NWO - New World Order

Kernel

ianmc38 wrote:

there appears to be a lot of ignorant forum members jumping on the "conspiracy" bashing bandwagon. Alot of these people have done no research and are preaching as if they are experts on the subject.

I agree. I've given up on freelancer, he's blindly and firmly entrenched in his own paradigm, and has actually produced the least food for thought on this thread. I also find his emotive stance and distribution of personal insults to be tedious. Save yourself the time Ian - it's not worth engaging with people who dismiss those with different views as 'idiots' and nutjobs. Psychologically, I also notice he is intent on getting the last word in for everything, which may be indicative of youthful exuberance.

ianmc38 wrote:

One of the first and most bizarre things I found was an organisation known as the New American Century. This organisation has several renowned names as its' members. People like Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, numerous key figures from large multinational corporations in America, board members of Lockheed and other defence contracting companies.

Good info, thanks for that. At least you are adding to the thread and presenting information for people - like all of us nutjobs.

ianmc38 wrote:

A well researched and perfectly told documentary on the origins of 9/11, Islamic fundamentalism etc is called "The Power of Nightmares" and I would recommend it for anyone with an open mind.

Haven't seen it, but I shall check it out.

ianmc38

Freelancer wrote:

The power of nightmares is an excellent documentary which examines the development of the ideology of fundamental Islam

Oh apologies I said Islamic fundamentalism. Miles off

Freelancer wrote:

It is not proof of a conspiracy.

Am I missing something? Where did I say that it had anything to do with conspiracies in my post? Put on your reading glasses.

Would you have preferred if I'd said: "As an aside, the p..... Please do not associate it in anyway with conspiracy theories". I think the US government are using mind control drugs on you and are making you post here. For sure.

shroomfox

ianmc38 wrote:

shroomfox: "automatically ignorant, or stupid or unintelligent"

You just took me completely out of context! I wasn't insulting anybody. Read the post before you quote it.

Freelancer

Kernel wrote:

I agree. I've given up on freelancer, he's blindly and firmly entrenched in his own paradigm, and has actually produced the least food for thought on this thread.

Or in english

Kernal wrote:

My childish and simplistic conspiracys cannot stand up in a real debate and I am forced to only discuss this with people who agree with me. That way my inane conspiarcy rants won't be held up to discussion and I can carry on believing this delusional nonsense.

I also find his emotive stance and distribution of personal insults to be tedious. Save yourself the time Ian - it's not worth engaging with people who dismiss those with different views as 'idiots' and nutjobs. Psychologically, I also notice he is intent on getting the last word in for everything, which may be indicative of youthful exuberance.

People quoted me and I responded, you meanwhile are happy to make reference to every half baked conspiracy theory and then demand that I prove no conspiracy exists.

If you're going to call anyone childish I suggest you find a mirror.

Kernal grow up, you claim I'm not bringing anything to the debate, you're bringing anything you can onto the table as "proof", I've honestly not seen such an array of halfbaked conspiracys lumped together since the series finale of the X-Files.

ianmc38 wrote:

Am I missing something? Where did I say that it had anything to do with conspiracies in my post? Put on your reading glasses.

You made reference to half a dozen conspiracy theories and then talked about the power of nightmares, it's similar to Kernal talking about Woodward and Bernstein, and then himself, it's called trying to give yourself credibiliy by association.

Would you have preferred if I'd said: "As an aside, the p..... Please do not associate it in anyway with conspiracy theories".

Yes actually I would.

Freelancer

red dave wrote:

It's ridiculous that there cannot be a sensible debate without insulting each other.

I think many of the pro "NWO conspiracy" group have never been properly introduced to "sensible debate".

red dave

shroomfox wrote:

You just took me completely out of context! I wasn't insulting anybody. Read the post before you quote it.

Apologies, sorry for misquoting too meant to paste full sentence which have edited now. My point was to show that you felt insults flying at you and so on.

red dave

Freelancer wrote:

I think many of the pro "NWO conspiracy" group have never been properly introduced to "sensible debate".

Agreed. A lot of "shock and awe" which would just be the same as if Fox news were report on NWO with the same tactics they do on War on terror.

Goodshape

Freelancer wrote:

FACT : THE OWNER OF BUILDING 7 ADMITTED TO IT BEING PULLED DESPITE THE US GOVERNMENT SAYING IT COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE

Again thats really just a side issue.

How the hell is that a side issue? Even if we assume for a moment that the two towers fell as a direct result of the planes hitting them (one plane per tower, btw, not two) how can you explain building 7? And how could you possibly dismiss it as a 'side issue'?

Freelancer wrote:

FACT : ON VIDEO AN EXPLOSION CAN BE SEEN BEFORE THE PLANE HITS THE WORLD TRADE CENTRE

On that crappy internet video with the ****ty frame rate on DivX compression?

You're not doing yourself any favours with that one. The preceding flash (whatever it may be) is visable on all the footage of the planes hitting the towers, not just the crappy internet videos. Go get the DVD and see for yourself.


As an aside, Power of Nightmares is a fantastic documentary. I would also recommend The Corporation.

ianmc38

Here's a sample of the what freelancer dubs a conspiracy:

"http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm"

Freelancer

Goodshape wrote:

How the hell is that a side issue? Even if we assume for a moment that the two towers fell as a direct result of the planes hitting them (one plane per tower, btw, not two)

Why yes thank you simple maths is beyond my tiny mind.

I like this "even if we assume" even if we assume what actually happened, the impact to the second would have some effect on the first, as did the collaspe of the first tower on the second.

how can you explain building 7? And how could you possibly dismiss it as a 'side issue'?

I don't have to explain it's up to you to offer a plausible alternative to the actual events. And I dismiss it as side issue in it is just another in a long line of tangents SpAcEd OuT brought up.

You're not doing yourself any favours with that one. The preceding flash (whatever it may be) is visable on all the footage of the planes hitting the towers

Thats just a lie. Plain and simple it's not on any of the live newsfeeds of the second plane hitting and it's not on the french documentary film makers who caught the first plane hitting.

, not just the crappy internet videos. Go get the DVD and see for yourself.

Which DVD is this?

As an aside, Power of Nightmares is a fantastic documentary. I would also recommend The Corporation.

Good for you.

Goodshape

Freelancer wrote:

Why yes thank you simple maths is beyond my tiny mind.

Don't be so flippant. You said no one predicted that two planes would hit the building, I was mearly pointing out that two planes did not hit the building.

I don't have to explain it's up to you to offer a plausible alternative to the actual events.

Plausable alternatives have been offered many times in this very thread. You just don't seem to want to pay them any notice.

What is so plausable about a steal-inforced building which has not been hit by any plane collapsing due to what many have described as a realitivly minor fire?

And I dismiss it as side issue in it is just another in a long line of tangents SpAcEd OuT brought up.

But it's not a side issue. It's a rather startaling piece of evidece which suggests that things didn't happen the way we have been told they did.

Thats just a lie. Plain and simple it's not on any of the live newsfeeds of the second plane hitting and it's not on the french documentary film makers who caught the first plane hitting.

Do you know the flash which people are reffering to? I'm not even going to attempt to explain what it is, because I am certinly no expert (if you said it was a reflection, I personally would have no way to disprove that theory) but it is - for a fact - visable from almost every angle on almost all videos from the day. Zoom in and slow waaayy down. You'll see it.

Which DVD is this?

I think the 9/11 Directors Tribute thing is the one referred to specifically in the documentary I remember.


I also find it strange that people can hear about, and accept, things like Oporation Northwoods, MKULTRA and other truly questionably practises carried out or invisioned by people at the top of government at the time -- things for which no one has been held accountable for -- and yet blindly refuse to accept that such things could be still happening today. We're not talking about ancient history when we mention these proven facts, we're talking about 30-40 years ago. We're talking about people who are often still in positions of power today.

To think that these things do not still go on to at least some degree is nieve in the extreme.

Good for you.

Thanks

Freelancer

Goodshape wrote:

Don't be so flippant. You said no one predicted that two planes would hit the building, I was mearly pointing out that two planes did not hit the building.

Pedantic quibbling, no one predicted these exact circumstances, they had worked out that a tower should survive a blow from a slow moving jet swerving to avoid the tower, not a jet loaded with fuel aiming and accelerating.

Plausable alternatives have been offered many times in this very thread. You just don't seem to want to pay them any notice.

No actually they haven't

What is so plausable about a steal-inforced building which has not been hit by any plane collapsing due to what many have described as a realitivly minor fire?

I swear everyone keeps gibbering about the "fire" ignoring the fact the building was beside the WTC and just several tens of thousands tonnes of rubble collapse around it.

But it's not a side issue. It's a rather startaling piece of evidece which suggests that things didn't happen the way we have been told they did.

So what you're suggesting that someone what blew it up, putting in the necessary explosives to collapse the building, and what? No one working there noticed it?

Do you know the flash which people are reffering to? I'm not even going to attempt to explain what it is, because I am certinly no expert

That is obvious.

(if you said it was a reflection, I personally would have no way to disprove that theory) but it is - for a fact - visable from almost every angle on almost all videos from the day. Zoom in and slow waaayy down. You'll see it.

So we've gone from an explosion before the plane hit, to a "flash". Clutch at straws much?

I also find it strange that people can hear about, and accept, things like Oporation Northwoods, MKULTRA and other truly questionably practises carried out or invisioned by people at the top of government at the time -- things for which no one has been held accountable for -- and yet blindly refuse to accept that such things could be still happening today. We're not talking about ancient history when we mention these proven facts, we're talking about 30-40 years ago. We're talking about people who are often still in positions of power today.

Here we bloody well go again. Look you cannot cite past incidents of government malefic as "proof" of your conspiracy. The US government giving their soldiers LSD is not proof that someone fired missiles into three building , in front of thousands of people and in one case live on tv, and blamed Al Qaeda flying planes in.

To think that these things do not still go on to at least some degree is nieve in the extreme.

And to leap in and believe every half baked conspiracy theory over rational and serious evidence because "the government are up to something" is a whole other kind of a naivety.

Thanks

:rolleyes:

ianmc38 wrote:

Here's a sample of the what freelancer dubs a conspiracy:

And he's an explanation.

Waleed and Wail were both reported to have been found alive and well, by the BBC later in 2001. They were reportedly the sons of a Saudi diplomat stationed in Bombay. Wail claims he did attend Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach, Florida - but was the victim of mistaken identity, since he used that training to secure his current position with a Moroccan airline company. Saudi Arabia has confirmed his story, and suggested he was the victim of identity theft.

However, the al-Shehri's father says he hadn't heard from his sons in ten months prior to September 2001.[7] An ABC News story in March 2002 repeated this, and during a report entitled "A Saudi Apology" for Dateline NBC on Aug 25 2002, NBC's reporter John Hockenberry traveled to 'Asir, where he interviewed the third broter Salah who agreed that his two brothers were dead and claimed they had been "brainwashed".

Furthermore another article explains that the pilot who lives in Casablanca was named Walid al-Shri (not Waleed M. al-Shehri) and that much of the BBC information regarding "alive" hijackers was incorrect according to the same sources used by BBC.[8]

tunaman

Freelancer you are living in denial, and your desperate attempt to back up "the official story" on every issue just proves how much of a sheep you really are.

The following are a few quotes from some powerful men about the NWO...

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years... It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to move towards a world government now. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."
-David Rockefeller, Builder-burg meeting, June, 1991,
Baden, Germany

"We are on the verge of a global transformation all we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order"
- David Rockefeller

J. Edgar Hoover, ex-FBI director on the New World Order conspiracy: "The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists."

"The high office of President has been used to format a plot to destroy the American's freedom, and before I leave office must inform the citizen of his plight." (John F. Kennedy at Columbia University, 10 days before his assassination).

"What is at stake is more than one small country, it is a big idea, a New World Order. Out of these troubled times our fifth objective a New World Order can emerge...Now we can see a new world coming into view, a world in which there is a very real prospect of a New World Order."
- George Herbert Walker Bush, September 11th 1991

Goodshape

Freelancer wrote:

Pedantic quibbling, no one predicted these exact circumstances, they had worked out that a tower should survive a blow from a slow moving jet swerving to avoid the tower, not a jet loaded with fuel aiming and accelerating.

Who's being pedantic? A jet is a jet in my estimation. The buildings bearly swayed at all.

So what you're suggesting that someone what blew it up, putting in the necessary explosives to collaspe the building, and what? No one working there noticed it?

I'm saying it's a posability. See here - http://www.reopen911.org/Tarpley_ch_6.pdf

Page 10 wrote:

Forbes reported that over the weekend of September 8-9, 2001, floors 50 and above of the South Tower experienced a “power down,” meaning that all electrical current was cut off for about 36 hours. The reason officially cited was that the electrical cables in the building were being upgraded. Forbes was an information technology officer in charge of Fiduciary Trust’s computer network; his attention was engaged by the power down because it fell to him to shut down all the company’s computers and related systems before the power went out. After the power down, he had to turn the computers back on again, and restore service on the network. Because there was no electric power above the fiftieth floor, there were also no security cameras and no security locks. There were however many outside engineering personnel coming in and out of the tower at all hours during the weekend.

Page 10, Sizemic Evidence wrote:

The seismic effects of the collapse of the towers were observed and measured by Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory just up the Hudson River in Palisades, New York. Here seismographs recorded two spikes reflecting two shock waves in the earth on the morning of 9/11. The crucial fact is that these two spikes came just before the collapse of the towers began

That is obvious.

Because I just stated it? Are you an expert yourself then? The difference between us, I'm willing to believe, is that I am willing to keep an open mind regarding these events.

So we've gone from an explosion before the plane hit, to a "flash". Clutch at straws much?

I saw a flash. Some people claim this flash was an explosion. You claim this flash didn't exist at all. From those two options I'll go with the first.

Here we bloody well go again. Look you cannot cite past incidents of government malfice as "proof" of your conspiracy.

Did I mention proof of anything? Nope, I said it's reason enough not to discount the posibility.

:rolleyes:

:cool:

tunaman

George Green: New World Order whistleblower

http://www.arcticbeacon.com/22-Jan-2006.html

Former Washington Insider, Once Asked To Be President Carter's Campaign Finance Chairman, Said The Next 90 Days Could Bring Nuclear War And A U.S. Financial Collapse George Green, who once rubbed shoulders with the neocon 'movers and shakers,' has now changed teams, trying to spread the truth in order to stop the New World Order.

"Kissinger loved to refer to the American public as 'useless eaters' and back then all the men in that room in Aspen, including Kennedy, Volcker and the others were endorsing this Armageddon-type plan, which is now being played out right before our very eyes in Iraq and soon in Iran," warned Green, adding the next 90 days may prove to be the beginning of the end of America as we know it.

"I worry about the next 90 days. All the signs are leading to nuclear war and an economic collapse."

Asked why the power brokers and war mongers haven't tried to stamp out him or his anti-neocon message, he added:

"They really don't care any more because I think the powers that be feel they have already won."

And Green's ominous message of a devastating financial collapse in America in the next 90 days has been verified by reports circulating that the neocon's long plan of world domination and collapsing the U.S. economy are imminent.

Other financial analysts, along with Green, have been sounding the "red warning signal," saying 2006 will spell the end for America based on five major signs as listed on the Italian web site BellaCiao:

Sign 1: The U.S., Great Britain and Israel are preparing to attack Iran. As it appears the main reason for invading Iraq was to stop it from selling oil in Euros, likewise Iran has plans to dump the dollar come March 2006.

Sign 2: U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow issued a warning recently that the U.S. Government is on the verge of collapse - as the statutory debt limit imposed by Congress of $8.184 trillion dollars would be reached in mid-February - the government would then be unable to continue its normal operations. Considering the current total U.S. debt stands at $8.162 trillion dollars, once the official debt ceiling ($8.184 trillion) is reached, the U.S. government's credit abroad (its borrowing power) is gone. Those countries (mainly China) who presently keep America afloat by holding U.S. Treasury Notes, will most likely no longer continue doing so.

Sign 3: Bank Of America and Compass Bank managers (probably all other U.S. banks too) have been instructing their employees in the last few weeks on how to respond to customer demands in the event of a collapse of the U.S. economy - specifically telling the employees that only agents from the Department Of Homeland Security will have authority to decide what belongings customers may have from their safe deposit boxes - and that precious metals and other valuables will not be released to U.S. citizens. The bank employees have been strictly prohibited from revealing the banks' new "guidelines" to anyone. (however, employees have been talking to friends and family)

Sign 4: FEMA has activated and is currently staffing its vast network of empty internment camps with armed military personnel - unknown to most Americans, these large federal facilities are strategically positioned across the U.S. landscape to "manage" the population in the event of a "terrorist" attack, a civilian uprising, large-scale dissent ,or an insurrection against the government. Some of these razor-wired facilities have the capacity of detaining a million people.

Sign 5: The Patriot Act and the US Senate's vote to ban habeas corpus (Nov 14th) - along with George W. Bush having signed executive orders giving him sole authority to impose martial law, suspend habeas corpus and ignore the Posse Comitatus Act, have together pretty much destroyed any notions of freedom and justice for Americans."

To back up the gloomy forecast and the fact the destruction of America has been on the neocon agenda for years, Green has outlined a quick history of Global Report 2000 on his web site, complete with statistics and quotes from American politicians, going all the way back to former Secretary of State, Edmund Muskie, calling for the elimination of 2 billion people by the year 2000.
"I might add," said Green. "There's a lot to worry about because the neocons are actually behind schedule."



"People who shut their eyes to reality simply invite their own destruction."
- James Baldwin

tunaman

As for anybody who still believes the collapse of WTC building 7 was not at all suspicious, I suggest you have a look at the following evidence.

At 4:10pm CNN reported that WTC building 7 was on fire. The following is a photo taken at the time.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/images/359_wtc7_fires.jpg

Just over an hour later, at 5:20pm, WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane, was the first steel-reinforced skyscraper in history, to collapse supposedly due to fire.

However, the cause of the collapse is uncertain. A 2002 government report concludes: “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.”

The following images illustrate how the building fell straight down and into it's own footprint.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/images/361_wtc7_collapse.jpg

What about the owner of the building admitting he decided to "pull it"?

In a PBS documentary broadcast in 2002, the World Trade Center's leaseholder Larry Silverstein talks about a phone call from the Fire Department commander he had on 9/11. Silverstein recalls saying to the commander about the building: “You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.” It is unclear what Silverstein meant by the phrase “decision to pull.”

At a later date when asked to explain these comments he brushed them off as he meant to pull out the firefighters. The problem with that is the following quote from fire engineering... “Given the limited water supply and the first strategic priority, which was to search for survivors in the rubble, FDNY did not fight the fires [in WTC 7].”

And a 2002 government report says, “the firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires, due in part to the damage to WTC 7 from the collapsing towers.”

It should be fairly obvious bringing explosives in on the day would be impossible. Setting up these controlled demolitions takes weeks to plan and put in place, this building was massively reinforced, as it housed the OEM, and was built to withstand much more than some falling debris and a few small fires.

In May 2002 FEMA releases its report of the WTC collapses. It concludes, “[W]ith the information and time available, the sequence of events leading to the collapse of each tower could not be definitively determined.” On Building 7: “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time.”

http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm

So even the official FEMA report was not able to determine what caused the collapse, of not just WTC7, but all 3 towers, and yet this freelancer lad ridiculously claims to know it all.

red dave

tunaman wrote:

George Green: New World Order whistleblower

http://www.arcticbeacon.com/22-Jan-2006.html

Interesting link, some of it reminds about this guy John Stockwell, former CIA Station Chief in Angola in 1976 http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4068.htm and talking about how the US saw Africa as their biggest threat to national security

Freelancer

Goodshape wrote:

Who's being pedantic? A jet is a jet in my estimation. The buildings bearly swayed at all.

Yeah because its a steel reinforced structure, the damage was done by a plane.

I'm saying it's a posability. See here - http://www.reopen911.org/Tarpley_ch_6.pdf

I've read it, the offical 24 million dollar report by among others

The Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has conducted a three-year, $24 million investigation into the structural failure and progressive collapse of several WTC complex structures, including 7 World Trade Center.[1] The final report on Building Seven is scheduled for public release in the spring of 2006. The study included not only in-house technical expertise but also drew upon the knowledge of several outside private institutions, including the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE), the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York

Is due out in a few weeks, but I'm sure the NWO got to all of them too

Because I just stated it? Are you an expert yourself then? The difference between us, I'm willing to believe, is that I am willing to keep an open mind regarding these events.

Okay theres a world of difference between keeping an open mind and some of the nonsense you've come out with in this thread.

The one and only thing that makes me think it was a Boeing 737 is the fact that that's the offical word on the matter. Everything else I've seen or heard about the event leads me to believe it was something else

You regularly look blindly past all the evidence and thunder on the conspiracy theory route, swallowly gullibly whatever is the conspiracy theorist website de juer.

I saw a flash. Some people claim this flash was an explosion. You claim this flash didn't exist at all. From those two options I'll go with the first.

You claim you saw a flash.

Did I mention proof of anything? Nope, I said it's reason enough not to discount the posibility.

Yes you should and focus on the real issues raised by this.

rsynnott

Ah, a thread for mad people.

Freelancer

tunaman wrote:

Freelancer you are living in denial, and your desperate attempt to back up "the official story" on every issue just proves how much of a sheep you really are.

The following are a few quotes from some powerful men about the NWO...

Shroomfox already addressed this, the NWO as a politcal concept is what these men are refering to, not as a shadowy imaginary government you think are sending you secret messages through your filings.

George Green: New World Order whistleblower

http://www.arcticbeacon.com/22-Jan-2006.html

Now now tunaman what was I saying about cheery picking quotes?

Show the lovely people the head of that article

George Green sat next to Sen. Ted Kennedy, sipping cocktails.



On a table nearby, he noticed a bowl of white powder as Kennedy kept shooting the breeze and playing the part of a loudmouth big shot, something politicians are exceptionally good at after a few drinks and a snort of coke.



Green, a former Washington insider and financial whiz-kid, knew he was smack in the middle of a "den of wolves," when Kennedy, out of nowhere, made a ridiculous comment about his 14-year-old daughter who had just entered the room.

"Par for the course," some might say, considering the source.

All I can add to that is :rolleyes:

Oh and to link to george's website http://www.nomorehoaxes.com

And particularly to this article on George's website
http://www.nomorehoaxes.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26&Itemid=1

Where he refers to Santa Claus as Satan Claus.

Oh yeah, he's a credible source of information.

"Israeli and the UK are going to attack Iran"? Piss off.

As for anybody who still believes the collapse of WTC building 7 was not at all suspicious, I suggest you have a look at the following evidence.

Already dealt with this with Goodshape.

And I'm the one living in denial :rolleyes:

Goodshape

rsynnott wrote:

Ah, a thread for mad people.

Come on in, the waters fine


WWWoooopWOopwoopwoop...



(and at the risk of Freelancer claiming some sort of 'victory', I'm not going to argue on this thread anymore. fact of the matter is, no body here knows what happened and - in my mind at least - one theory is as good as any other. even if it is the case that not one single US citizen had anything to do with the September 2001 attacks, it doesn't change my opinion that the US government (and many governemnts like them) is a very flawed and, dare I say, 'evil' institution)

Freelancer

Goodshape wrote:

(and at the risk of Freelancer claiming some sort of 'victory', I'm not going to argue on this thread anymore. fact of the matter is, no body here knows what happened and - in my mind at least - one theory is as good as any other. even if it is the case that not one single US citizen had anything to do with the September 2001 attacks, it doesn't change my opinion that the US government (and many governemnts like them) is a very flawed and, dare I say, 'evil' institution)

Do you realise how hard it is to argue a rational POV on sept 11th? Not because 19 men flew the planes into three buildings, but because there is just a mountain of pure underdiluted crap written on the web about "what really happened". Spending all your energy looking for "flashes" or "missing video frames" means you're ignoring the reality of what occured, how it occured, and the ramifications of it occuring.

Goodshape

Freelancer wrote:

Do you realise how hard it is to argue a rational POV on sept 11th? Not because 19 men flew the planes into three buildings, but because there is just a mountain of pure underdiluted crap written on the web about "what really happened". Spending all your energy looking for "flashes" or "missing video frames" means you're ignoring the reality of what occured, how it occured, and the ramifications of it occuring.

For once we are in agreement.

Of course, some people may claim that much of this disinformation is planted (or at least encouraged) by those behind the crimes in order to stop anyone from ever finding the 'real truth'.

And I may well be one such person.

tunaman

Freelancer wrote:

Shroomfox already addressed this

No he didn't, as just like you he is an evasive artist consumed by fear.

Oh yeah, he's a credible source of information.

What makes anybody a credible source?

With you it is obviously only our self-serving government and their hundreds of home made studies, which usually reinforce their agenda. Or the mainstream media with their bright flashing lights, which are severely restricted in what they can report.

"Israeli and the UK are going to attack Iran"? Piss off.

Talk about having your eyes closed. The UK are with the US no matter what, and Israel will no doubt get involved in the war.

Already dealt with this with Goodshape.
And I'm the one living in denial :rolleyes:

Again you try and completely ignore the issue of the obvious controlled demolition, as the truth is too painful.

Are you a man or a mouse?

meepins

There is better information freely available on american imperialism by which to theorise about a nwo rather than the big grey area of the ny terrorist attacks.

Oh btw Iran has delayed trading oil in euros for several months.I think they are waiting for the asian markets to come onboard.

Freelancer

tunaman wrote:

No he didn't, as just like you he is an evasive artist consumed by fear.

No he gave an excellent and solid alternative meaning of the term.

Oh and "evasive artist consumed by fear"? Does Jeffrey Archer write for you? Give over with yourself, no one here is "consumed by fear" you're just consumed with paranoia.

What makes anybody a credible source?

Not being a delusional crackpot running a demented conspiracy theorist website ranting about "Satan Claus" and Ted Kennedy snorting coke and making inappropriate comments about 14yo would be a start.

With you it is obviously only our self-serving government and their hundreds of home made studies, which usually reinforce their agenda.

Why do the government have "home made studios"? and where are they? And are you talking about my government or another government?

Or the mainstream media with their bright flashing lights, which are severely restricted in what they can report.

I'm a moderately intelligent person who makes up my own mind, suggesting I'm some "puppet of the man" is an insult you bandy about as "proof" when someone confronts your nonsense with facts and logic.

Talk about having your eyes closed. The UK are with the US no matter what, and Israel will no doubt get involved in the war.

Yeah, but no. the US had neither the Manpower or the will to get involved in a war in Iran in the next 90 days. The UK would be severely pressed and with the PMs popularity at an all time low theres no chance he can start a war in Iran with serious cause. Israeli hasn't got a PM and is in the middle of a general election.

Before you spout on about geo political affairs you should educate yourself about the reality at the moment.

Again you try and completely ignore the issue of the obvious controlled demolition, as the truth is too painful.

Yes thats it I'm ignore the filmsy pathetic "evidence" you offer (a quote from a firefighter under stress) because "the truth" is to painful.

Are you a man or a mouse?

Grow up.

Kernel

Freelancer wrote:

Kernal grow up, you claim I'm not bringing anything to the debate, you're bringing anything you can onto the table as "proof"

Your childish ostrich tactics are bringing nothing to this thread. All you're doing is repeating a mantra of 'no it didn't', 'that proves nothing'... no matter what information is presented to you. I seriously think you are trolling at this stage, or at least are argumentative to the extreme. Everyone can recognise how strange your emotive and useless 'contributions' to this thread are. You should sit back, take a valium and read over your postings.

Freelancer wrote:

t's similar to Kernal talking about Woodward and Bernstein, and then himself, it's called trying to give yourself credibiliy by association.

First off, I never mentioned Woodward or Bernstein, so get your facts in order. Second, you're making a huge (and erroneous) assumption that I am attempting to give myself credibility. That is in no way a reason for me mentioning the watergate scandal. The watergate scandal was an example of how conspiracies do happen, and have happened all throughout history, and certainly very recently. They are uncovered and proven every week.

Oh, and you putting a false quote under my name is the most childish thing I've seen on a debate in boards. If you're going to make up fictitious 'statements' made by me in an attempt to slander, at least spell my nick properly. :rolleyes:

Kernal wrote:

My childish and simplistic conspiracys cannot stand up in a real debate and I am forced to only discuss this with people who agree with me. That way my inane conspiarcy rants won't be held up to discussion and I can carry on believing this delusional nonsense.

shroomfox

Tunaman wrote:

Freelancer wrote:

Shroomfox already addressed this

No he didn't, as just like you he is an evasive artist consumed by fear.

I just burst out laughing really loudly and all my work colleagues are giving me weird looks.

Tunaman, if the height of your debating skills is saying that anybody who disagrees with you is "evasive" (I'm not even sure what you mean by that?) and "consumed by fear" (which is completely bewildering!) then just give it a rest.

Although, thanks for the artist bit. That's a compliment.

Jesus man, when you start sounding like a Socialist Worker's Party propaganda leaflet AND a rabid conservative commentator on Fox, you know there's something wrong...

Freelancer

Kernel wrote:

Your childish ostrich tactics are bringing nothing to this thread. All you're doing is repeating a mantra of 'no it didn't', 'that proves nothing'... no matter what information is presented to you.

No I dont, for example SpAcEd OuT provided a link to an "expert" who proved that it was a controlled explosion, it took me five minutes to prove that his expert's field was theology. Or Tunaman's Green character claiming he was a source of information from inside the NWO, when a brief check shows him out to be another delusional crackpot with a website. I'm debunking.

Your quoting of MKultra Northwood blah blah blah nonsense doesn't prove that Sept 11th was staged.

I seriously think you are trolling at this stage, or at least are argumentative to the extreme. Everyone can recognise how strange your emotive and useless 'contributions' to this thread are. You should sit back, take a valium and read over your postings.

I just think you're not in your meeting of conspiracy cranks anonymous. When confronted with someone who doesn't hang on your every absurd theory and agree whole heartily with every conspiracy, isn't something you're capable of handling.

First off, I never mentioned Woodward or Bernstein, so get your facts in order.

Did you mention Watergate? Yes you did. The work of Woodward and Bernstein, come on Kernal pedantic quibbling is what you are reduced to.

Second, you're making a huge (and erroneous) assumption that I am attempting to give myself credibility. That is in no way a reason for me mentioning the watergate scandal. The watergate scandal was an example of how conspiracies do happen, and have happened all throughout history, and certainly very recently.

You mentioned Watergate, Munroe, all within a breath of then talking about your own theories, a pathetic attempt at credibility by association.

They are uncovered and proven every week.

Really and what was this weeks one?

Oh, and you putting a false quote under my name is the most childish thing I've seen on a debate in boards. If you're going to make up fictitious 'statements' made by me in an attempt to slander, at least spell my nick properly. :rolleyes:

Kernal wrote:

HELP HELP I'M BEING EXPOSED AS A DELUSIONAL CRACKPOT AND AM TRYING TO LOOK MATURE AND RATIONAL AS I STRUGGLE TO MANTAIN A SEMBLANCE OF A POINT........

Oh and Kernel? Do you even know what slander is?

ianmc38

Freelancer you write off one of my quotes as conspiracy junk. One part of my post is the fact that several of the alleged September 11th hijackers are actually alive and well. This was never admitted by the US government and the majority of people still believe that these epeople were behind the attacks.

The BBC reported that several of the supposed attackers were alive. They reported this on the 23rd of September:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm

Is that article a conspiracy or do you accept that some of the alleged hijackers had nothing to do with the attacks?