niblick1874 Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Yup. Red flag I think it's called. They proposed something similar in the 60's but JFK told them to go **** themselves. I want to know more about the Satanists running the music industry. Operation Northwoods was already singed by the chief of staffs and is very close to what many suspect happened on 9/11. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Operation Northwoods was already singed by the chief of staffs and is very close to what many suspect happened on 9/11. Jack the Lad still told them to go **** themselves and rejected their proposal. Sacking the guy who signed it off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niblick1874 Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Please don't find it strange. I find the details utterly boring. It's little more than your need to give your hollow existence meaning by entertaining the notion that you hold special knowledge. You don't, and you're lying to yourself. You find the details utterly boring? You don't know the details, I do. I don't claim to have special knowledge, just what's out there for those who look which obviously is not you. You are swinging in the dark like some demented tin foil hatter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niblick1874 Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Jack the Lad still told them to go **** themselves and rejected their proposal. Sacking the guy who signed it off. Yep. Have you heard his Secret Societies Speech, scary stuff. Check it out on Youtube Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboInSouthsea Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 The support for the towers was inside. the outside shell was not load bearing and was cantilevered out. A Jet airliner flying at speed woudl easily penetrate the outer shell. However, the North Tower (not one of the two main towers) was a controlled demolition about 10 hours after the planes struck. Google it. The twin towers was a trio?? New one on me but will check it out....is this part of a conspiracy or general info, serious question? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Lighter Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Debate the points rather that just dismissing them. C'mon, yours is an open mind open to questioning received authority, apparently. And yet as soon as someone highlights any possibility that you might have the whole thing back to front (evidence comes before conclusion) you crack. The sign of a fragile ego. The fact that you believe your non sequitur reply from earlier stands as anything worthwhile just shows how close-minded conspiracy theorists are. And again good advice.....followed by gibberish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niblick1874 Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Debate the points rather that just dismissing them. C'mon, yours is an open mind open to questioning received authority, apparently. And yet as soon as someone highlights any possibility that you might have the whole thing back to front (evidence comes before conclusion) you crack. The sign of a fragile ego. The fact that you believe your non sequitur reply from earlier stands as anything worthwhile just shows how close-minded conspiracy theorists are. You certainly did not highlight anything, as you put it you find the details utterly boring. You don't know anything to highlight anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niblick1874 Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 (edited) The twin towers was a trio?? New one on me but will check it out....is this part of a conspiracy or general info, serious question? Yep, building 7 as some call it, to a lot it is the smoking gun. Again Youtube. Edited April 22, 2015 by niblick1874 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboInSouthsea Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Yep, building 7 as some call it, to a lot it is the smoking gun. Again Youtube. Got a link? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niblick1874 Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 (edited) Got a link? Wish I could, don't know how to do it. Just go on youtube and type in building 7, there are a lot of them. Watch more that one. Get back and tell us what you think. Edited April 22, 2015 by niblick1874 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboInSouthsea Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Wish I could, don't know how to do it. Just go on youtube and type in building 7, there are a lot of them. Watch more that one. Get back and tell us what you think. Will do after watching the hockey...if it doesn't go on too long To post a link i.e. Youtube, copy and paste the URL minus the 's' on the https bit and it should come up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niblick1874 Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 (edited) The absolute truth of that car crash was that the only passenger who wore a seatbelt, lived. Royal involvement? That is a trip into the dark recesses of the world wide web which is so deep it's impossible to ascertain the truth and cross-check evidence. It takes in everything from Jimmy Saville to Jill Dando via a disappearing cousin, abducted Indian children, Lord Mountbatten, various politicians and a shit-load of paedophiles...if even a proportion of it is true it just beggars belief. Yep. The same planted crises actors at 9/11, Sandy Hook, Boston marathon and more is one that makes me think that I have dug to far, but there it is. Are they the same people? What stops most People I think, and that sometimes includes me is that it just can't possibly be, surly. But sometimes, there it is. It does indeed beggar belief. Edited April 23, 2015 by niblick1874 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 In conclusion, the only bad "people" are government agencies who hate their own populations enough to kill them in elaborate ways. Seems legit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niblick1874 Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 (edited) In conclusion, the only bad "people" are government agencies who hate their own populations enough to kill them in elaborate ways. Seems legit. What, you mean what they say about pearl harbor is true? Did they hate them that much? Maybe I should look at that gulf of tonkin stuff again. Edited April 23, 2015 by niblick1874 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussieh Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Where did I say USA committed mass murder of it's own people? Regardless, whether any state would murder it's own people is moot. In regards to the post you referred to as bullshit.I merely pointed out my reasoning as to why I believe it's not implausible that the building could be covertly rigged. edit mongous I didnt actually mean your post, was BS, more the CT.Apologies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphonseCapone Posted April 23, 2015 Author Share Posted April 23, 2015 Please don't find it strange. I find the details utterly boring. It's little more than your need to give your hollow existence meaning by entertaining the notion that you hold special knowledge. You don't, and you're lying to yourself. He's a really clever man and knows lots and lots of stuff because he reads things on the internet, didn't you know that you msm sheep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cashgenerator Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Every conspiracy theory is a separate thing. To lump them all together and ignore them because one or two of them are out there is to hand civilization and everything that goes with it to the dogs. I am sure you would agree that there are bunches of not very nice people in positions of power around the world and I smell a rat. Conspiracy theories are all different, of course, but there is a common thread running through many of them. Another common theme is the paranoid world view of conspiracy theorists who often believe most conspiracy theories. Sensible people believe some are rubbish, some are plausible, and some are likely. Based on evidence. Not paranoid fantasies... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Conspiracy theories are all different, of course, but there is a common thread running through many of them. Another common theme is the paranoid world view of conspiracy theorists who often believe most conspiracy theories. Sensible people believe some are rubbish, some are plausible, and some are likely. Based on evidence. Not paranoid fantasies... Is the right answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Lighter Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Is the right answer. Indeed Geoff,but for every rabid conspiracy theorist there is the a tunafish who believes all conspiracy theories are bunkum.And what about you Geoff ? In conclusion, the only bad "people" are government agencies who hate their own populations enough to kill them in elaborate ways. Seems legit. Very poor straw man there.I'm sure you cant be saying that state sponsored terrorism doesn't exist? If you are I think it's remarkable that intelligent adults such as yourself and 2na can display such childlike naivety.Very bizarre. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Indeed Geoff,but for every rabid conspiracy theorist there is the a tunafish who believes all conspiracy theories are bunkum.And what about you Geoff ? Very poor straw man there.I'm sure you cant be saying that state sponsored terrorism doesn't exist? If you are I think it's remarkable that intelligent adults such as yourself and 2na can display such childlike naivety.Very bizarre. I put my faith in corroborated evidence. As for the strawman, that was aimed at the tinfoil wearer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandt Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Read some of this and come back to JKB radicalised, http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=f996cu5td04tbvfegn4c3dqo32& Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cashgenerator Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Read some of this and come back to JKB BRAIN DEAD. http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=f996cu5td04tbvfegn4c3dqo32& Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Future's Maroon Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Yep, building 7 as some call it, to a lot it is the smoking gun. Again Youtube. AS I said in my original post, WTC 7 is one of the parts of the whole thing which really puzzles me. A BBC reporter was on live TV telling everyone how WTC 7 has also collapsed with the fecking building still standing in the background, her report was suddlenly interupted and cut from air.....I cant remember how long afterwards, but it was soon (about half an hour I think), the building did actually collapse? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandt Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Read some of this and come back to JKB BRAIN DEAD. http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=f996cu5td04tbvfegn4c3dqo32& Pretty much the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Lighter Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 (edited) I put my faith in corroborated evidence. As for the strawman, that was aimed at the tinfoil wearer. So would you dismiss circumstantial evidence? Regarding corroborated evidence there have been numerous occasions where the FBI have been caught using patsies to carry out acts of terrorism on US soil. The strawman regardless of who it was aimed at was honking nonetheless.Very often on threads like this, 'sheeple' always point to certain traits of the 'conspiracy theorist',the opposite is also true as per your strawman.You might just as well have posted the old favourite about the Queen being an alien lizard. Edited April 23, 2015 by Felix Lighter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riddley Walker Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 AS I said in my original post, WTC 7 is one of the parts of the whole thing which really puzzles me. A BBC reporter was on live TV telling everyone how WTC 7 has also collapsed with the fecking building still standing in the background, her report was suddlenly interupted and cut from air.....I cant remember how long afterwards, but it was soon (about half an hour I think), the building did actually collapse? It must have been an extremely confusing time with conflicting reports everywhere. Not surprised there were incorrect reports flying around. However, the collapse of the third tower was extremely strange and hasn't been explained. I think there definitely are some strange things that happened that day that haven't been explained, yet it's difficult to pin down any one answer. What is clear is that arms manufacturers and "nation-rebuilders" such as Halliburton financially benefited to the tune of billions upon billions of dollars from the military operations post 9-11. If there was to be any conspiracy to blow up the towers from within that's probably where I'd look. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 So would you dismiss circumstantial evidence? Regarding corroborated evidence there have been numerous occasions where the FBI have been caught using patsies to carry out acts of terrorism on US soil. The strawman regardless of who it was aimed at was honking nonetheless.Very often on threads like this, 'sheeple' always point to certain traits of the 'conspiracy theorist',the opposite is also true as per your strawman.You might just as well have posted the old favourite about the Queen being an alien lizard. No, I don't dismiss it but I place a far higher level of scepticism on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 The collapse of the WTC 7 isn't unexplained. It got twatted by a big **** off building. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 The collapse of the WTC 7 isn't unexplained. It got twatted by a big **** off building. The thing is, even if WTC7 was blown up deliberately, that doesn't connect to the actions of Mohammed Atta and his mates flying the planes into the buildings. If WTC 7 was some sort of "secret" location, the last thing that was needed was having every Tom, Dick and Harry of the emergency services crawling round the place. Therefore, destroying it might have been the sensible course of action. This idea is as plausible as the "smoking gun" idea of course, i.e. not very plausible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 (edited) The thing is, even if WTC7 was blown up deliberately, that doesn't connect to the actions of Mohammed Atta and his mates flying the planes into the buildings. If WTC 7 was some sort of "secret" location, the last thing that was needed was having every Tom, Dick and Harry of the emergency services crawling round the place. Therefore, destroying it might have been the sensible course of action. This idea is as plausible as the "smoking gun" idea of course, i.e. not very plausible. True, but they didn't need to blow it up. It'd just had a skyscraper fall on it. There was a massive big hole in the building. It had been burning like **** since. These are things that are not healthy for buildings. Edited April 23, 2015 by Normthebarman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 True, but they didn't need to blow it up. It'd just had a skyscraper fall on it. There was a massive big hole in the building. It had been burning like **** since. These are things that are not healthy for buildings. Quite so. Amazing how Occam's Razor is usually correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Lighter Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 No, I don't dismiss it but I place a far higher level of scepticism on it. Which is fine of course but I'm sure you'd agree there comes a point where circumstantial evidence becomes to compelling to ignore. oh and your post about WTC 7 is nonsense if it was a controlled demolition then it was obviously premeditated,unless you are suggesting that it was a complete coincidence that the attacks just happened to occur on the very same day they were going demolish the building. True, but they didn't need to blow it up. It'd just had a skyscraper fall on it. There was a massive big hole in the building. It had been burning like **** since. These are things that are not healthy for buildings. The point is that the building collapsed at free fall speed,which according to AE9/11Truth is not possible unless all the supporting structures were compromised at the same time.If it collapsed due to fire and structural damage caused be falling debris the collapse would have been random and chaotic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Which is fine of course but I'm sure you'd agree there comes a point where circumstantial evidence becomes to compelling to ignore. oh and your post about WTC 7 is nonsense if it was a controlled demolition then it was obviously premeditated,unless you are suggesting that it was a complete coincidence that the attacks just happened to occur on the very same day they were going demolish the building. The point is that the building collapsed at free fall speed,which according to AE9/11Truth is not possible unless all the supporting structures were compromised at the same time.If it collapsed due to fire and structural damage caused be falling debris the collapse would have been random and chaotic. And why could it not be coincidence? It is circumstantial evidence! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Lighter Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 And why could it not be coincidence? It is circumstantial evidence! Wow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Wow. Wow indeed. The point is that this event occurs after the major incident so suddenly it is a "smoking gun" and leads to part of a conspiracy theory that 9/11 was an "inside job/false flag/insert anything but act of terrorism here". My point is that there is no proof that the two are connected, except for the fact that the next door buildings have collapsed in a heap and damaged it. As I say, Occam's Razor applies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Lighter Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Wow indeed. The point is that this event occurs after the major incident so suddenly it is a "smoking gun" and leads to part of a conspiracy theory that 9/11 was an "inside job/false flag/insert anything but act of terrorism here". My point is that there is no proof that the two are connected, except for the fact that the next door buildings have collapsed in a heap and damaged it. As I say, Occam's Razor applies. Look I'm to work so will have to pick this up later,I'll just say I can't actually believe what I'm reading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Look I'm to work so will have to pick this up later,I'll just say I can't actually believe what I'm reading. If it makes you feel any better, I don't believe WTC 7 was blown up deliberately. The point is that if for some reason it was, it doesn't then follow it was connected to the planes destroying the buildings as there is no corroborating evidence, just circumstantial evidence, which you seem to place credibility on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 The point is that the building collapsed at free fall speed,which according to AE9/11Truth is not possible unless all the supporting structures were compromised at the same time.If it collapsed due to fire and structural damage caused be falling debris the collapse would have been random and chaotic. It didn't fall at free fall speeds. It fell a lot slower. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maple Leaf Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Quite so. Amazing how Occam's Razor is usually correct. And if everyone applied that principle to many of these theories, how quickly they would disappear, imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sawdust Caesar Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 See 9/11? How they spent ages rigging the towers up with explosives and then flew planes in to them? Why the planes? Why not just say terrorists rigged the tower? Why risk blowing any wirings or displacing any settings by slamming a jet in to them? That's what doesn't make sense to me. That's what I don't get about the controlled explosion conspiracy. Thousands of people working in the buildings at all hours and they didn't think - hang on a second, what are all these workmen doing ripping off the cladding on multiple levels and sticking explosives into the walls for... Considering the amount of people who would be involved in the planning and execution of planting explosives and blowing up the buildings what I find hard to believe is that not one of them has blabbed about it since. Not one of them has had a crisis of concious and felt guilty about being complicit in the murdering of so many innocent people and went to the media, even anonymously, to tell them what happened. Or get drunk one night and tell their friends/family etc. Or, maybe when faced with a terminal illness someone would want to unburden the guilt they were feeling by telling all before they die. I just don't think something like that could be kept a secret by so many people. There is always someone who likes to blow the whistle. A lot of people can't keep small secrets and a big one like this, somebody would have blabbed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maroonlegions Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 (edited) Debate the points rather that just dismissing them. C'mon, yours is an open mind open to questioning received authority, apparently. And yet as soon as someone highlights any possibility that you might have the whole thing back to front (evidence comes before conclusion) you crack. The sign of a fragile ego. The fact that you believe your non sequitur reply from earlier stands as anything worthwhile just shows how close-minded conspiracy theorists are. What conspiracies theorists are you on about?? or are you not sure cause you actually know nothing about the actual theories they offer because you are too busy attacking the characters of those theorists,(Icke), You are attacking the theorists and those who agree with them and are not refuting their actual discrepancies they have highlighted in some of the official explanations or certain world events. While your whole agenda and game so far has solely been about attacking the theorists or engaging in character assassinations of them and therefore justifying the mind set of a "move along , nothing to see hear then", response .Its a clever and often used debating tactic but not to those who have seen through the bull shoite and actually spent the time looking at the theorists THEORIES unlike you and the numbers are growing daily mate. You are in fact wholly redundant when it comes to the actual content of the conspiracy theories themselves , icke mainly, for the simple reason you will not look past your prejudices and pre -bias mind set to me that is unfair in any debate, those that refuses to look at ALL the available data from both sides but only look at one side.For this reason i will not personally debate with people of this nature, why? because its a total waste of time and a unfair way to debate. For the above reasons i cannot perceive you now or in the future engaging in any real in depth look at ALL the data available contained from the conspiracy angle,you will not look beyond the characters of theorists and so will only see the official explanations.For the record i do not agree with some conspiracy theorists, not because they believe in shape shifting reptilians, moon spaceships or fairy pixie dust but because their conspiracy does not add up. All you are doing is generalizing ALL conspiracy theorists with the same tag because you personally disagree with some of their character traits, how is that a fair assessment of their theories if you have not looked beyond their characters and at their side of the conspiracy they are putting forward?? Its fecking bonkers if you ask me to even contemplate engaging in these kind of debates with people who debate in such a way. I bet you would be struggling to offer any real explanations regarding the discrepancies found in the official 9/11 fairy story that were highlighted in Ickes book "the world trade disaster" ? why ? because you have not and i imagine never will even bother to read it because of your pre prejudice and pre bias mind set. Edited April 23, 2015 by maroonlegions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 I'd give nutjobs like Icke more credibility if they came out just once and said that the official version of Event X is true. When everything involves the public being lied to then you have right to dismiss his ramblings as nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2NaFish Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 (edited) What conspiracies theorists are you on about?? or are you not sure cause you actually know nothing about the actual theories they offer because you are too busy attacking the characters of those theorists,(Icke), You are attacking the theorists and those who agree with them and are not refuting their actual discrepancies they have highlighted in some of the official explanations or certain world events. While your whole agenda and game so far has solely been about attacking the theorists or engaging in character assassinations of them and therefore justifying the mind set of a "move along , nothing to see hear then", response .Its a clever and often used debating tactic but not to those who have seen through the bull shoite and actually spent the time looking at the theorists THEORIES unlike you and the numbers are growing daily mate. You are in fact wholly redundant when it comes to the actual content of the conspiracy theories themselves , icke mainly, for the simple reason you will not look past your prejudices and pre -bias mind set to me that is unfair in any debate, those that refuses to look at ALL the available data from both sides but only look at one side.For this reason i will not personally debate with people of this nature, why? because its a total waste of time and a unfair way to debate. For the above reasons i cannot perceive you now or in the future engaging in any real in depth look at ALL the data available contained from the conspiracy angle,you will not look beyond the characters of theorists and so will only see the official explanations.For the record i do not agree with some conspiracy theorists, not because they believe in shape shifting reptilians, moon spaceships or fairy pixie dust but because their conspiracy does not add up. All you are doing is generalizing ALL conspiracy theorists with the same tag because you personally disagree with some of their character traits, how is that a fair assessment of their theories if you have not looked beyond their characters and at their side of the conspiracy they are putting forward?? Its fecking bonkers if you ask me to even contemplate engaging in these kind of debates with people who debate in such a way. I bet you would be struggling to offer any real explanations regarding the discrepancies found in the official 9/11 fairy story that were highlighted in Ickes book "the world trade disaster" ? why ? because you have not and i imagine never will even bother to read it because of your pre prejudice and pre bias mind set. Yours is a life devoid of validation My point is you make yourself feel special by telling yourself you have access to special knowledge. Your response is to list off all the special knowledge you have and to tell my i don't have any of it and couldn't comprehend it. Kinda proving my point buddy. Edited April 23, 2015 by 2NaFish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niblick1874 Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Conspiracy theories are all different, of course, but there is a common thread running through many of them. Another common theme is the paranoid world view of conspiracy theorists who often believe most conspiracy theories. Sensible people believe some are rubbish, some are plausible, and some are likely. Based on evidence. Not paranoid fantasies... This. Why were there first responders at the Oklahoma bombing running around telling everyone that they had just came across unexploded bombs in the building and to get back, When people ask questions such as this from people that are known to be shady and untrustworthy they are classed as a nutbar by some a holes that think they are easy marks for ridicule (don't ask me what I think of people like that). Some think that if you ask questions and want answers you can not be classed as someone that has anything to do with your last sentence. They are wrong. Just went on Youtube and found this. Oklahoma City bombing news reports unexploded bombs found in the Murrah Building. Was Timothy McVeigh acting alone or was there help from somewhere and if so, who helped him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niblick1874 Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Yours is a life devoid of validation My point is you make yourself feel special by telling yourself you have access to special knowledge. Your response is to list off all the special knowledge you have and to tell my i don't have any of it and couldn't comprehend it. Kinda proving my point buddy. Where do you get this special knowledge bull from. It is there for everyone to see. We have looked and you haven't and slagging people off willy nilly will not change that, quite the contrary, It makes you look like the fool that you are. Can you spot the part where I used your tack on this thread? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niblick1874 Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Ok, here goes. I have a conspiracy theory that the MSM has been corrupted and is being used for nefarious reasons. I've not made up my mind who is behind it so if the likes of tuna or hmfcbyt (checks and balances if you know what I mean) could tell me if there is, and if there is who is behind it, that would be cool. Ps hmfcbyt if I were to use HMFC in my user name I would use capital letters. That is just the way I am and hope that does not offend you or have you thinking I'm messed up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niblick1874 Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 I do agree with that but if I wanted to prove a conspiracy theory I would absolutely forget about it because it is so subjective. If someone wants to prove that the government was responsible for 911, then the worst thing that they can do is to start with the premise that people in power are not nice. It means nothing in terms of the theory itself and removes any semblance of objectivity. I broadly agree that there are a lot of people out there who are up to no good but the websites that are most prominent in the search are mostly so partisan that they become completely untrustworthy. I don't think there are many that think it was the government that are responsible for 9/11. Most think it was a few in the government along with others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 I don't think there are many that think it was the government that are responsible for 9/11. Most think it was a few in the government along with others.No, most think it was an act of terrorism because that's what it was! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tazio Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Long rambling pish. Am I doing this right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandt Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 https://youtu.be/oAK5xzEYq7I For Geoff. Would like to hear his opinion on it just because he knows financial shyte. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.