simply stated that they generally don't get heard on mainstream media.

I'm sorry but thats just flat wrong. Pilger's films have been commisioned, made by and broadcast by mainstream media. Chomsky is wheeled out as a regular contributor and columnist for several large broadsheet, his books top best seller lists.

I am well aware that the fact that you are having this discussion puts you in a very small minority of people that can be even be bothered pulling themselves away from their soaps or sports.

Is that the media's fault? Or society in general?

Ask the average person (even an 'educated' person) on the street have they heard of either and in the majority of cases they will look back at you with a blank face.

Tell that to the thousands who turned up to hear Chomsky talk in the RDS last year.

Just for your information I am not a conspiracy theorist. How convenient for you to label anyone who challenges the status quo as a conspiracy theorist rather than try to understand their point.

Em;

The US claimed that there was irrefutable evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD). This was done with the worldwide collaboration of the major news networks and agencies.

You're claiming the media "collaborated" with the US government. That means they were active members who willingly lied for the US government.

You're telling me thats not a conspiracy theory?

Rupert Murdoch owned and controlled media or the handful of others that control the dissemination of news worldwide.

Are you suggesting that no journalist on a Murdoch owned media organisation has never been allowed express an opinion that was something Murdoch disagreed with, or reported something he didn't want known?

You're specifically suggesting Murdoch owned media organisation collaberated with the US specifically to support the invasion.

Do you really want me to start digging up links to articles in Murdoch papers exposing the WMD fiasco?

dSTAR · 09-03-2007 02:05AM

Yes Diogenes et al.

You were right all along. How could I be so naive.

We DO live in a FREE world.

Hurray for democracy.

So Glad · 09-03-2007 06:52AM

Diogenes, I am seriously beginning to thing that you might not have any opinions on anything...I think you are seriously addicted to debunking or something.

I bet you'd seriously try and debunk people out of thinking you exist.

Like, do you believe ANYTHING? Do you think that this world is 100% free, peaceful with not an ounce of political corruption and that if it ever seems that way, it's a coincidence or a lie?

I change my mind when I am proved wrong, such as 9/11 facts, The Brandon Corey "Story" & other things, but at this moment, I'd like to get to know the REAL Diogenes.

What is your stance on politics? Do you think the American administration is bringing peace, free will and harmony to the world? Do you believe 9/11 was exactly how it was portrayed in the mainstream media, even though they were wrong in some instances? How come you have taken up debunking every single argument that arises in the Conspiracy Theories forum, as if simply because it has been tagged "Conspiracy Theory" that is a lie (although, most are.).

Your persistence is beyond me.

Diogenes · 09-03-2007 12:22PM

So Glad wrote:

Diogenes, I am seriously beginning to thing that you might not have any opinions on anything...I think you are seriously addicted to debunking or something.

I bet you'd seriously try and debunk people out of thinking you exist.

Like, do you believe ANYTHING? Do you think that this world is 100% free, peaceful with not an ounce of political corruption and that if it ever seems that way, it's a coincidence or a lie?

I change my mind when I am proved wrong, such as 9/11 facts, The Brandon Corey "Story" & other things, but at this moment, I'd like to get to know the REAL Diogenes.

Wow it's like the real world.

Actually So Glad you're on the record on the great big thread as coming back into the conspiracy theories fold. Care to comment on the ease government investigators were able to smuggle guns and bombs onto planes?

And So Glad I too change my mind when I'm shown to be wrong, I just don't think that's hasn't happened yet on this forum.

What is your stance on politics? Do you think the American administration is bringing peace, free will and harmony to the world?

No emphatically not. One of the flaws of leftwing conspiracy theorists, is to assume those that argue aganist them are right wing.

I have massive issues with the US administration, and organisation like the WTO, IMF and world bank.

One of the things thats always bugged me about antiglobalisation protestors, is when you ask them "why do you think the US administration and organisations like the WTO are so terrible" You'll often get a response along the lines of "They're evil". It's much the same with conspiracy theorists, the NWO exist and they're evil. It's like these people choose to exist in a world who's morality comes from Star Wars.

There's no attempt to try and understand the complexity of the issues, and the oppositions viewpoint.

Do you believe 9/11 was exactly how it was portrayed in the mainstream media, even though they were wrong in some instances?

Okay I'm going to stop you there. 9/11 is a massive complex event. When you are talking about media errors, are you refering to simple mistakes like the BBC instance? Or larger mistakes? Please give examples.

How come you have taken up debunking every single argument that arises in the Conspiracy Theories forum, as if simply because it has been tagged "Conspiracy Theory" that is a lie (although, most are.).

Your persistence is beyond me.

In Kernel's cheese thread (sorry whine thread) there's a list of "contrilpro" websites, websites of mainstream media organisations. Websites friends of mine run. When you suggest the media is complicit in covering up the events of 911, you're suggesting that friends and colleagues of mine are liars, and willing parpticapants in the cover up of mass murder.

Do you understand how that could annoy me?

Secondly I do (and I've said this over and over again So Glad) feel that there are unexplained questions, about the intelligence failures in the months before 911. There are questions that need answering about the current administration's actions in the immediate aftermath. There are serious questions about this adminstrations tactics in fighting the "war on terror". Particularly the tactics of extraordinary redition, and Gitmo bay.

However, with the conspiracy theorists running around shouting absurdities (and I'll take just a sample of yours) "How did they get the knives on the plane" "OMG the hijackers are alive" "You can't make cellphone calls from airplanes" "Scott Forbes sez the building was powered down" asking these serious questions becomes harder. Because it's easier for the US administration to lump the serious questions in with the nonsense. So the quicker we can throw Loose Change, and Press for Truth out of the public conscious, we can get back to the matter at hand.

Satisfied So Glad?

So Glad · 09-03-2007 03:15PM

Diogenes wrote:

Satisfied So Glad?

Maybe.

billy the squid · 09-03-2007 07:46PM

Ok ladies, particularly diogenes and So Glad

stay on topic and less of the personal attack

for so glad's attack on diogenes, he receives a final warning
for diogenes attack on kernel he receives a final warning

Nick_oliveri · 09-03-2007 08:41PM

Diogenes wrote:

Actually So Glad you're on the record on the great big thread as coming back into the conspiracy theories fold. Care to comment on the ease government investigators were able to smuggle guns and bombs onto planes?

How is asking "how they got the knives on board" coming back into the conspiracy fold? Whatever So Glads beliefs are, this is a valid question and you had a valid answer until you assumed that was clarity of "coming back into the fold".

No emphatically not. One of the flaws of leftwing conspiracy theorists, is to assume those that argue aganist them are right wing.

I agree with you here, and would even go so far as to say those who agree with the Gitmo and Iraq situation ATM need their heads checked.

billy the squid wrote:

for so glad's attack on diogenes, he receives a final warning
for diogenes attack on kernel he receives a final warning

At the risk of being banned or warned, i do not see these attacks, i am not disagreeing with you, im sure you could point them out. I do not wish to start any crap, and if you want me to i'll speak of it no more.

Edit: wait, i see one of them!

dSTAR wrote:

Yes Diogenes et al.

You were right all along. How could I be so naive.

We DO live in a FREE world.

Hurray for democracy.

Even though we were all thought that assumption is the mother of all feck ups, im going to assume you are being sarcastic. Dont let anyone stop you from voicing your opinion on these Boards or this forum. And please keep posting, its good to see a new face/nickname/thingy!

Diogenes · 10-03-2007 09:44AM

Nick_oliveri wrote:

How is asking "how they got the knives on board" coming back into the conspiracy fold? Whatever So Glads beliefs are, this is a valid question and you had a valid answer until you assumed that was clarity of "coming back into the fold".

It's the "I Lied" bit that stuck in the craw.

At the risk of being banned or warned, i do not see these attacks, i am not disagreeing with you, im sure you could point them out. I do not wish to start any crap, and if you want me to i'll speak of it no more.

I think we can all agree that theres a certain whimsy to moderator decisions on this forum. What one mod sees as inoffensive, another deletes on site.

Even though we were all thought that assumption is the mother of all feck ups, im going to assume you are being sarcastic. Dont let anyone stop you from voicing your opinion on these Boards or this forum. And please keep posting, its good to see a new face/nickname/thingy!

Yes while on the subject on Chomsky/Pilger's absence from the mainstream media, here's Chomsky in yesterdays Guardian talking about Iran

So Glad · 10-03-2007 01:11PM

billy the squid wrote:

Ok ladies, particularly diogenes and So Glad

stay on topic and less of the personal attack

for so glad's attack on diogenes, he receives a final warning
for diogenes attack on kernel he receives a final warning

Yessir.

BBC reported WTC7 collapse 30 minutes before it happened

Comments