War on terrorism , 9-11, Iluminati etc

Philo Beddoe

MOH wrote: »

I'm always bemused by the people who say "don't blindly trust everything you hear in the mainstream media", then blindly trust what some random guy comes out with, e.g. in a badly made youtube video.

And when large parts of it are demonstrably completely false, the fallback is to insist the other parts of it are still definitely true, despite the fact that the credibility of the author is completely destroyed by that point. Or else parts of it are picked up and recycled a few years later for the next giant conspiracy.

That's leaving aside the whole contradiction of this shadowy new world order, willing to kill tens of thousands to achieve their aims, who control the entire international banking system/media/military, but yet are somehow unable to stop one bloke releasing aforementioned video.

The whole joke being that as long as people are focusing on giant shadowy global conspiracies, they're ignoring the petty corruption and mismanagement that their government should be held accountable for. If I was a politician I'd be delighted.... wait a minute, maybe there is a conspiracy after all!

You could define a conspiracy theorist as someone who is both cynical and credulous about all the wrong things in equal measure.

ScumLord

Allen Shapely Bun wrote: »

The stuff in Zeitgeist and Kymatica about the banking and financial system isn't nonsense though, thats fact.

There are facts in there and I'm no supporter of the current global economic system, I think it's fundamentally flawed but these videos describe it at it's most basic and don't take into account you have dozens of countries are compromising with each other, it's not exactly a planned out logical system, it's what we've ended up with, it grew organically and trying to get loads of individual countries to agree on new systems that may leave them worse off is next to impossible. It's not a conspiracy it's just the nature of the beast.

brandnewaward wrote: »

what got me was the fact the lady from the BBC reported that it had collapsed ten mins before it actually did , and as she was reporting aforementioned "fact" , WTC 7 was clearly visable over her shoulder

It's completely ludicrous to suggest the global media where in on a conspiracy to blow up the towers. That's like telling your deepest, darkest, juiciest secret to a compulsive gossiper and expecting no one to find out. Any journalist would give their left nut to break that story.

Maybe she did mistakenly say tower 7 collapsed. She probably got handed pieces of paper with information on it, it could have said these buildings were damaged and she made the mistake of saying they all collapsed. Maybe someone else made the mistake. Of course we've yet to see this infamous video.

Duggy747

ScumLord wrote: »

Maybe she did mistakenly say tower 7 collapsed. She probably got handed pieces of paper with information on it, it could have said these buildings were damaged and she made the mistake of saying they all collapsed. Maybe someone else made the mistake. Of course we've yet to see this infamous video.

If it were a conspiracy it would have to be one of the clumsiest ones to have ever been done; Reporting the demolishing of a building too early that's still in shot, on one of the biggest days in recent times, covered by thousands of news organisations, and watched live by millions......................and nobody at the control room being able to cut the feed by noticing the mistake of the reporter screwing up their whole demolishing plan thus jeopradising the elite's plan to go to war............

It's like a shít sketch from a comedy.

Magico Gonzalez

There's enough dreadful stuff going on in the world today that I genuinely believe that these "theories" (given them credibility which they do not deserve) are seeded into the loopy online community to distract attention from what actually is going on out there. The forest hiding in the trees so to speak.

The entire Iraq/Middle East saga is horrific enough. Corporate influence in U.S politics in undemocratic and worrying enough, the 21st century changes in regulation governing the financial institution and endemic corruption therein really should keep us up at night. Corporate sponsored climate deniers driving American environment policy and the outright ignorance of climate change by the Chinese, millions upon millions of slaves still exist in the 21st century, wealth inequality spiking (this will not end well), the Russian economy is collasping, the Chinese economy is contracting, the Eurozone economy is stagnant.

Quite frankly, those are some of things that really ought to demand your attention. They are real and happening.

ScumLord

Magico Gonzalez wrote: »

The entire Iraq/Middle East saga is horrific enough. Corporate influence in U.S politics in undemocratic and worrying enough, the 21st century changes in regulation governing the financial institution and endemic corruption therein really should keep us up at night. Corporate sponsored climate deniers driving American environment policy and the outright ignorance of climate change by the Chinese, millions upon millions of slaves still exist in the 21st century, wealth inequality spiking (this will not end well), the Russian economy is collasping, the Chinese economy is contracting, the Eurozone economy is stagnant.

Meh... It's all par for the course really though. WW1 started over nothing and was really half an excuse to make use of their new toys. WW2 happened because of a crippling economic depression (it's freaky how similar some of todays events are to the lead up to WW2), There was always inequality between rich and poor, while there may be a big gap now compared to the recent past everyone has essentially moved up the ladder.

Many people go to one of our national hospitals and can only see the bad things, considering our past I think it's pretty fantastic that we know pump so much time and effort into such a service that's available to anyone that needs it. 200 years ago these services would have been reserved for the rich or completely ineffective, the kind of effort and money that goes into our medical service would have been reserved for decking out the kings palace or going to war. While things are far from perfect today, it's certainly an improvement on the horrible lives people used to live in the not so distant past.

Magico Gonzalez

ScumLord wrote: »

Meh... It's all par for the course really though. WW1 started over nothing and was really half an excuse to make use of their new toys. WW2 happened because of a crippling economic depression (it's freaky how similar some of todays events are to the lead up to WW2), There was always inequality between rich and poor, while there may be a big gap now compared to the recent past everyone has essentially moved up the ladder.

Many people go to one of our national hospitals and can only see the bad things, considering our past I think it's pretty fantastic that we know pump so much time and effort into such a service that's available to anyone that needs it. 200 years ago these services would have been reserved for the rich or completely ineffective, the kind of effort and money that goes into our medical service would have been reserved for decking out the kings palace or going to war. While things are far from perfect today, it's certainly an improvement on the horrible lives people used to live in the not so distant past.

I don't think the idea of infinite progress is supported by the J curve of wealth inequality. The next world war, and arguably some of the current global conflicts are driven by this issue.

DamagedTrax

ScumLord wrote: »

Of course we've yet to see this infamous video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s

building 7 is visible in the background.

ScumLord

DamagedTrax wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s

building 7 is visible in the background.

And it's pretty clear the reporters don't know the difference. They're looking right at it and continue to say it collapsed. That's more than likely because they're repeating news that they heard and being British they don't know any better. As she says herself it's hard to confirm anything, reporters are being kept away from the site.

It's a recurring problem with 24 hour news stations, they report what they hear immediately and don't take the time to fact check anymore. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't, when they wait to confirm facts people accuse them of covering up anyway so they might as well jump the gun for the exclusive bragging rights.

DamagedTrax

ScumLord wrote: »

And it's pretty clear the reporters don't know the difference. They're looking right at it and continue to say it collapsed. That's more than likely because they're repeating news that they heard and being British they don't know any better. As she says herself it's hard to confirm anything, reporters are being kept away from the site.

It's a recurring problem with 24 hour news stations, they report what they hear immediately and don't take the time to fact check anymore. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't, when they wait to confirm facts people accuse them of covering up anyway so they might as well jump the gun for the exclusive bragging rights.

i agree, i dont think the bbc were in on it at all. just that you asked to see the video. i do think it's odd that the feed was pulled as the building fell though, maybe realising their mistake and trying to save face?

i'd personally be more interested in finding out who the report orignated with in the first place.

RecordStraight

DamagedTrax wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s

building 7 is visible in the background.

Well that's me convinced.

*cough*

DamagedTrax wrote: »

i agree, i dont think the bbc were in on it at all. just that you asked to see the video. i do think it's odd that the feed was pulled as the building fell though, maybe realising their mistake and trying to save face?

They might have thought (correctly?) that people were dying in the building.

DamagedTrax

RecordStraight wrote: »

Well that's me convinced.

*cough*

what are you sarcastically convinced of?

all this video shows is that the BBC made a cock up OR somebody let a news story out of the bag a little early.

taken on its own its about as convincing as lucky larry trying to stumble his way out of the subsequent interview.

taken in context with everything else on the day, it becomes something that needs a proper explanation so as to move on from it. cause thats how investigations work.

DamagedTrax

RecordStraight wrote: »

They might have thought (correctly?) that people were dying in the building.

nobody died in WTC7. it had long been evacuated. every news organisation knew that.

RecordStraight

DamagedTrax wrote: »

nobody died in WTC7. it had long been evacuated. every news organisation knew that.

The BBC director in the news room knew that for sure?

I hate to demand sources, but it would be nice to know you weren't making this up.

RecordStraight

DamagedTrax wrote: »

taken in context with everything else on the day, it becomes something that needs a proper explanation so as to move on from it. cause thats how investigations work.

It has a proper explanation - a live TV foul-up.

Have you considered how many thousand people would have to know about a conspiracy on the scale you seem to be proposing? And none of them have squealed, and the people at the top knew they could rely 100% on that when planning this amazing coup? Can you provide a 'proper explanation' of that?

DamagedTrax

RecordStraight wrote: »

The BBC director in the news room knew that for sure?

I hate to demand sources, but it would be nice to know you weren't making this up.

i dont need to provide a source, its a fact. there is nobody on either side claiming there were people dying or killed in wtc7 because nobody but firefighters were in the building.

are you aware that wtc7 came down over 5 hours after the towers and the entire area was long evacuated?

RecordStraight

DamagedTrax wrote: »

i dont need to provide a source, its a fact. there is nobody on either side claiming there were people dying or killed in wtc7 because nobody but firefighters were in the building.

are you aware that wtc7 came down over 5 hours after the towers?

That's not what I am asking. I'm asking how you know that, as WTC7 fell, the guy controlling the pics for the Beeb knew there was nobody dying in the building?

DamagedTrax

RecordStraight wrote: »

That's not what I am asking. I'm asking how you know that, as WTC7 fell, the guy controlling the pics for the Beeb knew there was nobody dying in the building?

because there was nobody in the building other than firefighters.

unless he was really really paranoid and thought someone had snuck into possibly the most guarded area in the world on that day?

Wurzelbert

DamagedTrax wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s

building 7 is visible in the background.

it is entirely conceivable word in nyc might have been "could collapse" or "is about to collapse" and they just got it mixed up in all the confusion...and i would not have known wtc7 by name or looks back then either...the whole conspiracy thing is just preposterous...though not really beyond us government...pearl harbor comes to mind...

RecordStraight

DamagedTrax wrote: »

because there was nobody in the building other than firefighters.

unless he was really really paranoid and thought someone had snuck into possibly the most guarded area in the world on that day?

So they might have thought there were firefighters dying in there?

DamagedTrax

RecordStraight wrote: »

So they might have thought there were firefighters dying in there?

no, because it was reported by the same station that all firefighters had left the building before the building owner gave the word to 'pull it'.

bbc world news were very much on top of the situation as it happened.

google 'larry silverstein pull it' for the evidence of this. this statement is a huge part of the wtc7 conspiracy.

RecordStraight

DamagedTrax wrote: »

no, because it was reported by the same station that all firefighters had left the building before the building owner gave the word to 'pull it'.

bbc world news were very much on top of the situation as it happened.

google 'larry silverstein pull it' for the evidence of this. this statement is a huge part of the wtc7 conspiracy.

Are you CERTAIN about the order of events here? The BBC reported that the building was empty, and THEN cut away from the collapse?

Maximus Alexander

stevowhelo1 wrote: »

1. Do you believe 9-11, Boston Bombing and various other events were planned for the benefit of corrupt people or heads of state?

2. Is there such thing as a new world order or illumiti that controls the minds of people through subliminal messaging and were various celebrities killed for speaking out ?

3. Do you believe that ISIS or ISIL actually exists?

Even if the answers were yes, yes, no - what difference would it make? You'd still spend the rest of your days in drudgery, working day after day to pay bills to keep yourself alive and well enough so that you can get up the next day to do it all over again.

Basically, if all conspiracy theories are correct, but so well hidden as to be undetectable, they're irrelevant to you. Like God.

DamagedTrax

RecordStraight wrote: »

Are you CERTAIN about the order of events here? The BBC reported that the building was empty, and THEN cut away from the collapse?

no they didnt but their own explanation confirms me.

On September 11, 2001, Reuters incorrectly reported that one of the buildings at the New York World Trade Centre, 7WTC, had collapsed before it actually did. The report was picked up from a local news story and was withdrawn as soon as it emerged that the building had not fallen

which brings us back to where the story originated as being the most important thing.

ScumLord

DamagedTrax wrote: »

google 'larry silverstein pull it' for the evidence of this. this statement is a huge part of the wtc7 conspiracy.

Don't really see anything there either. They clearly knew the building was at risk due to damage and with everyone out what's the point of risking firefighters? "pull it" is a phrase used to end efforts. As in "pull the plug", end the activity.

DamagedTrax

Wurzelbert wrote: »

it is entirely conceivable word in nyc might have been "could collapse" or "is about to collapse" and they just got it mixed up in all the confusion

i agree 100%

but its still another unanswered question in a right mess. who made the initial report of the collapse before it happened?

RecordStraight

DamagedTrax wrote: »

which brings us back to where the story originated as being the most important thing.

What is your explanation of how the misreporting occurred, then?

RecordStraight

DamagedTrax wrote: »

i agree 100%

but its still another unanswered question in a right mess. who made the initial report of the collapse before it happened?

I'm going to say...THE JOOOS

ScumLord

DamagedTrax wrote: »

i agree 100%

but its still another unanswered question in a right mess. who made the initial report of the collapse before it happened?

Why does it matter? It could have been misheard from firefighters, people on the street, other news agencies, a guy in the office that didn't know which building was which. It could have come from anywhere and given the chaos of the day it may be next to impossible to find out.

DamagedTrax

ScumLord wrote: »

Don't really see anything there either. They clearly knew the building was at risk due to damage and with everyone out what's the point of risking firefighters? "pull it" is a phrase used to end efforts. As in "pull the plug", end the activity.

id agree if he'd said 'pull them out'

but even linguistic experts have claimed that the use of the word 'it' would be completely innapropriate if talking about people in the situation.

also the guy collected 4.3 billion from the 3 buildings collapsing. follow the money.

again, all things that mean nothing on their own.

Wurzelbert

ScumLord wrote: »

Don't really see anything there either. They clearly knew the building was at risk due to damage and with everyone out what's the point of risking firefighters? "pull it" is a phrase used to end efforts. As in "pull the plug", end the activity.

was just about to post that too...

DamagedTrax

ScumLord wrote: »

Why does it matter? It could have been misheard from firefighters, people on the street, other news agencies, a guy in the office that didn't know which building was which. It could have come from anywhere and given the chaos of the day it may be next to impossible to find out.

it wouldnt have mattered had the official investigation been independent and not hand picked by the US government.

ScumLord

DamagedTrax wrote: »

but even linguistic experts have claimed that the use of the word 'it' would be completely innapropriate if talking about people in the situation.

Which linguistic experts? I don't see how it would be inappropriate or unusual, I've heard people say "pull it" in relation to ending something.

DamagedTrax wrote: »

it wouldnt have mattered had the official investigation been independent and not hand picked by the US government.

If they weren't hand picked by the US government then who were they going to be hand picked by? It was the American government's duty to hand pick the investigation team, there's no other body that could have sanctioned people to go in and investigate.

RecordStraight

DamagedTrax wrote: »

id agree if he'd said 'pull them out'

but even linguistic experts have claimed that the use of the word 'it' would be completely innapropriate if talking about people in the situation.

These would be conspiracy theorist linguists, right?

Would it be the appropriate word to use if you were referring about giving up on the operation to save the building?

DamagedTrax wrote: »

also the guy collected 4.3 billion from the 3 buildings collapsing. follow the money.

again, all things that mean nothing on their own.

I think he was also a JOOO

Wurzelbert

DamagedTrax wrote: »

id agree if he'd said 'pull them out'

but even linguistic experts have claimed that the use of the word 'it' would be completely innapropriate if talking about people in the situation.

also the guy collected 4.3 billion from the 3 buildings collapsing. follow the money.

again, all things that mean nothing on their own.

sure, cui bono and all...so with that it seems we have arrived at the international jewish conspiracy....

DamagedTrax

ScumLord wrote: »

If they weren't hand picked by the US government then who were they going to be hand picked by? It was the American government's duty to hand pick the investigation team, there's no other body that could have sanctioned people to go in and investigate.

they could have sanctioned an independent body of experts and allowed them full access to the site and any evidence.

they didnt, they shipped the evidence off to china for recycling & got their cronies to run the investigation, who ran with the government explanation and redacted 28 pages on saudi arabia's involvement.

how can anyone not question that?

DamagedTrax

Wurzelbert wrote: »

sure, cui bono and all...so with that it seems we have arrived at the international jewish conspiracy....

why are you assuming its a jewish conspiracy?

Wurzelbert

DamagedTrax wrote: »

why are you assuming its a jewish conspiracy?

well with larry involved and all...

DamagedTrax

Wurzelbert wrote: »

well with larry involved and all...

nope. im aware there are jewish conspiracies about the event but as far as im concerned religion doesnt even come in to it.

maybe there were jews involved, its highly likely given the amount of them in america but ive no claims on a jewish conspiracy.

ScumLord

DamagedTrax wrote: »

they could have sanctioned an independent body of experts and allowed them full access to the site and any evidence.

What's an independant body of experts though? Experts don't just sit around waiting for the American government to call. They tend to work for companies and there could have been many national security issues that take a lot of companies out of the running. The American government have some of the worlds best experts on the subject in their employ already through their military.

they didnt, they shipped the evidence off & got their cronies to run the investigation, ran with the government explanation and redacted 28 pages on saudi arabia's involvement.

Shipping the evidence off to a secure location and investigating it is what happens in most cases and the evidence would have been so important that they would want to keep it very secure. I still don't really see a conspiracy here, it's what you would expect to happen. Redacting 28 pages about saudi Arabia doesn't seem out of the ordinary either especially if it starts off accusing them and ends up finding out maybe other things that they want to be able to act on, things that they don't want hand over to the international media.

DamagedTrax

ScumLord wrote: »

Shipping the evidence off to a secure location and investigating it is what happens in most cases and the evidence would have been so important that they would want to keep it very secure.

most of the evidence was melted and recycled without any investigation.

Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage.

(ny daily news)

Redacting 28 pages about saudi Arabia doesn't seem out of the ordinary either especially if it starts off accusing them and ends up finding out maybe other things that they want to be able to act on, things that they don't want hand over to the international media.

it doesnt seem out of the ordinary at all. zero transparency is how the bush administration treated the entire event. thats incredibly worng and just asking for conspiracies to evolve.

RecordStraight

DamagedTrax wrote: »

they could have sanctioned an independent body of experts and allowed them full access to the site and any evidence.

Sure same as they do for every other investigation. Oh, no, wait, the usual state authorities do them all.

RecordStraight

DT, can you please explain why your giant, earth-shattering conspiracy involving thousands of people who HAVE NEVER SAID A WORD is more likely than the BBC making a mistake in a live broadcast?

DamagedTrax

RecordStraight wrote: »

Sure same as they do for every other investigation. Oh, no, wait, the usual state authorities do them all.

exactly.

how can a body that is implicated by the destruction of evidence in a criminal investigation, investigate & exhonerate themselves.

why do you think this country is screaming for independent bodies to investigate and even manage the guards? its a joke to allow someone to investigate themselves.

DamagedTrax

RecordStraight wrote: »

DT, can you please explain why your giant, earth-shattering conspiracy involving thousands of people who HAVE NEVER SAID A WORD is more likely than the BBC making a mistake in a live broadcast?

where have i laid out what i think the conspiracy is?

if you want to talk reasonably then go ahead, if you want to dramatise the conversation by lying about what ive said and using BIG LETTERS then take it elsewhere. ive no interest in discussing this with a child.

RecordStraight

DamagedTrax wrote: »

where have i laid out what i think the conspiracy is?

You haven't. You just keep hinting at it. That's the problem.

Lay it out there and let's see which one seems more likely, shall we? Or are you just going to play a silly game where we are supposed to guess what explanation you are hinting at?

Please put your cards on the table like a man.

Saipanne

DamagedTrax

RecordStraight wrote: »

You haven't. You just keep hinting at it. That's the problem.

Lay it out there and let's see which one seems more likely, shall we?

you seem to think i have some great big theory that you're about to shoot down like a hero! i dont, sorry.

i know as much about what really happened as you do. ie, nothing.

i can see plenty of areas that need questions answered and i will lay these out for you. please try and keep in mind that these are QUESTIONS AND NOT THEORY... (caps for your benefit). please answer them in an easy to follow manner if possible, keep things straight and all that.


why was 80% of the evidence not examined?

why was operation able danger left out of the final report?

why was bulding 7 left out of the final report?

why was Pakistani General Mahmoud Ahmad on capital hill as a guest of the US government ON the morning of sept 11th, after wiring $100,000 to lead hijacker, Mohammad Atta?

why were the pages on Saudi Arabia redacted when most of the hijackers were Saudi?

why did Dick Cheney refuse to give an intercept order when the 'plane' was about to hit the pentagon? and why was that left out of the official report?

why, even though airspace was closed, were the bin laden family flown out by the US government?



anyway i have tons more questions that need to be answered. when/if they do ever get answered i'll form my opinion on what happened. until then i can only ponder.


OHH! i forgot about this one.. more of a general question. not just 9/11

why is it, when some high body count events happen, the authorities happen to be running a similiar training scenario that just happens to excuse the lack of response? 911. london bombings, boston marathon..


these are all questions we should be asking as a human race. i find it utterly bizarre that people refuse to question and just swallow some BS that the ruling party lays out.. just look at our own great leader, a proven liar.

RecordStraight

DamagedTrax wrote: »

you seem to think i have some great big theory that you're about to shoot down like a hero! i dont, sorry.

i know as much about what really happened as you do. ie, nothing.

I do know what happened. Terrorists flew planes into the buildings, and they fell down.

Your wheedling 'I don't have a theory' approach is hilarious, if unsubtle.

RecordStraight

DamagedTrax wrote: »

why was Pakistani General Mahmoud Ahmad on capital hill as a guest of the US government ON the morning of sept 11th, after wiring $100,000 to lead hijacker, Mohammad Atta?

Why would you wire 100k to a guy about to fly a plane into a building? To stuff his clothes and lessen the impact?

FFS. Some people would believe anything.

DamagedTrax

RecordStraight wrote: »

Why would you wire 100k to a guy about to fly a plane into a building? To stuff his clothes and lessen the impact?

FFS. Some people would believe anything.

clearly you have done very little research on 911 so ill end our conversation here and with this.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jul/22/usa.september11

Ahmed, the paymaster for the hijackers, was actually in Washington on 9/11, and had a series of pre-9/11 top-level meetings in the White House, the Pentagon, the national security council, and with George Tenet, then head of the CIA, and Marc Grossman, the under-secretary of state for political affairs. When Ahmed was exposed by the Wall Street Journal as having sent the money to the hijackers, he was forced to "retire" by President Pervez Musharraf. Why hasn't the US demanded that he be questioned and tried in court?

enjoy the read if the guardian is a reputable enough source for you. peace