NWO - New World Order

Terry

that's all well and good, but i live in Ireland. i don't care what happens in america. it doesn't affect my daily life. they can all kill each other for all i care. just as long as they don't bug me about it.

tunaman

julep wrote:

that's all well and good, but i live in Ireland. i don't care what happens in america. it doesn't affect my daily life. they can all kill each other for all i care. just as long as they don't bug me about it.

Wake up.

Kernel

shroomfox wrote:

Why is Ireland overrun with tinfoil hat lefties who babble constantly about the New World Order and blah blah blah. I've yet to see any reliable evidence about the New World Order, and I've yet to see any credible thinkers give it any serious thought. Any evidence I have seen is typical conspiracy theorist baloney, with sensationalist ideas drawn from dubious sources.

Seriously man, what are you on about? You've not put up an argument or a debate at all... the only thing you're doing is disregarding one side of the discussion as if you know everything about the issue - which you clearly do not. There is a wealth of information to suggest that the new world order is a viable theory, so I really don't know how you can glibly disregard the information as 'conspiracy theory baloney'.

shroomfox wrote:

The Neocons say they want to dominate everything. It's true. It's horrible. And I say: So? Do they dominate everything? No. Will they dominate everything? No. Anybody can say they want to dominate everything, and they might be in a position of power, but it's still a stupid thing to say.

How the hell do you know if they dominate everything, will dominate everything or want to dominate everything? Seriously, unsubstantiated and ill informed posting like this will add nothing to the debate whatsoever. And you're talking about stupid things to say? :rolleyes:

shroomfox wrote:

I could go on all day. What a load of rubbish.

If you want to go on all day, then please say something you can substantiate with logic instead of instantly rejecting anything outside of your comfort zone - and make some attempt to refute them properly. Rubbish indeed.

I normally let stuff like this slide, but I cannot stand the 'blah blah blah, it's rubbish because I say so' argument - it adds nothing.

Terry

what?
oh ****. yeah. sorry. i fell asleep there and dreamt i was living in Ireland.
did you know that they have their own govenment over there?
seriously.
it's amazing. i thought they were all little people, but i couldn't have been father from the truth. they have their own economy too. it's unbelievable. we americans have no control over their actions.

they must be terrorists. god damn. let's git 'em

Davei141

Hey tunaman, who shot JR?

shroomfox

So are you American, tunaman?

I'm not. I'm Irish. I think America is a very crazy country right now with far too many problems - but it's not my country, and I think it's kind of odd and vaguely disconcerting that you seem to think that everybody should be involved in your battle against the American government. We have our own problems in Europe and while the world is so interconnected that everything we do affects everybody else, we can all only work on a local level. Most people in Ireland don't care about the American constitution, I'm afraid.

I've intensely disliked every American administration I've ever seen, but I simply don't believe that they have as much power as you think. I find the idea absolutely 100% ridiculous. I find it hilarious that, when something goes wrong for the Bush administration or America in general, thousands of people decide that America had planned this all along because it's all part of the master plan. It's absolute stupidity. It's taking a belief system and making the facts fit the belief, and it's faulty logic.

Everything you've just said I've heard a hundred times before. I've yet to see any concrete evidence.

shroomfox

I normally let stuff like this slide, but I cannot stand the 'blah blah blah, it's rubbish because I say so' argument - it adds nothing.

You're right, and I apologise for that. I didn't mean to sound so dismissive. But I could write for days on this debate and I'm in work at the moment.

There is a wealth of information to suggest that the new world order is a viable theory, so I really don't know how you can glibly disregard the information as 'conspiracy theory baloney'.

I've seen it. I'm not glibly disregarding it. I just don't believe it. I haven't seen anything that's convinced me for more than 5 minutes. If you can change my mind, go ahead.

Kernel

shroomfox wrote:

Everything you've just said I've heard a hundred times before. I've yet to see any concrete evidence.

Watergate? Iran-contra & Oliver North? Have you watched the movie, 'Good Night and Good Luck'? It's interesting. How about this:

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/Northwoods.html

Yeah, that's right, plans to blow up a US ship and blame it on the Cubans, to justify an attack. Many nutjob conspiracy theorists consider that to be a historical pretext for a 911 type attack.

Want proof that the CIA secretly tested drugs on civilian populations?

Freelancer

Kernel wrote:

Watergate? Iran-contra & Oliver North? Have you watched the movie, 'Good Night and Good Luck'? It's interesting. How about this:

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/Northwoods.html

Yeah, that's right, plans to blow up a US ship and blame it on the Cubans, to justify an attack. Many nutjob conspiracy theorists consider that to be a historical pretext for a 911 type attack.

Want proof that the CIA secretly tested drugs on civilian populations?

I do so love this, taking an actual event and twisting it to "prove" your conspiracy.

"Nixon planned the watergate break ins therefore the 9/11 conspiracy must be true" bollocks.

Just because something else happened at a different time period, in a different situation carried out by different people, you cannot use this as proof of your own nutjob conspiracy.

I can it an attempt at credibility by association, trying to mention your delusional rants in the same breath as the work of Munroe, Bernstein or Woodward in the hope some of their credibility brushes off on you.

You tarnish their work, and make yourself look like a hack.

tunaman wrote:

However if they label the man who is making the claims insane, then they can ignore him as just some raving lunatic.

Ironically all the so-called "conspiracy" theories regarding 9/11 were brought to light by engineers, pilots, police, firefighters, etc. Not a bunch nutcases as assumed by debunkers.

In the end who are the nutjobs that reject science brought forth by experts?

No no the reason you are mocked and derided is you are a bunch of nutjobs and any credible expert doesn't believe you, or agree with you.

spacedout wrote:

if a 737 jet flew over the motorway at as a low a height as it was doing, cars would been flung off the ground by the sheer force, this never happened why?

The plane didn't zoom over their heads and it would take a good few seconds to fly overhead and into the pentagon, and again how many security cameras at petrol stations are pointed at the sky?

And tell us what then happened to the 737 that "didn't" crash into the penatgon, what did happen to the "crew" and "passengers" of this plane that didn't crash?

Kernel

Here are some historical quotes regarding the new world order. Kissinger (as I mentioned) has some fairly direct opinions - no doubt derived from his Real Politik philosophy (essentially, politics without ethics).

http://www.freedomdomain.com/nwoquote.htm
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/quotes/index.htm

And some starter information on Kissinger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger

That's me ripe for assassination now.

Kernel

Freelancer wrote:

I do so love this, taking an actual event and twisting it to "prove" your conspiracy.

"Nixon planned the watergate break ins therefore the 9/11 conspiracy must be true" bollocks.

Just because something else happened at a different time period, in a different situation carried out by different people, you cannot use this as proof of your own nutjob conspiracy.

I can it an attempt at credibility by association, trying to mention your delusional rants in the same breath as the work of Munroe, Bernstein or Woodward in the hope some of their credibility brushes off on you.

You tarnish their work, and make yourself look like a hack.

Ah, I'm afraid you've missed the point entirely. These things were 'conspiracies' before they were proven to be real. Shroom had stated that in his estimation, none of the conspiracy theories have been proven, I wanted to show that conspiracies had been uncovered in the past. And the cuban operation gives a historical precendence for the theory that the 911 attacks were orchestrated, or at least allowed to happen, by the US government.

You cannot prove that it was not, can you? So, at least I can show something which proves the US would sacrifice it's own citizens lives in order to promote public outrage which would allow it to carry out actions to further it's political ends. Where do you get your conviction? From good faith in the US government? Nonsense, many documents have been released showing nefarious disconcern with the welfare of the citizenry the government is supposed to serve.

Kernel

Freelancer wrote:

No no the reason you are mocked and derided is you are a bunch of nutjobs and any credible expert doesn't believe you, or agree with you.

Your logic is flawed, since if any expert agrees with conspiracy theories, by your reasoning, they are no longer credible. Strange way to learn, but you must know everything anyway, so you know who is right and wrong.

Freelancer

Kernel wrote:

Ah, I'm afraid you've missed the point entirely. These things were 'conspiracies' before they were proven to be real. Shroom had stated that in his estimation, none of the conspiracy theories have been proven, I wanted to show that conspiracies had been uncovered in the past. And the cuban operation gives a historical precendence for the theory that the 911 attacks were orchestrated, or at least allowed to happen, by the US government.

Horsemanure, pure and simple, you cannot point out a US administration from 40 years ago as proof that the current administration would do something.

Well I suppose you can; struggling to find evidence and support for your surreal accusations you resort to the flimest of piece of "proof", and then demand I prove that it isn't true.

You make an accusation the onus is on you to support it. Watergate, Iran Contra, the Bay of Pigs, Mc Cartney were all exposed by determined people who shed light the facts of the situation, brought it all out in the open.

You cannot make half assed accusations based on incoherant and dubious "facts" and then wave us in the direction of credible journalists who did serious work and say "see they proved it". Yes they did, and you haven't, quit whoring on their reputation and stand up and put forward a credible case, not just a pile of unsubstaniated quotes, references to old incidents and your claims of "nefarious acts"

Freelancer

Kernel wrote:

Your logic is flawed, since if any expert agrees with conspiracy theories, by your reasoning, they are no longer credible. Strange way to learn, but you must know everything anyway, so you know who is right and wrong.

Infantile and disgenious on your part, I was refering to the fact that credible experts hadn't come forward to support such asissine claims, you haven't proven that they have.

Kernel

Freelancer wrote:

Horsemanure, pure and simple, you cannot point out a US administration from 40 years ago as proof that the current administration would do something.

Of course I can point to something that happened 40 years ago as setting historical precedence. Particularly so if it was an administration of the same political party, many members of which are prominent players in the current administration. Particularly Rumsfeld. He served on the Nixon administration, and Ford administration (Ford being Nixon's vice president fyi). John Dean has also gone on record as saying the Bush administration is worse than Nixon's watergate admin.

Freelancer wrote:

You make an accusation the onus is on you to support it. Watergate, Iran Contra, the Bay of Pigs, Mc Cartney were all exposed by determined people who shed light the facts of the situation, brought it all out in the open.

I am providing more proof than you are, you're providing nothing. At least I have pointed to some official operations, documents and events that could support a conpiracy theory (note, the word theory). You have no reason for your own entrenched belief, yet you disregard and deride people like me.

Freelancer wrote:

Yes they did, and you haven't, quit whoring on their reputation and stand up and put forward a credible case, not just a pile of unsubstaniated quotes, references to old incidents and your claims of "nefarious acts"

I've never claimed to be an investigative reporter with connections in Washington, so I don't know what more you want from me than providing the material I have found, which proves that the US government at one time had drawn up plans to attack and destroy one of it's own warships, killing those on board, in order to stir up public opinion in support of an attack on Cuba. This is something that can support the THEORY that the government of the US could be complicit in such an operation again re: 911.

You're the one with nothing, you haven't got a leg to stand on, other than some fanboy belief that the US government is incapable of carrying out such an atrocity to create a climate of fear in which to ensure it's population become more tractable.

I've already proven that the government is capable of it.

Kernel

Freelancer wrote:

Infantile and disgenious on your part, I was refering to the fact that credible experts hadn't come forward to support such asissine claims, you haven't proven that they have.

I think many credible experts have gone on record voicing doubts over 911, but by your flawed rationale, anyone who believes there was a conspiracy is a nutjob, ergo when an expert supports the conspiracy theory you think they are nutjobs, therefore not credible. So, it's not possible for me to prove anything to you. If you desist from the condescending name calling and examine your statement you will surely see this is true. At least, by the rules of human logic.

Anyway, from reading your past posts, I see that you are firmly entrenched in your opinions, and probably believe your views to be infallible. I've no need or desire for simple argument, and I've made my points, so I will leave it at that, it's probably getting boring for everyone else.

In summation, believe or disbelieve what you want, but it's probably a little premature to form an opinion on these matters without digging beneath the media viewpoints we all get spoonfed.

Freelancer

Kernel wrote:

Of course I can point to something that happened 40 years ago as setting historical precedence. Particularly so if it was an administration of the same political party, many members of which are prominent players in the current administration. Particularly Rumsfeld. He served on the Nixon administration, and Ford administration (Ford being Nixon's vice president fyi).

Ford was Nixon's vice president?!!????!!!!!! :eek: :eek: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Gosh Kernal I'm glad you're here with all your political history and insight of all these facts I wasn't aware of.

Oh and Kernal, Rockafeller was Nixon's VP, but had to resign over corruption charges, Ford was brought in as VP and served out Nixon's term, therefore the only unelected leader the US ever had.

You're not the only one who knows about history.

John Dean has also gone on record as saying the Bush administration is worse than Nixon's watergate admin.

Yeah so and what? The Bush Administration is as morally bankrupt as the Nixon administration is not the same as proof the Bush administration orchestra'd 9/11.

I am providing more proof than you are, you're providing nothing. At least I have pointed to some official operations, documents and events that could support a conpiracy theory (note, the word theory). You have no reason for your own entrenched belief, yet you disregard and deride people like me.

No I'm counteracting your absurd theories and nonsense claims with actual facts. I am disregarding and deriding people I have contempt for.

I've never claimed to be an investigative reporter with connections in Washington, so I don't know what more you want from me than providing the material I have found,

And pompously made reference to Watergate and Munroe and Mc Cartney in your claims, spare us you're the one wrapping yourself in the trappings of other actual journalists.

which proves that the US government at one time had drawn up plans to attack and destroy one of it's own warships, killing those on board, in order to stir up public opinion in support of an attack on Cuba. This is something that can support the THEORY that the government of the US could be complicit in such an operation again re: 911.

Then add the addendum this theory is not supported by any credible source, eye witnesses, and his pure speculation and a load of BS.

You're the one with nothing, you haven't got a leg to stand on,

I've every repected report. You've got by your admission a theory, and a crackpot one at that.

other than some fanboy belief that the US government is incapable of carrying out such an atrocity to create a climate of fear in which to ensure it's population become more tractable.

Fanboy believe? you're claiming the US government flew three planes into buildings depsite all the credible evidence dismissing your claims as speculative nonsense, and I'm the fanboy?

I've already proven that the government is capable of it.

A forty year old report? The US government is capable of lots of things, you've not proven they did this.

Terry

Freelancer wrote:

You make an accusation the onus is on you to support it. Watergate, Iran Contra, the Bay of Pigs, Mc Cartney were all exposed by determined people who shed light the facts of the situation, brought it all out in the open.

McCartney was jealous because lenin was getting all the chicks.

sorry. i had to do it.

SpAcEd OuT

to all the doubters who say that no experts believe WTC was a controlled demolition http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8360071905622966304&q=911+conspiracy

shroomfox

Have you watched the movie, 'Good Night and Good Luck'?

Yeah, but I'm more of an Ocean's Eleven fan. When you start relying on George Clooney in a debate on international politics, you know there's something amiss.

The burden of evidence lies on the accuser, Kernel. I have yet to see anybody from the NWO camp form a coherent argument. (Pointing at random events around the world and from history doesn't cut the mustard.)

At best, the NWO is a theory, and an interesting one in an Orwellian kind of way, but I do think it's a load of baloney and I've read enough about it to form that opinion. Even if there are people trying to put something like this into motion (and that's a possibility...maybe) there is absolutely no chance that they'll succeed.

Did you know that Mary Robinson was on the Trilateral Commission? Yeah, I can just see her out with the CIA, ordering them to brainwash people and using them to blow up buildings to start a war with North Korea.

SpAcEd OuT

also this video is very intresting http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-968024983037020381&q=911+conspiracy

you dont need sound so turn down the volume as the music in it is horrible

Freelancer

SpAcEd OuT wrote:

also this video is very intresting http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-968024983037020381&q=911+conspiracy

you dont need sound so turn down the volume as the music in it is horrible

Wow I love this, you don't need to listen, the pretty pictures tell a story.

Why is it that conspiracy theorists will refuse to believe in any mainstream sources but give em an anonymous video on the internet and "whoaaaaaaaaa" it's like neo and morpheus.....

[speaking slowly as if explaining something to a child]
SpAcEd OuT

your other video is a six minute long pastiche of other documentaries and news footage. It mixes fact and speculation and cherry picks quotes from (for example) the discovery channel documentary, which came to the conclusion the building collaspes because the planes hit them, melted the concrete, weakened the steel and the weight of the building forced the building to collaspe.

It uses, also for example, David Ray Griffith, authour of the New Pearl Habour, who gives a blow blow account of how the building collaspe is impossible. Is David Ray Griffith a structural engineer? No. An Explosives expert? No. He's professor emeritus of philosophy of religion and theology, at the Claremont School of Theology in Claremont, California.

Your documentary is a classic example of someone with an agenda and twisting the facts to suit its agenda. It's pure speculation and propaganda.

Its crap in other words...
[/speaking slowly as if explaining something to child]

Dooom

Freelancer wrote:

Is David Ray Griffith a structural engineer? No. An Explosives expert? No. He's professor emeritus of philosophy of religion and theology, at the Claremont School of Theology in Claremont, California.

It's called research.

Freelancer

Spike wrote:

It's called research.

ooooohhh very profound unless of course you ignore the bits of the documentary(from the discovery channel) that SpAcEd OuT film ignored which quoted actual structural engineers which did discuss and come to a plausible explanation of why the building collasped.

Furthermore SpAcEd OuT's film didnt bother to quanitfy or explain who David R Griffith was, they just put him up as "David Ray Griffith", with the title of his book, its cheap shoddy propaganda.

He should be, or the documentary filmakers who used him, should to be able to track down the authors and enginners who's claims he's basing this on. Instead in this anonymous film made from plundered resources, What they do is just present his opinion as fact, instead of doing what they should do, presenting the evidence that he drawing this assertion from.

They present him giving his opinion on the buildings collapse, and by implication they present him as an expert on structural enigneering, which he clearly is not.

In short Dave R Griffith or this documentary filmakers don't offer evidence to support their assertions. They offer no evidence of research. They offer opinion as fact. You, spike, can claim "research" was done, but the onus is on someone who makes a claim is to show the research. Neither David R Griffith or yourself showed their research.

tunaman

Hey freelancer if you want to see people who have done proper research, I suggest you have a look at the following site, which is full of evidence that makes "the official story" an impossibility.

http://www.st911.org/

If you still believe what you have been told by the US government, I assume you treat the findings of the 9/11 Commission as gospel?

tba

tbh

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8564772103237441151&q=WTC

this video makes it look like the building collapsed due to weakening of the structure.

Pighead

Pigheads part of the NWO. I can make things happen.
KERNEL I DEMAND YOU TO POST NOW!

Kernel

shroomfox wrote:

The burden of evidence lies on the accuser, Kernel. I have yet to see anybody from the NWO camp form a coherent argument. (Pointing at random events around the world and from history doesn't cut the mustard.)

You're doubting the existence of a new world order in politics despite the fact that I've given you dozens of historical quotes referencing it? Including by George Bush Snr., Winston Churchill and Rockefeller??? Even mainstream political analysts accept the establishment of the new world order. What's not to believe about it?

shroomfox wrote:

At best, the NWO is a theory, and an interesting one in an Orwellian kind of way, but I do think it's a load of baloney and I've read enough about it to form that opinion. Even if there are people trying to put something like this into motion (and that's a possibility...maybe) there is absolutely no chance that they'll succeed.

Did you know that Mary Robinson was on the Trilateral Commission? Yeah, I can just see her out with the CIA, ordering them to brainwash people and using them to blow up buildings to start a war with North Korea.

The NWO is not a theory. It's clearly been referenced by politicians and bankers since WW1. And it's already been put in place, with the establishment of large unions of sovereign nations and organisations, such as the trilateral comission, which seek to make a global form of government possible. John Bruton was a member of the Bilderberg Group, what's your point? The trilateral comission or the bilderberg group would not be the organisations that would be responsible for any 911 conspiracy, the organisation most responsible would probably be the CIA or NSA under the direction of a higher authority - illuminati type group, for want of a better word.

tba

Pighead wrote:

Pigheads part of the NWO. I can make things happen.
KERNEL I DEMAND YOU TO POST NOW!

quick edit ftw

shroomfox

You're doubting the existence of a new world order in politics despite the fact that I've given you dozens of historical quotes referencing it?

Yes. You don't seem to understand that this doesn't seem to form any kind of evidence.

The NWO is not a theory. It's clearly been referenced by politicians and bankers since WW1.

The phrase NWO is ALSO a method of talking about creating world peace after WWII, and is sometimes used by historians to describe any period after a time of cultural or social change e.g. end of WWII, fall of the Berlin Wall, 9/11.

John Bruton was a member of the Bilderberg Group, what's your point?

Well, yes. That's what I'm asking you!

illuminati type group, for want of a better word

Ha. You've got to love it. Conspiracy theorists have managed to combine all their crazy theories (with some real events) into one. The NWO theory manages to encompass:

• Mind Control
• Extraterrestrials
• Illuminati
• Other Secret Societies
• Mass Governmental Conspiracy
• 9/11
• Watergate
• Contra
• JFK

And still, all you do is shout assertions. Where the hell is your evidence? If it's as incontrivertible as you claim, you should at least be able to give some proper evidence, other than pointing at different events and tenuously linking them - and you give out to others for using bad logic!