The Conspiracy Theory
Comments
-
Manc33 wrote:You're too busy posting jokes to respond.
What about Condoleezza Rice in 2004?
Maybe she hadn't watched everything that had been on TV ever and hadn't seen it? No?www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
Chris Bass wrote:Manc33 wrote:You're too busy posting jokes to respond.
What about Condoleezza Rice in 2004?
Maybe she hadn't watched everything that had been on TV ever and hadn't seen it? No?
You're doing what I did.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Manc33 wrote:You're too busy posting jokes to respond.
What about Condoleezza Rice in 2004?
Right:
Is it beyond the realms of possibility that Ms. Rice, being a 47 year old woman with a fairly vitally important job in 2001, just wasn't that into a cult sci-fi show? You say it was watched by 13.2 million viewers? Not that much in a country with a population of 285 million. Perhaps she simply didn't see it or find it noteworthy at the time, and as a result it didn't spring to mind 3 years later. Seems pretty rational and sensible to me. What's your hypothesis?0 -
Manc has expressed scepticism about Reptilians, rather disparagingly referring to them as 'space crocodiles'.0
-
Perhaps it's another case of warring factions messing with our history? The Reptilians planned 9/11, while the Crocs tried to warn us about it via popular fiction? But in this complex game of intergalactic chess and seafood, will anyone remember how the horse is supposed to move?
A Reptilian menacing Gillian Anderson, earlier:
0 -
No, the reptiles are the space crocs.
Of course there are theories I won't look into but lol, I must admit, not many. :oops:
That's because the more odd it is the more likely I am to be looking into it, out of curiosity.
I only treat it as a forensic scientist would, dismissing it if there's only one anomaly, or five... but when you start seeing almost endless inconsistencies with an official story like that of 9/11 then yes, why wouldn't someone get more curious about it?
9/11 is one of the only things where people say something doesn't add up about it, which I find amazing since these same people dismiss any and every other thing, there's even people that say Oswald shot Kennedy, that still say hmmmm 9/11 I don't know... so maybe we are getting somewhere then.
The truth isn't much different from the official story anyway...
The official story:
A bunch of nutty religious terrorist Muslims carried out the attacks.
The conspiracy theory:
A bunch of nutty religious terrorists carried out the attacks then blamed it on pretend terrorists.
I have lost count of how many experts have come out and said if Al-Qaeda does exist at all, "we" funded it into existence anyway. Yep, thats how its done folks. Its just that this stuff is done over so many years no one notices it. They just make up excuses like "How were we to know Bin Laden would use that money against us" errrr because he was always being funded to? Because the Bush family and Bin Laden family go back a long way and Bin Laden was dying of kidney failure anyway? That's why it got pinned on him - he died in November 2001 so he hardly cares. Who gets contracts to rebuild Iraq? Bin Laden Construction and Halliburton. It was just a gigantic deception to make money for both sides and keep making money from it in future, in a thousand different ways.0 -
But over in Cake Stop you said it was either an insurance scam by the owner of the WTC, or a way of creating an excuse to attack Iraq (even though the US attacked Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan after 9/11) - or both.Manc33 wrote:The official story:
A bunch of nutty religious terrorist Muslims carried out the attacks.
The conspiracy theory:
A bunch of nutty religious terrorists carried out the attacks then blamed it on pretend terrorists."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
But over in Cake Stop you said it was either an insurance scam by the owner of the WTC, or a way of creating an excuse to attack Iraq (even though the US attacked Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan after 9/11) - or both.Manc33 wrote:The official story:
A bunch of nutty religious terrorist Muslims carried out the attacks.
The conspiracy theory:
A bunch of nutty religious terrorists carried out the attacks then blamed it on pretend terrorists.
It's obviously all those things. Arranging it to serve so many ends is simply further camouflage of what They are really up to.0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:But over in Cake Stop you said it was either an insurance scam by the owner of the WTC, or a way of creating an excuse to attack Iraq (even though the US attacked Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan after 9/11) - or both.
It didn't happen just because Lazza wanted the payout, it didn't just happen because the US Government wanted to clamp down on everyone, it didn't just happen so they could invade Afghanistan, it happened because all of those crooks got together and all benefited from it.
Such a simple but ruthless question... who benefits?
They attacked Iraq in March 2003 (with more lies about WMD's) which without 9/11 would have been near-impossible. In other words fear for your life because Saddam can hit us in 45 minutes. The guy was a CIA recruit from 1959 onwards. He only started to get slammed in the media when he stopped using dollars and started causing the international bankers to lose some of their trillions.
Iraq was a sovereign nation in 1991 with probably the most relaxed laws of any Arab nation, THAT is why it had to be stopped. Now look at it. Look at how many people died there from 1991 onwards that didn't need to. The Pentagon owns the media in Iraq now, so all you'll see in their papers is about how the US are a bunch of heroic liberators. Even the pulling down of Saddam's statue was fakery, oh the statue got pulled down... but the crowds of people shown in newspapers weren't really there. Iraqi's even had portraits of Saddam Hussein on their walls and so on, I doubt he was a dictator at all. Why would a dictator let women vote, have nice roads, have the best education system of any Arab nation? Tell another one why don't ya.0 -
Ladies and Gentleman, I give you Poe's Law, Mesopotamian edition.0
-
Al-Qaeda is an American term that puts all Muslim anti US-fundamentalism into one box. However, the mis-use of the noun doesn't mean that there is a conspiracy going on.
The Collins English dictionary says that Al-Qaeda was a group of individuals funded loosely by Bin Laden.
Called thus whilst he was being funded by the CIA against the occupying Russians and of course when the political climate changed, Bin Laden got in the way. I't not a conspiracy, it is worse. It underlines the hypocricy and fickle nature of US foreign policy. As a result lots of people died because in 9/11, the chickens came home to roost.
By calling it a conspiracy, it detracts from the glaring political u turn that lead to BIn Laden's backlash, the Iraq war and the volatility in the middle east. Never mind the victims of the 'New World Christians' across the pond vs the Old World Fundamentalist war that is being waged.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
I don't agree and think the WTC attack was planned over decades.
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." - Project for the New American Century (2000)
Of the twenty-five people who signed the PNAC's founding statement of principles, ten went on to serve in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush, including Dick "Halliburton" Cheney, Donald "Aspartame" Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz.
You might find it acceptable to keep sweeping these things under the carpet but they exist all the same and it adds up.0 -
So, out of 25 signatories to an American statement of right-wing political beliefs, 10 at least were Americans of a right wing tendency with political careers or ambitions.
That's not exactly revelatory. It doesn't add up to much beyond "leading lights in somewhat fringe political movement become leading lights in mainstream politics". The rightward lurch and playing up "Christian Values" to secure votes in the Southern States are hardly news to anyone.0 -
But your maths is really, really, really badManc33 wrote:....You might find it acceptable to keep sweeping these things under the carpet but they exist all the same and it adds up.
If adding things up is producing these sorts of answers, you definitely need to stay away from long division, never mind calculus.0 -
Manc is saying that because the X Files did a skit once about an airliner flying into a building or a near miss or something that means Rice was lying about not knowing beforehand about 9/11.
She said it was hard to imagine that kind of attack. Manc says au contraire, someone had already imagined it. So she is lying and therefore knew about it. Let's leave aside the fact that she was probably referring to such an attack happening in real life vs. on a tv show about aliens and the logic is flawless, once again.0 -
A good read if you have half an hour to spare...
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/sherm3.htm
The older I get, the better I was.0 -
A good read. Two phrases in particular I liked:
"Being laughed at does not mean you are right"
"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence"0 -
Another - classic!
"The dumb human, like the dumb rat, only needs an occasional payoff to keep pulling the handle. The mind will do the rest."0 -
tl;drVeronese68 wrote:0 -
-
As I mentioned over in Cake Stop, remind me again who you think volunteered to fly the planes that hit the WTC/Pentagon etc? We can understand suicide attacks by brainwashed religious zealots, but by people involved in an insurance scam or some US governments agent doing their job?Manc33 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:But over in Cake Stop you said it was either an insurance scam by the owner of the WTC, or a way of creating an excuse to attack Iraq (even though the US attacked Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan after 9/11) - or both.
It didn't happen just because Lazza wanted the payout, it didn't just happen because the US Government wanted to clamp down on everyone, it didn't just happen so they could invade Afghanistan, it happened because all of those crooks got together and all benefited from it.
Such a simple but ruthless question... who benefits?
Unless these people were so incredibly dense that they would have been too thick to pull off a plane hi-jack, I don't see that there was much in for them "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_consp ... nes_theory
'Nico Haupt and former chief economist within the Labor Department under the Bush administration, Morgan Reynolds, argue that no planes were used in the attacks. Reynolds claims it is physically impossible that the Boeing planes of Flights 11 and 175 could have penetrated the steel frames of the Towers, and that digital compositing was used to depict the plane crashes in both news reports and subsequent amateur video. "There were no planes, there were no hijackers," Reynolds insists. "I know, I know, I'm out of the mainstream, but that's the way it is." According to David Shayler, "The only explanation is that they were missiles surrounded by holograms made to look like planes," he says. "Watch footage frame by frame and you will see a cigar-shaped missile hitting the World Trade Center."'
0 -
RDW wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories#No-planes_theory
'Nico Haupt and former chief economist within the Labor Department under the Bush administration, Morgan Reynolds, argue that no planes were used in the attacks. Reynolds claims it is physically impossible that the Boeing planes of Flights 11 and 175 could have penetrated the steel frames of the Towers, and that digital compositing was used to depict the plane crashes in both news reports and subsequent amateur video. "There were no planes, there were no hijackers," Reynolds insists.
Must be right then. I can't believe that an economist would get anything wrong, I mean, where would we be if the banks started going down?
The older I get, the better I was.0 -
I presume the suggestion is that "they" duped some religious zealots into doing it for them. They probably created islam too, in order to later corrupt small groups into violent fundamentalists, just as they did with christianity to produce witch hunters, crusaders, US republicans, and so on.Stevo 666 wrote:
As I mentioned over in Cake Stop, remind me again who you think volunteered to fly the planes that hit the WTC/Pentagon etc? We can understand suicide attacks by brainwashed religious zealots, but by people involved in an insurance scam or some US governments agent doing their job?Manc33 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:But over in Cake Stop you said it was either an insurance scam by the owner of the WTC, or a way of creating an excuse to attack Iraq (even though the US attacked Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan after 9/11) - or both.
It didn't happen just because Lazza wanted the payout, it didn't just happen because the US Government wanted to clamp down on everyone, it didn't just happen so they could invade Afghanistan, it happened because all of those crooks got together and all benefited from it.
Such a simple but ruthless question... who benefits?
Unless these people were so incredibly dense that they would have been too thick to pull off a plane hi-jack, I don't see that there was much in for them
Of course, I don't see any reason to suspect this is true. Why does the fact that an attack on the US succeeded demand that a super complex, inside conspiracy is at work?0
