driving home listening to news on radio, could not believe what i was hearing.
2 planes bring down 3 superstructures in free-fall speed....yeah right.
www.heraldsun.com.au/nocookies?a=A.flavipes
haha.
my favourite quote from comment 20:
"it WAS a conspiracy. look it up, there are facts all over the internet".
hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!
The "attacks" of 9/11 were perpetrated by the people who benefited from the incident and it's aftermath, the same people who orchestrated the attack on the Lusitania bringing America into the first world war. They have perfected the art.
The self same people who control the mainstream media, the fiat money systems of most western countries for over a century and, in the the case of the United States, the government, and by default the foreign policies of her allies.
It does not matter that the proletariat are sceptical. In this incidence they have overstepped the mark and will be their undoing.
Maybe this is worth a revisit...
What do you mean about the truth on the internet, are you implying that there are lies on websites. OMG
10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.
2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.
3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.
4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.
5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.
6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.
7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.
8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.
9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.
10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.
Some great person on this site has already proved 99.99999% of conspiracies theories as frauds by explaining how difficult it is to get any staff member to follow even the simplest of instruction. How then do all these people achieve so much in complete secret then?
BTW, who offered this above explanation? I thought it was very good.
(All of my staff are great at following instructions BTW )
I watched that. Really neat!
And building 7 that came down at 5.21 pm? The one that Larry Silverstein said they "pulled" that was on fire but not hit by a plane? What caused that? It was reported collapsed by the BBC prior to it falling. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center) and collapse it did.
Funny thing, the 9/11 commission chose to ignore the fact that it "collapsed" all together by making no mention of it in the final report!
Something a bit fishy!
Our mate Lazza made an absolute motza out of it. Course he had no prior knowledge!
Kate Aide once reported on the BBC she was in the midst of battle on the front line of the gulf war.
Turned out she was in a nice comfy Saudi hotel sipping G&Ts and shooting a story with a background edited in afterwards. But the fact she reported incorrectly doesn't mean the gulf war didn't happen.
Anyway I thought everything the mainstream media reports is lies, thus if the BBC reported it felled down, presumably by the conspiracy forumla, it stayed up.
Or, in this case did the mainstream media report the truth ? It is so hard to remember who is telling the truth and keeping up with what is happening. It hurts my brain.
So what other facts regularly come out of militant unionists ?
All business is anti the worker
You must join a union or you will be abused
Eureka stockade was the poor working class rising up against the giant oppressor
Kevin Reynolds works soley for the benefit of the worker, (in fact if anyone is a member of the illuminati abusing the populace to feather their own nest then he must an arch-general illuminati commadore or something -
(Disclaimer - as the illuminati don't exist Kevin Reynolds isn't a member of them nor is is feathering his own nest at the expense of the populus or doing anything untoward or incorrect)
What is written above is not necessarily the views or opinions of the forum poster
Oh. And Brando too. Except Brando.
I never knew he played cricket either! Bowler was he? Liked tossing balls?