# 'Conspiraloons' in the ascendancy?



## treelover (Oct 26, 2009)

> http://www.avlll.co.uk/
> 
> Common Sense is not a Conspiracy
> 
> An increasing number of people around world are starting to see through the charade of apparent trauma going on in the world around them. "The Alternative View" conference (AV3) at The Grand Thistle Hotel Bristol (13-15 November) is the third in a series of events which explore the phenomenon of why so many are now questioning what they previously took for granted. The Alternative View provides a forum for those who are sceptical about the on-going wars in Afghanistan & Iraq, the economic meltdown and subsequent banker bailouts, swine flu epidemics, the impact of the Lisbon Treaty on National Sovereignty, and the absurd claims that vitamins are now bad for us!



or



> Reclaiming Our Sovereignty                            Conference - Saturday 31st October 2009  www.thebcgroup. co.uk
> 
> The nation is in a state of collapse. We have collapsing industry, agriculture, basic economic infrastructure and health           provision. Rather than working to reverse this collapse, our politicians are working as hard as they can to have us               subsumed into a regionalised European superstate.
> 
> ...



It seems it is not just the far right that is growing in the political vaccuum that exists in the Uk, after all if you believe in nothing you end up believing in everything), going by the amount of meetings its looks like the conspiraloon(though not too keen on that term)movement is too, with various meetings around the country on issues like 'The Truth about Swine Flu', though they are mixed up by perfectly rational speakers talking about GM or Norm Baker On Dr Kelly


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2009)

These people aren't growing. They pretend that they are.


----------



## treelover (Oct 26, 2009)

Thats what I wondered, how many go to the meetings? still, a sign of decay in my mind.


----------



## Idaho (Oct 26, 2009)

It's a natural reaction to the widespread, and widely reported disinformation, propaganda and dissembling that occur on a daily basis. No-one trusts any official messages, leaving a free run for the nutters.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 26, 2009)




----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 26, 2009)

I think they are growing and I blame the internet. I will explain why shortly if anyone is interested and if I have time  but I have to finish a deadly dull report by 5.30pm.


----------



## treelover (Oct 26, 2009)

I reckon we need a 'punctuation' movement as well going by my awful sentence structure!

yes, BK, you are definitely someone in the know about such things, I've haven't really followed this but the scale of the meetings, the venues, etc suggests something big is happening.


----------



## 8den (Oct 26, 2009)

No. It's just they have more methods of spreading their nonsense. 

Look at it this way, if a mate wanted you to watch an Y2K conspiraloonery documentary ten years ago, they could text you, come over, stick in the video they had ordered via the mail, and make you watch it. Now they just send you a bloody YouTube link.


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 26, 2009)

treelover said:


> this but the scale of the meetings, the venues, etc suggests something big is happening.



Jazzz for PM?


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Oct 26, 2009)

My mate's turning into a complete conspiranoid.  I agree with the OP.

My experience is that more and more people I know are turning to conspiranoidary to help them make sense of the world, cos they don't seem to be getting any satisfactory help from any official bodies.


----------



## elbows (Oct 26, 2009)

Well the internet certainly helps people network, spread messages, find 'evidence' to backup their instincts & assumptions. There is also the echochamber effect, as well as the new found ease with which people can produce and distribute video.

Plus its easier than ever for people in the UK to pickup ideas from certain sections of American society which have more of a tradition of this sort of thinking (such as anti-fed, new age, libertarians, and from what I can tell certain sections of the African American community).

I think its hard to estimate quite how much its grown, how powerful it really is, though at a minimum its certainly more visible and the traditional media feel the need to draw attention to it and refute it more than before.

Apathy, cynicism, hopelessness when searching for credible alternatives, a prevailing ideological, political & economic direction, internationalism that is not well connected to the everyman, soundbite news & politics, poverty of ideas, lack of quality information, these and other factors surely play their part.

Its not all bad news. Whilst I am concerned about what this could lead to one day, especially if we are faced with decades of decline & loss of prosperity, some of the phenomenon at play demonstrate a willingness for people to try to make a positive difference in the world, no matter how misguided their views are at present.

I find the term conspiraloon generally unhelpful, personally I would reserve it for the most deluded babblings and even then I do not know that ridicule ever helped people with paranoid mental health issues. Perhaps it helps society to guard against being infected with dangerous ideas, perhaps not, Ive no idea.


----------



## elbows (Oct 26, 2009)

Plus its hard to separate the effects of the internet from the events of our time - Bush & Co and New Labour were not good for credibility of the mainstream, and the spectrum of acceptable politics has been steadily shrinking for a long time. Couple that with reduction is social mobility, and things like the EU, and its almost a wonder that alternative theories are not even more popular than they seem to be at present.

Deliberate disinformation and the loss of obvious scapegoats/enemies may also be a factor - its sort of hard to imagine what either conspiracy theories or the internet would look like if the cold war was still in full frost. 

Extremist views, revisionism and gossip are not new phenomenon, they are just easier to observe thanks to the net.


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 26, 2009)

i don't believe in lizards taking over the earth but you gotta be pretty naive if you can't see anything sinister in the Iraq war, David Kelly's death, Diana's death, Deepcut deaths etc. You may get the odd loon speaking there but on the whole i think most things discussed do have a sinister edge


----------



## Psychonaut (Oct 26, 2009)

I notice a lot of truthing from underground hip-hop over the last 5 years. Im not especially seeking it out, its like _'oh - him as well?'_


----------



## elbows (Oct 26, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> i don't believe in lizards taking over the earth but you gotta be pretty naive if you can't see anything sinister in the Iraq war, David Kelly's death, Diana's death, Deepcut deaths etc. You may get the odd loon speaking there but on the whole i think most things discussed do have a sinister edge



Well yes, and this is certainly an area where much care is needed. If we are going to ridicule people and use labels like conspiracy theory, there is a risk of becoming as blinkered as those we are attacking. Id prefer to judge each case on its own merits, although that isnt easy, especially when there is seldom enough info to make a concrete conclusion. But people like conclusions and stuff that supports their existing world view, and focus the mind on fighting the good fight and identifying the enemy.

Cynicism is probably ok if we are able to question our own motives as much as everyone elses, but thats easier said than done.

I dont hold out too much hope of improving things by looking at the areas Im droning on about, rather it will depend on other events in the world as to whether this stuff ends up being a real problem. Will our cynicism leading us towards a prison more ghastly than any we imagine already exists, or will, when the going gets tough and people no longer have the luxury of idle speculation and lack of faith, people put their faith into something broader and the mainstream of politics will be renewed? Once decay has reached a sufficient point that there becomes room for something new to grow, and Im not sure conspiracies will play a large role in shaping future growth, for such things tend only to offer fear and anger about the supposed present, rather than credible alternatives. So I reserve my moment of either extreme concern or hope for the time when such movements propose solutions and gain momentum, if that ever happens without them splitting into a thousand factions then I will have to pay close attention to where the reaction may take us.

Why am I so full of relatively useless waffle on this subject?


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 26, 2009)

some people just seem content to believe that everything is up and above board, and that anyone questioning authority's version events is nuts


----------



## 8den (Oct 26, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> some people just seem content to believe that everything is up and above board, and that anyone questioning authority's version events is nuts



Thats a sweeping generalisation. When it comes to pretty much every conspiracy theory from JFK to 911 I've looked at both sides arguments, and always found the conspiracy theories, lacking rationality, logic, and riddled with basic factual errors.


----------



## bhamgeezer (Oct 26, 2009)

Conspiracies are fine, it's only the conspiracies that distract from the real causes of problems by blaming stupid things like alien lizards or jewish mystics that are at fault. What happened to good ole' fashioned cynicism regarding other peoples motives?


----------



## treelover (Oct 26, 2009)

Still waiting for BK, genuinely interested in knowing growth patterns, etc.


----------



## JWH (Oct 26, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> i don't believe in lizards taking over the earth but you gotta be pretty naive if you can't see anything sinister in the Iraq war, David Kelly's death, *Diana's death*, Deepcut deaths etc. You may get the odd loon speaking there but on the whole i think most things discussed do have a sinister edge


----------



## toblerone3 (Oct 26, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> I think they are growing and I blame the internet. I will explain why shortly if anyone is interested and if I have time  but I have to finish a deadly dull report by 5.30pm.



I disagree. I feel that people are becoming slightly more aware of the unreliability of information on the Internet and the importance of credible sources. I think in the very early years of the Internet people were more open to alternative theories current affairs because of the way that the presentation of this information mimicked the presentation style of traditional (fact-checked) media.

I may be wrong though I could be biased by spending time on Urban75 which is so strongly robust towards alternative theories.


----------



## Diamond (Oct 26, 2009)

toblerone3 said:


> I disagree. I feel that people are becoming slightly more aware of the unreliability of information on the Internet and the importance of credible sources. I think in the very early years of the Internet people were more open to alternative theories current affairs because of the way that the presentation of this information mimicked the presentation style of traditional (fact-checked) media.
> 
> I may be wrong though I could be biased by spending time on Urban75 which is so strongly robust towards alternative theories.



I think that's a good point you have about the earlier days of t'internet presenting media in a familiar and therefore implicitly reliable way, however I wouldn't go with your idea about a growing scepticism flowing from the modern internet mediated environment.

From my point of view, the key characteristics of the information flow in the modern internet mediated environment are its enormous volume and fragmentary tendency.

If you take that as a standpoint the attraction of certain types of conspiracy theory becomes apparent - i.e. as organising principles who meet their limited objectives and by doing so appear to provide structure and logic to a chaotic and incomprehensible world.

Sort of like a pomo anti grand narrative modern religion.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2009)

There's no need to write like that Diamond.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2009)

People who are looking for something.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 26, 2009)

Idaho said:


> It's a natural reaction to the widespread, and widely reported disinformation, propaganda and dissembling that occur on a daily basis. No-one trusts any official messages, leaving a free run for the nutters.



Quite. The ' official line ' is that the world is warming.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/09/arctic-temperatures-what-hockey-stick/


----------



## joe 90 (Oct 26, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> People who are looking for something.



i cant find my phone. should i hang my head in shame?


----------



## Diamond (Oct 26, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> There's no need to write like that Diamond.



It's difficult to be concise, lucid and comprehensible.

In translation: 

Firstly, I use "modern internet mediated environment" instead of "the internet" because "the internet" fails to convey the entirety of people's everyday interaction with information through modern technology.

Secondly, to illustrate my point about the characteristics of the information flow in such an environment being volume and a fragmentary tendency - think Twitter and Tweets.

Thirdly, that was a bit of self parody at the end.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2009)

joe 90 said:


> i cant find my phone. should i hang my head in shame?


You mean the info flow has been spreadeagled? And that the internet has now created a two-way enviroment in the way that broadcast media could not?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2009)

Diamond said:


> It's difficult to be concise, lucid and comprehensible.
> 
> In translation:
> 
> ...



i think i win.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2009)

I'm only prodding btw Diamond.


----------



## Diamond (Oct 26, 2009)

Up to a point.

I think the key thing about the information flow is that it is massively multipolar.


----------



## toblerone3 (Oct 26, 2009)

Perhaps people will scoff at this but I think that the growth of Wikipedia as a reliable (or semi-reliable source) has been damaging for conspiracy theorists.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 26, 2009)

Sasaferrato said:


> Quite. The ' official line ' is that the world is warming.
> 
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/09/arctic-temperatures-what-hockey-stick/



conspiraloon


----------



## elbows (Oct 26, 2009)

Well my first exposure to what would now be called conspiracy theories was aged 17, a Lockerbie one via word of mouth from a friend, and an AIDS one via a bbs (the internet wasnt widely available at the time). I found them more believable than I would now, not sure if that was because of my age or just something personal to me or whether Ive grown weary over the years and learnt to apply cynicism more broadly. Learning a little bit about history and politics and reading declassified government papers probably helped.


----------



## Jazzz (Oct 26, 2009)

8den said:


> Thats a sweeping generalisation. When it comes to pretty much every conspiracy theory from JFK to 911 I've looked at both sides arguments, and always found the conspiracy theories, lacking rationality, logic, and riddled with basic factual errors.



Is there a 'basic factual error' or otherwise lack of logic in this video? Do enlighten me.


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 26, 2009)

lol -


----------



## invisibleplanet (Oct 26, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> I think they are growing and I blame the internet. I will explain why shortly if anyone is interested and if I have time  but I have to finish a deadly dull report by 5.30pm.



I blame the internet (especially earlier social networking sites such as myspace). A good friend whom I've known for many years began sending me (or forwarding me) conspiralunacy through myspace. I presumed he'd been spammed with it too by someone he didn't know in real life. He seemed to buy into it completely. I did try to explain how it could look so convincing, but to no avail. He's now lost to it, and has a complex defense mechanism which he deploys every time I counteract the tripe he talks. He's become an utter bore. 

I gave it a brief glance a few years ago now, and it seemed to originate from US right-wing patriots as anti-federalism and has since grown to become anti-'NWO'.


----------



## Jazzz (Oct 26, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> lol -



why 'lol'? You see only I came across that video last time JFK was mentioned, I posted it, and I don't believe 8den or anyone else commented on it then.

It seems very strong to me. Of course, I'm open to hearing criticism of it.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2009)

lol etc


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 26, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> why 'lol'?



Because you're like a fly to shit.


----------



## HarryinOz (Oct 27, 2009)

8den said:


> No. It's just they have more methods of spreading their nonsense.
> 
> Look at it this way, if a mate wanted you to watch an Y2K conspiraloonery documentary ten years ago, they could text you, come over, stick in the video they had ordered via the mail, and make you watch it. Now they just send you a bloody YouTube link.



I don't believe the number of conspiraloons has gone up but as mentioned above they have many more way's of spreading their nonsense ... 
 ie; one person could hire a hall and even though only 10 people turn up, they make a big thing out of it, mentioning it on their blog and their Friends blog and his (the guy who helped set up the projector), website which then gets reprinted and referred too on their friends blog and website  "how the people seeking the truth have even had a recent movie and information night which has been picked up by several blogs and websites" even though hardly anyone attended and the blogs and website all belong to only 2 people who organized the movie night in the first place.

But i do believe many people are looking for an alternative too the way present day politicians lie so easily and often and the disdain they show for the average member of the public.


----------



## Jazzz (Oct 27, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> Because you're like a fly to shit.


You may have a point, however even I'd say that's a little disrespective of 8den's post.


----------



## 8den (Oct 27, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> Is there a 'basic factual error' or otherwise lack of logic in this video? Do enlighten me.



5 points.  just off the top of my head. 

1. The author of the video of is using poorly blow up stills off a video to illustrate his point.

2. At 2.55 it shows a diagram of the car that is completely inaccurate, it shows Kennedy's seat as directly behind Connallys. However Connally was in a bucket seat, slightly lower and further to the right of Kennedy. It means the straight line trajectory of this "fourth bullet" could and should have gone through Connally, and none of Connally's injuries match this. Also such a basic factual calls into account the questionable research of the piece. 

3. Furthermore the author of the video is basically claiming the bullet travelled upwards through the back of Kennedy's skull it means the shooter would have to have been lower than the car, ahead of it and shooting up. A Ridiculous angle for an assassination. 

4. It makes enormous leaps and supposition about what Jackie Kennedy was thinking and her actions in the miliseconds during and shooting, She'd just watched her husbands brains explode in front of her, I sincerely doubt she was thinking or acting rationally, and any analysis of his actions is fucking vile.

5. The author is working off (inaccurate) 2D Maps of the car and plaza. http://www.markturner.com/jfk/index.htm Gives you a 3-D map. Surely if the video is correct you can point out where the shooter of this 4th bullet. (I'll give you a clue, underneath the Grassy Knoll),


----------



## 8den (Oct 27, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> You may have a point, however even I'd say that's a little disrespective of 8den's post.



You truly are a pathetic excuse for a human being. Fuck off and die, and become worm food, so you can start doing something worthwhile with your life.


----------



## Jazzz (Oct 27, 2009)

8den said:


> 4 points.  just off the top of my head.
> 
> 1. The author of the video of is using poorly blow up stills off a video to illustrate his point.
> 
> ...



1) The Zapruder film is the classic footage of the incident. It's a little strange to dismiss its frames. In addition the same point is also shown with x-ray and autopsy photo.

2&3) I think you misunderstood the diagram: the shot angle is claimed as coming from the side and only a little below.

4) If she didn't have JFK's brain in her hands I'm a bit puzzled how she gave it to the doctor.

anyway, I guess we'll disagree and I shall leave it there.


----------



## 8den (Oct 27, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> 1) The Zapruder film is the classic footage of the incident. It's a little strange to dismiss its frames.



I'm not dismissig Zapruder you fucking twat, I'm dismissing the quality of the blow up and video compression. 



> In addition the same point is also shown with x-ray and autopsy photo.



No it claims the exit wound is the same as the entry wound of another bullet. 




> 2&3) I think you misunderstood the diagram: the shot angle is claimed as coming from the side and only a little below.



Is the word "trajectory" in your vocabulary. The bullet was travelling upwards, either the sniper was traveling on a skateboard alongside the car, or the bullet was fired from fucking middle earth. 



> 4) If she didn't have JFK's brain in her hands I'm a bit puzzled how she gave it to the doctor.



She was holding his head you fucking dullard. 



> anyway, I guess we'll disagree and I shall leave it there.



How about we agree you are reprehensible asshole? 

I guess that means you're ignoring the bit about the seating arrangement in the car is completely different than the diagram. 

So you're an weasel faced snivelling fucking liar. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out, and go back to back peddling your way out of a half dozens conspiraloonery threads.


----------



## bluestreak (Oct 27, 2009)

And there we have it, in a nutshell.


----------



## JWH (Oct 27, 2009)

8den said:


> Is the word "trajectory" in your vocabulary. The bullet was travelling upwards, either the sniper was traveling on a skateboard alongside the car, or the bullet was fired from fucking middle earth.



I don't think it's really relevant but just FYI, there is in fact a comically large storm drain siver (?) located just off where the front left wheel would have been! I can't work out whether this is in the same direction you were talking about. Probably not. And in any case I don't think Elvis could have fit down there.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 27, 2009)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> My mate's turning into a complete conspiranoid.  I agree with the OP.
> 
> *My experience is that more and more people I know are turning to conspiranoidary to help them make sense of the world, cos they don't seem to be getting any satisfactory help from any official bodies*.



Sounds a bit like your mate was formally _too_ reliant on 'official bodies' for information then.

To get a 'lightbulb moment' of 'why are these bastards lying to me' is fair enough. But to leap straight from that to gullibly trusting anything and everything presented on out and out conspiranoia sites just because conspiranoids claim to 'distrust everything' is the instinct of a fool.

If you're going to be sceptical and distrustful, the best place to fucking *start* with scepticism and distrust is the made up, dubiously sourced, ill referenced, underquestioned, out and out raving batshit of conspiranoia websites and pop eyed 'visionaries' like the well barking Icke, Alex Jones, and their friends  drivelling away one on whale.to and prisonplanet and Rense etc. All five of those websites are bywords for total lunacy for anyone even marginally sane and intelligent.

If you don't distrust them, if you even ever cite them except to point and laugh, anyone's claim to 'distrust what they're told' by the Government is laughable.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 27, 2009)

Good posts from elbows btw. Looking forward to BK's return on this as well, she always talks sense because from painful experience she knows what so many of these conspiracists are really like.


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 27, 2009)

bhamgeezer said:


> Conspiracies are fine, it's only the conspiracies that distract from the real causes of problems by blaming stupid things like alien lizards or jewish mystics that are at fault. What happened to good ole' fashioned cynicism regarding other peoples motives?



got it in a nutshell.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 27, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> i don't believe in lizards taking over the earth but you gotta be pretty naive if you can't see anything sinister in the Iraq war, David Kelly's death, Diana's death, Deepcut deaths etc. You may get the odd loon speaking there but on the whole i think most things discussed do have a sinister edge



We've done this before trev, but it's crazy to suggest that just because you're anti conspiracist you must be instinctively gullible/trusting of the establishment/Government.

The best exposers of wrongnesses like Deepcut and aspects of the Iraq war were independent minded poltical types/campaigners and independent minded, dilligent investigative journalists/historians/researchers who put in the proper spadework and only use reliable information using reputable sources (ie not barking CT websites!!).

Get barking conspiracists onto their case though and their work gets hindered and discredited and obstructed.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 27, 2009)

bhamgeezer said:
			
		

> Conspiracies are fine, it's only the conspiracies that distract from the real causes of problems by blaming stupid things like alien lizards or jewish mystics that are at fault. What happened to good ole' fashioned cynicism regarding other peoples motives?



Fair enough, but for me especially including cynicism about the motives (and sanity!) of conspiracy theorists ...

I'm wary of anything presented as a conpiracy tbhm, just as I'm wary about 'official' narratives. As a historian I have to agree that some historical conspiracies end up getting proven through dilligent research from the sort of people I describe in my previous posts. They almost NEVER get exposed by out and out conspiracy theorists though


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 27, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> We've done this before trev, but it's crazy to suggest that just because you're anti conspiracist you must be instinctively gullible/trusting of the establishment/Government.
> 
> The best exposers of wrongnesses like Deepcut and aspects of the Iraq war were independent minded poltical types/campaigners and independent minded, dilligent investigative journalists/historians/researchers who put in the proper spadework and only use reliable information using reputable sources (ie not barking CT websites!!).
> 
> Get barking conspiracists onto their case though and their work gets hindered and discredited and obstructed.



i've never SEEN a conspiracy website!! I just make my mind up in each case about the likelihood of something sinister and in David Kelly, Deepcut, Diana, John Lennon etc, thats a high likelihood.
You gotta basically think "Does it make sense if.." and ask yourself if the person who got bumped off had greatly upset those in power...etc


----------



## Beanburger (Oct 27, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> Jazzz for PM?


Is he a lizard? 

Curious that someone posts a thread posing a reasonable question regarding the ascendancy of conspiraloonacy, and Jazzz manages to turn it round into a discussion about a conspiracy. 

Yes, conspiraloonacy is growing - from the casual sympathiser who jsut believes this shit because they've "read something on the internet", to the full-blown lizard-hunter who is irrevocably committed to the conspiraloon view of any given event, because that's the chosen paradigm within which they operate. It's the new religion. People need something to believe. They need to feel that there's order to their world. Even if that order is scary, the alternative - chaos - is even worse. 

If you look at the way most conspiraloons operate, it's identical to religious fanatics. They proceed from the view that their ideas are true, then selectively seek evidence to support those theories, twisting it and misrepresenting it. "Ah yes, the fossil record... god planted that there to test our faith!". The rational mind looks at the evidence and follows where it leads. Conspiraloons don't do this - they decide on their destination, then drag the evidence along with them.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 27, 2009)

Sasaferrato said:


> Quite. The ' official line ' is that the world is warming.
> 
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/09/arctic-temperatures-what-hockey-stick/



Yeah, but you've a proven record of being an out and out denialist on climate change Sas, and very gullible about/underquestioning of your own favourite sources/'gurus' too. The barking Christophers Booker and Monckton and the highly unbiased Daily Telegraph anyone? 

Not to mention having outed yourself many times on here as being a scientific near-illiterate on the subject. 

Ask the sadly absent Bernie Gunther and the still present free spirit ....


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 27, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> i've never SEEN a conspiracy website!!



That you _recognise_ as being conspiracist?


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 27, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> That you _recognise_ as being conspiracist?




i just never bother with websites to be honest!! You don't have to be mentally deprogrammed by lizards to think the state might do underhanded things!


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 27, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> You don't have to be mentally deprogrammed by lizards to think the state might do underhanded things!



Not disagreeing with that at all, but as you know my overall point is different ...


----------



## Beanburger (Oct 27, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> i just never bother with websites to be honest!! You don't have to be mentally deprogrammed by lizards to think the state might do underhanded things!


Conspiraloons often site this in support of their argument. "So you don't believe governments are dishonest and conspire then?" Well duh. If you wanna be that simplistic, then you could equally argue "So you don't believe terrorists wanna blow shit up then?" 

Of course governments are deceitful, devious and conspire. Of course terrorists wanna blow shit up. Neither fact proves a case one way or the other. Although if you wanna apply Occam's Razor, then it's a damn site harder for a government to fake 911 than it is for a bunch of terrorists to actually carry it out, so Occam's Razor falls on the side of the terrorist theory.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 27, 2009)




----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 27, 2009)

Wiki of Occam ... 

Easily applicable to slicing up and dissecting all known conpiracy theories


----------



## Trufflepig (Oct 27, 2009)

Conspiracy theories are village gossip on a global scale, the best story wins.  There was a horrifying murder of four in my folks village, it was amazing how formerly quiet pubs, butchers and barber shops were filled with people wanting to hear to the latest.  Within days every place had its expert and nobody I know followed the official line.

The biggest conspiracy theorists I know, smoke a lot of ganj,have done for a long time and spend too much time online. The stories that demographic lap up and re-transmit fit their own experiences of social isolation, paranoia, ennui, and boredom, tighter than OJs glove.


----------



## Beanburger (Oct 27, 2009)

Trufflepig said:


> Conspiracy theories are village gossip on a global scale, the best story wins.  There was a horrifying murder of four in my folks village, it was amazing how formerly quiet pubs, barbers, butchers and barber shops were filled with people wanting to hear to the latest.  Within days every place had its expert and nobody I know followed the official line.
> 
> The biggest conspiracy theorists I know, smoke a lot of ganj,have done for a long time and spend too much time online. The stories that demographic lap up and re-transmit fit their own experiences of social isolation, paranoia, ennui, boredom, tighter than OJs glove.


Precisely this.


----------



## Trufflepig (Oct 27, 2009)

Conspiracy theorists will often list names, university societies, relationships between families of ruling elites but cannot tell you the names of their own MP, local councilor, members of the cabinet etc.  They claim to understand all about how global credit, the WTO and world bank work, but go into the red every month.  Going on about how bad fluoridated toothpaste is while sucking hard on a spliff.  

Meanwhile the bloody aliens are buggering about in our wheat fields unchallenged.


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 27, 2009)

Trufflepig said:


> Meanwhile the bloody aliens are buggering about in our wheat fields unchallenged.



It would be a different matter if they were buggering about in hemp fields, i tell you.


----------



## Beanburger (Oct 27, 2009)

Trufflepig said:


> Going on about how bad fluoridated toothpaste is while sucking hard on a spliff.


Bit like wi-fi (sorry, wi-_fri_). I've heard many a hippy conspiraloon waffle on about how awful wi-fi is... usually with a mobile phone held to their head. Funny that. I remember them waffling on about how awful mobile phones were - when they were still expensive and hippy conspiraloons couldn't afford them.



> Meanwhile the bloody aliens are buggering about in our wheat fields unchallenged.


----------



## Beanburger (Oct 27, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> It would be a different matter if they were buggering about in hemp fields, i tell you.


----------



## Trufflepig (Oct 27, 2009)

Beanburger said:


>



Isn't that the the troof!

If I have to hear another simpleton going on about that bloody Zeitgeist film, I'll just have to warn them of the dangers of erotic auto asphyxiation or bleeding to death in the woods ...


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 27, 2009)

Infuriatingly, I can't find George Monbiot's thoroughly excellent demolition of 'Zeitgeist' anywhere on his website  , so this fine old pisstake of 9/11 'troofers' will have to do ...


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 27, 2009)

Ahh, OK, here we go : George eviscerates 'Zeitgeist' loonspuds .....


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 27, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> Ahh, OK, here we go : George eviscerates 'Zeitgeist' loonspuds .....





> There is a virus sweeping the world. It infects opponents of the Bush government, sucks their brains out through their eyes and turns them into gibbering idiots. First cultivated in a laboratory in the United States, the strain reached these shores a few months ago. In the past fortnight it has become an epidemic. Scarcely a day now passes without someone possessed by this sickness, eyes rolling, lips flecked with foam, trying to infect me.



They need a vaccine for that.


----------



## Beanburger (Oct 27, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> They need a vaccine for that.


Don't pharmaceutical multinationals make lots of money from vaccines?


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 27, 2009)

Beanburger said:


> Don't pharmaceutical multinationals make lots of money from vaccines?



Ok, forget that, make it Vitamin D supplements instead.


----------



## JWH (Oct 27, 2009)

No, folic acid in the bread, iodine in the salt and flouride in the water!



trevhagl said:


> i've never SEEN a conspiracy website!! I just make my mind up in each case about the likelihood of something sinister and in David Kelly, Deepcut, Diana, John Lennon etc, thats a high likelihood. You gotta basically think "Does it make sense if.." and ask yourself if the person who got bumped off had greatly upset those in power...etc








OK, I'm going to bite. What do you think the *real* story with John Lennon and Diana was, then?


----------



## Beanburger (Oct 27, 2009)

JWH said:


> No, folic acid in the bread, iodine in the salt and flouride in the water!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He boned her?


----------



## xes (Oct 27, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


>



If only OR was used properly  (we'd have enough substantial circumstantial evidence for ET disclosure)


----------



## Barking_Mad (Oct 27, 2009)

Conspiraloons aren't in the asendency, but people talking about them are.


----------



## treelover (Oct 27, 2009)

Yawn, thanks for that er contribution


----------



## Barking_Mad (Oct 27, 2009)

treelover said:


> Yawn, thanks for that er contribution



Jesus wept.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 27, 2009)

Barking_Mad said:


> Jesus wept.



Yeah, but Jesus was a hippy, so you have to expect "getting in touch with his inner crybaby" new-age shit like that.


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 27, 2009)

> i don't believe in lizards taking over the earth but you gotta be pretty naive if you can't see anything sinister in the Iraq war, David Kelly's death, Diana's death, Deepcut deaths etc. You may get the odd loon speaking there but on the whole i think most things discussed do have a sinister edge



The thing is trev, you won't listen when someone confronts you with a simple piece of actual evidence - e.g. Diana wasn't wearing a seatbelt and that this was the main contributory factor to her injuries and subsequent death. Which is why many of us relegate you from 'healthy cynic' to 'swallows anything'.

Re: increase in loonery...difficult to tell, since it's only recently that the loonies have been able to communicate with each other on such a wide scale. Nothing new with it really tho - it's just struck me that it's very similar to the tales of demons etc that would quickly pass from village to village back in the days before the printing press, but had very little actual bearing on reality.

Do I think govts and corps can do bad things? Yes.
Does this mean I think every bad thing in the worfld is a result of a cabal rich caucasians ganging up? No


----------



## 8den (Oct 27, 2009)

xes said:


> If only OR was used properly  (we'd have enough substantial circumstantial evidence for ET disclosure)



xes your occams razor is a pair of safety scissors you carry while wearing heavy mittens, with the string through the coat's shoulders so you don't lose them.


----------



## xes (Oct 27, 2009)

8den said:


> xes your occams razor is a pair of safety scissors you carry while wearing heavy mittens, with the string through the coat's shoulders so you don't lose them.



Yes, this is true, wanna fight about it?


----------



## 8den (Oct 27, 2009)

xes said:


> Yes, this is true, wanna fight about it?



Post lunch drink partaken there Xes?

You're constantly talking about your gut, or your feelings, when it comes to your beliefs, your claim that people would believe in aliens if Occams razor is "properly used", is just laughable. 

Not as laughable as your use of the phrase  "substantial circumstantial evidence", suggesting that you don't know what the words "substantial" and "circumstantial" mean, if you did you'd realise that phrase is what we call a "oxymoron". Though I suspect my usage of the word "oxymoron" brings the number of words in this paragraph that you don't understand up by one.


----------



## xes (Oct 27, 2009)

Yeah, but I had 1 shot less (trying to save money)


----------



## 8den (Oct 27, 2009)

xes said:


> Yeah, but I had 1 shot less (trying to save money)



A semi pissed angry UFO nerd. Help. For the love of god help.


----------



## xes (Oct 27, 2009)

8den said:


> Post lunch drink partaken there Xes?
> 
> You're constantly talking about your gut, or your feelings, when it comes to your beliefs, your claim that people would believe in aliens if Occams razor is "properly used", is just laughable.



Not what i claimed at all, but you can go ahead and put words in my mouth if you like. 

But if thousands of people, every year, report things in the sky. Including qualified pilots, top military personal. With objects showing on radar, time and time again. Then a logical conclusion would be, that there is something going on that we don't fully understand. Occams razor says that the simplest solution is the right one. Now, the simplest solution, for thousands of reports, many of which are from qualified observers, WITH radar evidence. Would be that they are telling the truth. Not that they are all bonkers. It's quite simple, really.


----------



## Beanburger (Oct 27, 2009)

xes said:


> Then a logical conclusion would be, that there is something going on that we don't fully understand. Occams razor says that the simplest solution is the right one. Now, the simplest solution, for thousands of reports, many of which are from qualified observers, WITH radar evidence. Would be that they are telling the truth. Not that they are all bonkers. It's quite simple, really.


Quite. But "something we don't fully understand" isn't the same thing as alien spacecraft. 

Put it this way. Every year, thousands of christians report direct, first-hand experience of speaking to the Lord. That suggests to me that there's something going on that we don't fully understand... not that the second coming is imminent.


----------



## xes (Oct 27, 2009)

Beanburger said:


> Quite. But "something we don't fully understand" isn't the same thing as alien spacecraft.
> 
> Put it this way. Every year, thousands of christians report direct, first-hand experience of speaking to the Lord. That suggests to me that there's something going on that we don't fully understand... not that the second coming is imminent.



Yes, but voices in your head, and stuff showing up on radar, a mile long, wittnessed by 2 pilots and a plane load of passengers..... Are 2 different things, completly.


----------



## Beanburger (Oct 27, 2009)

xes said:


> Yes, but voices in your head, and stuff showing up on radar, a mile long, wittnessed by 2 pilots and a plane load of passengers..... Are 2 different things, completly.


Physically verifiable phenomena are different, yeah. But that still doesn't prove that there are aliens in the sky.


----------



## xes (Oct 27, 2009)

ok, no, it's not actual proof. But if you can come up with a good explanation for 2, 1 mile long objects floating in the sky, one of which appeared as if from nowhere, then I'm all ears.


----------



## Beanburger (Oct 27, 2009)

xes said:


> ok, no, it's not actual proof. But if you can come up with a good explanation for 2, 1 mile long objects floating in the sky, one of which appeared as if from nowhere, then I'm all ears.


Haven't got a clue. But given the very limited perspective of human beings, and our relatively young science, I think it's a bit of a leap to assume that Occam's Razor demonstrates that aliens are the most likely explanation.


----------



## xes (Oct 27, 2009)

I think using Occams razor  as a "rule" for anything, is a bit of a leap. But folk round here do love to trot it out every now and then to try and "prove" a point.  (not winking at you btw, just in general)


----------



## Beanburger (Oct 27, 2009)

xes said:


> I think using Occams razor  as a "rule" for anything, is a bit of a leap. But folk round here do love to trot it out every now and then to try and "prove" a point.  (not winking at you btw, just in general)


Yeah, I agree. OC doesn't _prove _anything, it's just a good rule of thumb for checking whether sound logic is being applied.


----------



## xes (Oct 27, 2009)

Logic and reason have NO place in my world dag nammit


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 27, 2009)

JWH said:


> No, folic acid in the bread, iodine in the salt and flouride in the water!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



John Lennon? Who knows. He was a major embarrassment to gung ho warmongers, and he was absolutely HUGE. Some loner bumped him off and various things just didn't add up ensued (if i cared i would look into that for you)

Diana, see my 9 million posts before this. Or briefly, Driver had complete memory wipeout of the most tragic night of his life, had thousands of euros paid into his account shortly beforehand by spooks. She was deeing a coloured gentlemen and was rumoured to be pregnant to him (and last i remember the Royals were not up on the old race relations). The cameras on the tunnel were pointing the wrong way, the media went way over the top in branding anyone suspicious as a loon including a grieving father.
None of this i got from a dodgy website by the way


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 27, 2009)

He was a major embarrassment to the peace types too.


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 27, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> He was a major embarrassment to the peace types too.




or anyone with musical taste


----------



## 8den (Oct 27, 2009)

xes said:


> Not what i claimed at all, but you can go ahead and put words in my mouth if you like.
> 
> But if thousands of people, every year, report things in the sky. Including qualified pilots, top military personal. With objects showing on radar, time and time again. Then a logical conclusion would be, that there is something going on that we don't fully understand. Occams razor says that the simplest solution is the right one. Now, the simplest solution, for thousands of reports, many of which are from qualified observers, WITH radar evidence. Would be that they are telling the truth. Not that they are all bonkers. It's quite simple, really.



That doesn't mean that a variety of unexplained phenomena can only be adequately explained by intelligent extraterrestrial craft.


----------



## Beanburger (Oct 27, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> or anyone with musical taste




Not to mention..... Yoko? _Oh no_!


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 27, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> Diana, see my 9 million posts before this. Or briefly,* Driver had complete memory wipeout of the most tragic night of his life*



Death has a habit of wiping out memory.


----------



## Signal 11 (Oct 27, 2009)

xes said:


> stuff showing up on radar, a mile long, wittnessed by 2 pilots and a plane load of passengers





http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=8693100&postcount=32


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 27, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> Death has a habit of wiping out memory.



oops i meant the survivor!! I can't remember his name, or care.


----------



## 8den (Oct 27, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> Driver had complete memory wipeout of the most tragic night of his life,



Er yeah, thats by product of being, y'know dead. You mean the bodyguard. And weirdly people suffering from amnesia after massive head trauma caused by a traffic accident isn't uncome. 



> had thousands of euros paid into his account shortly beforehand by spooks.



Source please. 



> She was deeing a coloured gentlemen



She had been seeing surgeon Hasnat Khan for two years before Dodi. 



> and was rumoured to be pregnant to him



Baseless her autopsy showed she wasn't pregnant. 



> (and last i remember the Royals were not up on the old race relations). The cameras on the tunnel were pointing the wrong way, the media went way over the top in branding anyone suspicious as a loon including a grieving father.



The grieving father is a loon. 



> None of this i got from a dodgy website by the way



Well done congratulations you read the fucking express then. 

You clearly are deficient on the facts.


----------



## 8den (Oct 27, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> oops i meant the survivor!! I can't remember his name, or care.



Trevor Rees-Jones. If you don't care then shut the fuck up spreading bullshit about the subject.


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 27, 2009)

someone has just disected and tried to disprove my argument as if he was a solicitor, scary!!


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 27, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> oops i meant the survivor!! I can't remember his name, or care.



you mean Trevor Rees-Jones, who _"suffered serious head injuries in the crash. His face was flattened: numerous bones were broken or crushed. His face was reconstructed from family photographs by a maxillofacial surgeon, Luc Chikhani, using about 150 pieces of titanium to hold the bones together and recreate the original shape."_

Hardly surprising he lost his memory is it? And it wasn't him that had thousands in his bank accounts, so that debunks that one.

Get real - drunk driver, speeding, has accident, passengers not wearing seatbelts = death.


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 27, 2009)

8den said:


> Trevor Rees-Jones. If you don't care then shut the fuck up spreading bullshit about the subject.



aye thats the one.
I only care about arguing with establishment sheep. Good fun!


----------



## 8den (Oct 27, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> someone has just disected and tried to disprove my argument as if he was a solicitor, scary!!



You're a fucking idiot.


----------



## 8den (Oct 27, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> aye thats the one.
> I only care about arguing with establishment sheep. Good fun!



Guh Huh! Everyone who disagrees with my conspiraloonery shit is a establishment sheep!


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 27, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> you mean Trevor Rees-Jones, who _"suffered serious head injuries in the crash. His face was flattened: numerous bones were broken or crushed. His face was reconstructed from family photographs by a maxillofacial surgeon, Luc Chikhani, using about 150 pieces of titanium to hold the bones together and recreate the original shape."_
> 
> Hardly surprising he lost his memory is it? And it wasn't him that had thousands in his bank accounts, so that debunks that one.
> 
> Get real - drunk driver, speeding, has accident, passengers not wearing seatbelts = death.



you may even be right. I wasn't there. But to say that she was DEFINATELY NOT BUMPED OFF is equally as absurd. YOU weren't there either.


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 27, 2009)

Just about tea time so i will leave you to masturbate over your finest Royal memorial mugs


----------



## 8den (Oct 27, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> you may even be right. I wasn't there. But to say that she was DEFINATELY NOT BUMPED OFF is equally as absurd. YOU weren't there either.



YEAH MAN DIANA'S DEATH IS LIKE NAM YOU WEREN'T THERE! MAN! YOU DON'T KNOW!

There is no evidence of a conspiracy. No white fiat. 

Drunk driver speeds through streets and crashes, only person to survive is the only person wearing a fucking seatbelt. 

It'd be a bit of shit assassination if it could have been thwarted by Diana belting up you fucking muppet.


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 27, 2009)

8den said:


> YEAH MAN DIANA'S DEATH IS LIKE NAM YOU WEREN'T THERE! MAN! YOU DON'T KNOW!
> 
> There is no evidence of a conspiracy. No white fiat.
> 
> ...




Yeah right, "she's got a seatbelt on, abandon the assassination!"


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 27, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> Just about tea time so i will leave you to masturbate over your finest Royal memorial mugs



twat


----------



## 8den (Oct 27, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> Yeah right, "she's got a seatbelt on, abandon the assassination!"



Are you defective. Are you a complete idiot? Why would you risk killing one of the most famous person in the world in a conspiracy that would bring down the english establishment, in a manner than could be defeated by a fucking seatbelt? 

Never mind she was only casually shagging Dodi, theres no evidence they were engaged, and no evidence she was pregnant. You're digging yourself in deeper here you fucking dingbat.


----------



## Beanburger (Oct 27, 2009)

8den said:


> Are you defective. Are you a complete idiot? Why would you risk killing one of the most famous person in the world in a conspiracy that would bring down the english establishment, in a manner than could be defeated by a fucking seatbelt?
> 
> Never mind she was only casually shagging Dodi, theres no evidence they were engaged, and no evidence she was pregnant. You're digging yourself in deeper here you fucking dingbat.


Don't hold back. Tell us how you _really _feel.


----------



## 8den (Oct 27, 2009)

Beanburger said:


> Don't hold back. Tell us how you _really _feel.



I have an allergic reaction to stupid, it makes my tourrettes flair up.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 27, 2009)

The 'national outpouring of grief' (tm) was far more suspicious than the circumstances of her death. Who stole the Stiff Upper Lip?


----------



## xes (Oct 27, 2009)

Signal 11 said:


> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=8693100&postcount=32



please stop quoting him at me. He may be very, very good at some things, but he's also very, very bad at others. The official stories bandied about on this subject, from the goverments ect, are pretty much all bullshit. Now, Mr Bad Astronomy will only take his references and stuff, from credible sources, and that's perfect for some subjects, but it doesn't work when the official sources don't tell you what's actually going on. Becasue they are telling you porkies. That's the whole conspiracy, the cover up. And there has been, and still is one. 

 There's a doc, made for the history chanel, called "I know what I saw" It has the pilot, and a shed load of highly credible witnesses. It also has the pictures of the radar images (of that and other cases), and the transcripts/recordings from the black box recordings. "why is it ufos are only seen by rednecks named Bubba"  http://video.google.co.uk/videosear...&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wv&view=2&dur=3  It's on there. If you got an hour and a half spare, check it out  

I believe


----------



## elbows (Oct 27, 2009)

The thing with most conspiracies that gives them some legs is that there is motive, often multiple motives, why someone might have been bumped off. People jump on that and then go looking for any evidence to backup the theory, no matter how silly the evidence is.

I would certainly not bet my life that such conspiracies are untrue, nor would I bet my life that they were true. Some of them are a bit more plausible than many posters on here suggest, but thats not the same as there being any decent proof that any of them are true.


----------



## Signal 11 (Oct 27, 2009)

xes said:


> please stop quoting him at me.



I didn't quote "him" at you. I quoted the air traffic controller, who was in the best position to say whether anything showed up on the radar. He said that nothing showed up on the radar.

If you think you can refute his evidence, do so on the appropriate thread instead of derailing this one. Likewise if you think you can substanciate your claim about an object "a mile wide", as I asked you to do at the time.


----------



## xes (Oct 27, 2009)

Well, if you watch that video, you'll heart it from the pilot, who has the tape recording, half an hour of taped radar, the official FAA report and a chart with all of the objects that should have been in the sky. Not bad for an event that never happened.


----------



## elbows (Oct 27, 2009)

Alien and JFK conspiracies were the ones that used to get quite a lot of attention in the mass media in the days before widespread internet access. At least there is more variety now


----------



## elbows (Oct 27, 2009)

Does anyone think that if the IRA were just at the stage of doing mainland bombing campaign now, there would be more conspiracy theories about attacks, due to the internets?


----------



## xes (Oct 27, 2009)

elbows said:


> Does anyone think that if the IRA were just at the stage of doing mainland bombing campaign now, there would be more conspiracy theories about attacks, due to the internets?



Definatly. It'd all be part of the new world orders plan to bring in martial law, so that they can kill us all in prison camps. And lets not forget the false flag attack conspiracies. They'd love it.


----------



## 8den (Oct 27, 2009)

elbows said:


> Does anyone think that if the IRA were just at the stage of doing mainland bombing campaign now, there would be more conspiracy theories about attacks, due to the internets?



Alex Jones claims that the Omagh bombing was carried by British Security services.


----------



## Jazzz (Oct 27, 2009)

8den said:


> YEAH MAN DIANA'S DEATH IS LIKE NAM YOU WEREN'T THERE! MAN! YOU DON'T KNOW!
> 
> There is no evidence of a conspiracy. No white fiat.
> 
> ...



She was alive after the crash. The assassination was completed in the ambulance.


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 27, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> She was alive after the crash. The assassination was completed in the ambulance.



Of course it was. 

*now where did I leave his meds*


----------



## 8den (Oct 27, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> She was alive after the crash. The assassination was completed in the ambulance.



Ah accusing a team of Parisian paramedics of murdering someone, without a shred of evidence. Dr Jazzz ladies and gentlemen, just so classy.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 27, 2009)




----------



## 8den (Oct 27, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


>



I do think it's far to say that any bushwacking Jazzz is doing is in the comics page.


----------



## Jazzz (Oct 27, 2009)

8den said:


> I'm not dismissig Zapruder you fucking twat, I'm dismissing the quality of the blow up and video compression.
> 
> No it claims the exit wound is the same as the entry wound of another bullet.


It claims that the exit wound is a dislodged piece of skull that was hanging still attached to the scalp, resulting in the grotesque frame of the Zapruder film. It provides a very good explanation for that, and the video quality is quite good enough.

The implication is that that could only be an exit wound.

You haven't actually pointed out where this reasoning is going wrong, and really without that I have to consider that this is a strong piece of evidence.



> Is the word "trajectory" in your vocabulary. The bullet was travelling upwards, either the sniper was traveling on a skateboard alongside the car, or the bullet was fired from fucking middle earth.


You seem to be the one not getting it. The alleged angle of the shot is 3-4 degrees upwards and 22 degrees from the side (I guess from the storm drain). There would be absolutely no problem with interference.



> She was holding his head you fucking dullard.


okay.


----------



## 8den (Oct 27, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> It claims that the exit wound is a dislodged piece of skull that was hanging still attached to the scalp, resulting in the grotesque frame of the Zapruder film. It provides a very good explanation for that, and the video quality is quite good enough.
> 
> The implication is that that could only be an exit wound.



The implication is wrong, it's perfectly acceptable that it could be an entrance wound. 



> You haven't actually pointed out where this reasoning is going wrong, and really without that I have to consider that this is a strong piece of evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Your sketch of the car ignored the actual layout of the car, and how Connally would have been in the way. 

And the "guh huh" you guess. The storm drain would have been near dozens of witnesses. 

Oswald could have made the three shots that caused all the wounds. Your first job is to refute that Oswald couldn't have made the shots. Not for me, to find some fictitious shooter you guess might have been somewhere.


----------



## Jazzz (Oct 27, 2009)

8den said:


> Ah accusing a team of Parisian paramedics of murdering someone, without a shred of evidence. Dr Jazzz ladies and gentlemen, just so classy.



I'm telling you how it happened. You made that good point that such an assassination attempt would be silly if you could not be sure of killing the person with the crash. And you couldn't.

You can, however, control the scene immediately after. Now was it really a coincidence (in addition to all the CCTV mysteriously not working in the tunnel) that a doctor was on scene the very next minute, an ambulance extremely quickly... and then.... it takes fully *95 minutes* to drive Diana to hospital? That's plenty of time to let someone die.


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 27, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> I'm telling you how it happened.



lol


----------



## 8den (Oct 27, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> I'm telling you how it happened. You made that good point that such an assassination attempt would be silly if you could not be sure of killing the person with the crash. And you couldn't.
> 
> You can, however, control the scene immediately after. Now was it really a coincidence (in addition to all the CCTV mysteriously not working in the tunnel) that a doctor was on scene the very next minute, an ambulance extremely quickly... and then.... it takes fully *95 minutes* to drive Diana to hospital? That's plenty of time to let someone die.



And you fucking contemptible little obnoxious shit, you worthless little worm, you'd know that in the UK and US paramedics work in a stabilise and run practice. Get a pulse, get them in an ambulance, and leg it to the emergency or casualty ASAP. However in France and several other mainland European countries the protocol is to give much more first aid on the scene, before taking them to the hospital. Both schools of thought have their merits and flaws, and in the aftermath of the Diana crash the french team came into criticism from British and American Paramedic experts, _but the fact remains they weren't doing anything different from standard french paramedic procedure after a serious car crash._

They didn't "let her die" You rancid little wanker, they worked their arses off. Oh and you nothing takes away from the fact that you are accusing a team of french paramedics of being complicit of murder you feckless cowardly little fucktard.


----------



## Bakunin (Oct 27, 2009)

8den said:


> No it claims the exit wound is the same as the entry wound of another bullet.



Which would be a somewhat (at best) specious claim for this reason:

1. Anyone with even an elementary knowledge of ballistics and gunshot wounds knows that, in the vast majority of cases, the exit wound is larger (often considerably larger) than the entry wound. And the chances of hitting a moving target, with a bolt action rifle (they take a couple of seconds to recock and aim between shots, even with a skilled rifleman), in such a way as to make two headshots in exactly the same spot on the head in question, are so slim as to be virtually nil.

That, Jazzz, is a scientific and medical FACT.

Anyone with an elementary knowledge of firearms, ballistics and gunshot wounds knows these things.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 27, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> I'm telling you how it happened. You made that good point that such an assassination attempt would be silly if you could not be sure of killing the person with the crash. And you couldn't.
> 
> You can, however, control the scene immediately after. Now was it really a coincidence (in addition to all the CCTV mysteriously not working in the tunnel) that a doctor was on scene the very next minute, an ambulance extremely quickly... and then.... it takes fully *95 minutes* to drive Diana to hospital? That's plenty of time to let someone die.


do you think the death of a royal parasite is anything to mourn?


----------



## Jazzz (Oct 27, 2009)

it would only take one or two renegade people at the scene or in the ambulance, 8den.

Sorry to knock your argument on the head.

You don't take it very well when that happens do you? 

Regarding your puerile abuse - you do realise that we see the world as a reflection of ourselves?


----------



## Jazzz (Oct 27, 2009)

Bakunin said:


> Which would be a somewhat (at best) specious claim for this reason:
> 
> 1. Anyone with even an elementary knowledge of ballistics and gunshot wounds knows that, in the vast majority of cases, the exit wound is larger (often considerably larger) than the entry wound. And the chances of hitting a moving target, with a bolt action rifle (they take a couple of seconds to recock and aim between shots, even with a skilled rifleman), in such a way as to make two headshots in exactly the same spot on the head in question, are so slim as to be virtually nil.
> 
> ...



It's clear you haven't watched the . Do you want to come back when you have done so?


----------



## 8den (Oct 27, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> do you think the death of a royal parasite is anything to mourn?



No but I think that suggesting that a team of paramedics let someone die inexcusable. 

Theres a brilliant moment when NY Tour Guide Mark Roberts turns to Alex Jones at a 9/11 memorial at ground zero, and presents him with a list of Jones' quotes implying the FDNY are implicated in the "911 conspiracy theory" and suggests that Jones might like to walk a couple of blocks and repeat these claims inside a FDNY department close to ground zero. Jones declines, probably because he would need someone to help him pick up his teeth because his arms would also be broken.


----------



## 8den (Oct 27, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> It's clear you haven't watched the . Do you want to come back when you have done so?



Ah bless the assumption that someone hasn't watched your evidence, otherswise how could they not draw your own conclusions. Heaven for fucking fend that someone could look at your evidence and not come to the same conclusion as you. 

Jazzz whats your opinion about the shoddy diagram of the car and it's incorrect layout.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 27, 2009)

if other people will join me, i'll put five euros towards jazzz taking a trip to paris to meet the paramedics to see how they appreciate his tripe.


----------



## fogbat (Oct 27, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> Regarding your puerile abuse - you do realise that we see the world as a reflection of ourselves?



Do you consider yourself to be a misanthropic, scheming conspirator, then?


----------



## 8den (Oct 27, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> it would only take one or two renegade people at the scene or in the ambulance, 8den.



And which specific members of the crew are you accusing of murder?



> Sorry to knock your argument on the head.
> 
> You don't take it very well when that happens do you?
> 
> Regarding your puerile abuse - you do realise that we see the world as a reflection of ourselves?



Well you a cunt. It can be difficult to accept. Cunt. 

And as to puerile abuse, I'm calling you names assfuck, you're basely accusing people of murder, and you're trying to scramble up to the higher ground? 

Are you that conceited? Arrogant? Lack that level self of awareness? That much of an asshole? Or all of the above?


----------



## Jazzz (Oct 27, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> do you think the death of a royal parasite is anything to mourn?


This doesn't really have anything to do with the question of whether she was in an accident or 'accidented'.

As it is, I know well the fashionable line is that caring about Diana is something for common people, but I don't blame them because she really used her position for some worthwhile issues. Madonna claimed that she was only person who would draw press attention away from her. The military industry must have hated her, and we know what the rest of the 'royal parasites' thought of her.


----------



## Bakunin (Oct 27, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> It's clear you haven't watched the . Do you want to come back when you have done so?



Jazzz.

I'm from a military family. Hence I know more than the average civilian does about weapons and their effect on the human body. Not everything, but enough to be certain in my own mind that Oswald fired the shots.

I'm a crime writer. I have, surprise surprise, some degree of knowledge of how assassins operate. And that includes the 'lone gunman' type like Oswald.

I've fired rifles with live rounds, having received tuition in shooting, gunshot wounds and the ballistics thereof, from a combat veteran of 21 years military service, which included some six years of warfare at the very least.

If you want to convince me then you'd have to do a lot better than three or four people I've never even heard of telling me something that goes against what the aforementioned combat veteran (and my own experience) taught me, I'm afraid.

On a side note, there is a certain irony in that a thread that originally started out noting that the number of conspiracy theories and their exponents seems to have risen in the internet age, has itself descended into yet another hoary old conspiracy thread.


----------



## Jazzz (Oct 27, 2009)

8den said:


> And as to puerile abuse, I'm calling you names assfuck, you're basely accusing people of murder, and you're trying to scramble up to the higher ground?



It's really not difficult is it 8den. Why don't you calm down and have a nice cup of tea?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 27, 2009)

Bakunin said:


> I have, surprise surprise, some degree of knowledge of how assassins operate. And that includes the 'lone gunman' type like Oswald.


yeh? don't you think that it's more likely that oswald  might have meant to kill the one person in that car he had a genuine grievance for, rather than jfk?


----------



## Jazzz (Oct 27, 2009)

Bakunin said:


> Jazzz.
> 
> I'm from a military family. Hence I know more than the average civilian does about weapons and their effect on the human body. Not everything, but enough to be certain in my own mind that Oswald fired the shots.
> 
> ...



That's as maybe, but the fact is your previous post had nothing at all to do with the scenario as outlined in the video. Why don't you watch it, rather than waffling?


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 27, 2009)

8den said:


> Jazzz whats your opinion about the shoddy diagram of the car and it's incorrect layout.



 for the benefit of the delusional paranoid mad man.


----------



## 8den (Oct 27, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> It's really not difficult is it 8den. Why don't you calm down and have a nice cup of tea?



Ah, so accused paramedics of murdering someone they are trying to save isn't a big deal. 

Jazzz would you just fuck off and die, so can be buried, decomposing, become worm food and start to perform some useful function in society.


----------



## Jazzz (Oct 27, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> for the benefit of the delusional paranoid mad man.



 this isn't the 'magic bullet' critique, and the car layout doesn't matter


----------



## 8den (Oct 27, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> this isn't the 'magic bullet' critique, and the car layout doesn't matter



Yes it does you fucking numpity Connally was lower and further to the right of Kennedy, and the trajectory of your video ignores that. If you accept the *fact* that Connally was further to the right, its unlikely your fourth bullet could have hit Kennedy without passing through Connally.


----------



## Jazzz (Oct 27, 2009)

8den said:


> Ah, so accused paramedics of murdering someone they are trying to save isn't a big deal.
> 
> Jazzz would you just fuck off and die, so can be buried, decomposing, become worm food and start to perform some useful function in society.


I think people have got the general gist, as it were 8den. Perhaps you should have anger management? These are bulletin boards, people will say things that you may object to strongly, but if you flood threads with abuse like that maybe there's something you should look at inside yourself?


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 27, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> the car layout doesn't matter



Of course it fucking does.


----------



## Jazzz (Oct 27, 2009)

8den said:


> Yes it does you fucking numpity Connally was lower and further to the right of Kennedy, and the trajectory of your video ignores that. If you accept the *fact* that Connally was further to the right, its unlikely your fourth bullet could have hit Kennedy without passing through Connally.


You're just waving your hands around. You certainly haven't done the maths.


----------



## Jazzz (Oct 27, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> Of course it fucking does.


How does it affect the central argument of the video?


----------



## Bakunin (Oct 27, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh? don't you think that it's more likely that oswald  might have meant to kill the one person in that car he had a genuine grievance for, rather than jfk?



I doubt it.

Oswald wasn't a poor a shot as his many detractors have claimed. In point of fact, Oswald qualified for the US Marine Corps Sharpshooter badge and it wasn't until he was given his second court martial that he began to lose interest in marksmanship.

It is possible that Oswald was aiming for someone other than Kennedy, granted, but I doubt very much that he was. Marine Corps Sharpshooters usually hit what they aim at, as a rule.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 27, 2009)

Bakunin said:


> Marine Corps Sharpshooters usually hit what they aim at, as a rule.


yeh? and how much had oswald been practicing since he departed the usmc with a dishonourable discharge?


----------



## Bakunin (Oct 28, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh? and how much had oswald been practicing since he departed the usmc with a dishonourable discharge?



Only Oswald is likely to know how much he'd been practicing and he's dead, so is somewhat beyond being questioned on the subject. The fact remains that Oswald was a perfectly good shot when he wanted to be, although no marksman is ever perfect.

Anyway, I'm not going to waste time on another conspiracy thread. I've got other things that need doing and I didn't intend to get this involved in the thread anyway.


----------



## 8den (Oct 28, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> You're just waving your hands around. You certainly haven't done the maths.



I have you twat. The video you mentioned completely ignores the seating difference between Connally and Kennedy. 

Hey Jazzz lets play wriggle out of this one. 

Was Kennedy's seat directly behind Connally's and at the same Height. Yes or No?


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Oct 28, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh? and how much had oswald been practicing since he departed the usmc with a dishonourable discharge?


It's not something you really lose over time. Once you know how to shoot you need fifteen minutes down the range to get back to 95%.


----------



## Yossarian (Oct 28, 2009)

Bakunin said:


> I've got other things that need doing and I didn't intend to get this involved in the thread anyway.


----------



## elbows (Oct 28, 2009)

This conspiracy to waste my time must cease, or I will unleash the new world ostrich to set your pants on fire.


----------



## 8den (Oct 28, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh? and how much had oswald been practicing since he departed the usmc with a dishonourable discharge?



Oswald graduated the USMC with a sharpshooter grade. It made him a mediocre shot by marine standards, but compared to most of us it made him an excellent shot. 

Kennedy was travelling at around walking speed on a horizontal axis. This is the perfect line for a marksman. It's easier to hit someone travelling on a mainly Y axis than on the X axis. 

It wasn't a hard shot to make. Oswald had three chances and over 3 seconds per shot. Any competent marksman could make it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 28, 2009)

Bob_the_lost said:


> It's not something you really lose over time. Once you know how to shoot you need fifteen minutes down the range to get back to 95%.


utter bollocks. look at us army field manual 23-10 - sniper training. page 9-1 states clearly:





> Sniping skills perish quickly; therefore, sniper teams must sustain and sharpen those skills regularly.


https://rdl.train.army.mil:443/soldierPortal/atia/adlsc/view/public/9504-1/fm/23-10/fm23_10.pdf


----------



## 8den (Oct 28, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> utter bollocks. look at us army field manual 23-10 - sniper training. page 9-1 states clearly:https://rdl.train.army.mil:443/soldierPortal/atia/adlsc/view/public/9504-1/fm/23-10/fm23_10.pdf



Doesn't change the fact that Oswald was trying to shoot someone with the rifle's range and within his basic training skill set. 

And again Oswald wasn't a sniper he was an adequately trained marksman


----------



## 8den (Oct 28, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> I think people have got the general gist, as it were 8den. Perhaps you should have anger management? These are bulletin boards, people will say things that you may object to strongly, but if you flood threads with abuse like that maybe there's something you should look at inside yourself?



This faux "Oh man chill" attitude would be sweet but Jazzz we've seen you lose it so completely here on several occasions, it would be like the pot calling the kettle something that their employers would have to send them on a cultural and racial sensitivity course.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Oct 28, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> utter bollocks. look at us army field manual 23-10 - sniper training. page 9-1 states clearly:https://rdl.train.army.mil:443/soldierPortal/atia/adlsc/view/public/9504-1/fm/23-10/fm23_10.pdf


That's because they're working on the last 5%.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 28, 2009)

8den said:


> Doesn't change the fact that Oswald was trying to shoot someone with the rifle's range and within his basic training skill set.
> 
> And again Oswald wasn't a sniper he was an adequately trained marksman


the point still stands that shooting skills atrophy. where's the evidence that he'd maintained the skills he had in the military prior to 22/11/63?


----------



## Beanburger (Oct 28, 2009)

8den said:


> This faux "Oh man chill" attitude would be sweet but Jazzz we've seen you lose it so completely here on several occasions, it would be like the pot calling the kettle something that their employers would have to send them on a cultural and racial sensitivity course.


It's also sneeringly patronising, and thus completely hypocritical coming from someone pretending to occupy the moral high ground. Abuse is abuse. Swear words aren't a pre-requisite. Although they do help.


----------



## Beanburger (Oct 28, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> She was alive after the crash. The assassination was completed in the ambulance.


You were there, were you? 

The unflinching certainty of your argument undermines your credibility. You could at least have the humility to acknowledge that regardless of your personal belief, the case is far from proven.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 28, 2009)

yeh  the assassination could have been completed at the hospital


----------



## Beanburger (Oct 28, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh  the assassination could have been completed at the hospital


By lizards.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 28, 2009)

Beanburger said:


> By lizards.



whatever. i'm not fussed anyway.


----------



## ExtraRefined (Oct 28, 2009)

Beanburger said:


> By lizards.



With a holographic orbital nano thermite laser


----------



## Beanburger (Oct 28, 2009)

ExtraRefined said:


> With a holographic orbital nano thermite laser


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 28, 2009)

I think the smug establishment whores on here should read the Michael Mansfield book. I haven't got round to that chapter yet but i will back to argue with you all when i do!!


----------



## fogbat (Oct 28, 2009)

Like a pig rolling in its own faeces.


----------



## Beanburger (Oct 28, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> I think the smug establishment whores on here should read the Michael Mansfield book. I haven't got round to that chapter yet but i will back to argue with you all when i do!!


Oooh, establishment! You're so BIG!!!!


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 28, 2009)

Which Mansfield book is that trev?


----------



## invisibleplanet (Oct 28, 2009)

Beanburger said:


> By lizards.



... from Cornwall


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 28, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> I think the smug establishment whores on here should read the Michael Mansfield book. I haven't got round to that chapter yet but i will back to argue with you all when i do!!



£575 an hour


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 28, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> He was a major embarrassment to the peace types too.



"Imagine no whining hippies..."

It *should have* been a line in that fucking song!!


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 28, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Which Mansfield book is that trev?



"Radical Lawyer" - it's just came out. The establishment whores on here will froth at the mouth if they read it! Covers everything from the Stephen Lawrence enquiry to various 70's injustices etc.


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 28, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> I think the smug establishment whores on here should read the Michael Mansfield book. I haven't got round to that chapter yet but i will back to argue with you all when i do!!



So, you are absolutely 100% convinced that it wasn't an accident and you bring Mansfield's name up to support your theory, the same Mansfield that said, "I found it difficult simply to accept that what happened in the Alma Tunnel in Paris was ‘just one of those tragic things’. *Of course it might have been..."*


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 28, 2009)

Well having just read the blurb on 'Radical Lawyer', there's not a lot in there that's about to rock any establishment...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 28, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> The 'national outpouring of grief' (tm) was far more suspicious than the circumstances of her death. Who stole the Stiff Upper Lip?




Your mum.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 28, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> if other people will join me, i'll put five euros towards jazzz taking a trip to paris to meet the paramedics to see how they appreciate his tripe.


I've got a 20 euro note with his name on it (well actually it has "conspira-bitch" written on it).


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 28, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> So, you are absolutely 100% convinced that it wasn't an accident and you bring Mansfield's name up to support your theory, the same Mansfield that said, "I found it difficult simply to accept that what happened in the Alma Tunnel in Paris was ‘just one of those tragic things’. *Of course it might have been..."*



anythings possible , but the reason i think it was PROBABLY an accident is there's so much suspicious stuff going around (NOT from conspiracy websites , i haven't even seen em)


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 28, 2009)

Are you quoting Mansfield there trev?


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 28, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Well having just read the blurb on 'Radical Lawyer', there's not a lot in there that's about to rock any establishment...




not ROCK the establishment, as many of those things are common knowledge by now, but he certainly stuck his neck out, i mean would YOU represent in court someone whose son was widely thought (outside Urban at least) to have been murdered by one of the the most powerful organisations in the world?


----------



## fogbat (Oct 28, 2009)

Not in a good mood today, so excuse the rudeness.

But seriously, trev. Just fuck off, yeah?


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 28, 2009)

fogbat said:


> Not in a good mood today, so excuse the rudeness.
> 
> But seriously, trev. Just fuck off, yeah?



ain't establishment whores so rude!!


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 28, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> anythings possible , but the reason i think it was PROBABLY an accident is there's so much suspicious stuff going around (NOT from conspiracy websites , i haven't even seen em)



So, you agree it probably was an accident.

WTF are you banging on about then?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 28, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> not ROCK the establishment, as many of those things are common knowledge by now, but he certainly stuck his neck out, i mean would YOU represent in court someone whose son was widely thought (outside Urban at least) to have been murdered by one of the the most powerful organisations in the world?



For £575 an hour, i most certainly would, yes.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 28, 2009)

I take the view that if I was running a massively powerful spook agency I'd choose a far more straightforward method of execution. There are undetectable poisons, for instance. A car crash just seems to messy and unpredictable for a professional hit.


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 28, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> So, you agree it probably was an accident.
> 
> WTF are you banging on about then?



fuck me well spotted, i meant " wasN'T an accident "!!  I was up early today, before even 9AM, so i'm not on top form!


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 28, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> For £575 an hour, i most certainly would, yes.




not even for £10,000 an hour, I mean if you pissed off the hells angels you could probably get away but piss off the security services and they can find ya anywhere (Look at Martin McGartland)


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 28, 2009)

So why is he not dead then?


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 28, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> So why is he not dead then?



he very nearly was - the IRA found him despite all his attempts to keep a low profile


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 28, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> fuck me well spotted, i meant " wasN'T an accident "!!  I was up early today, before even 9AM, so i'm not on top form!



Make your fucking mind up. 



trevhagl said:


> there's so much suspicious stuff going around (NOT from conspiracy websites , i haven't even seen em)



Amazing isn't it? All that money to be made writing newspaper articles & books and doing TV interviews. 



trevhagl said:


> someone whose son was widely thought (outside Urban at least) to have been murdered by one of the the most powerful organisations in the world?



Widely thought amongst Daily Express readers, I'll give you that.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 28, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> he very nearly was - the IRA found him despite all his attempts to keep a low profile


I mean Mansfield - after all he's dared cross the most fiendish organisation ever know to human civilization.


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 28, 2009)

i think it's only because of brave people like Mansfield etc that reigns in the security services, if everyone was like those on here and never questioned anything suspicious they would feel far more confident


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 28, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> You're just waving your hands around. You certainly haven't done the maths.



Have *you* "done the maths"?
No, you're going by what someone else tells you.

You do this quite a lot, this "research" that's only deep enough to skim the surface of the internet or a few "pot-boiler" books by conspiracy theorists.
There's lots of incredibly interesting stuff out there about the JFK assassination:. Stuff about "the two Oswalds", about Oswald's purported trip to the Soviet embassy in Mexico, about the multiple ways LBJ benefited, about former JM/WAVE personnel being in Dallas at the time of the assassination. Loads of avenues to explore that don't require a dancing bullet or a shot that would have had to be made at such an acute angle from the storm drain to Kennedy, that the trajectory would be compromised by both the car body and the passengers.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 28, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> i think it's only because of brave people like Mansfield etc that reigns in the security services, if everyone was like those on here and never questioned anything suspicious they would feel far more confident



Why isn't he dead then?


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 28, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> Make your fucking mind up.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



yes i've made my mind up it WAS a typing mistake. So i'll never make a solicitor.


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 28, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> i think it's only because of brave people like Mansfield etc that reigns in the security services, if everyone was like those on here and never questioned anything suspicious they would feel far more confident



Don’t be fucking stupid now, you can question things and come to logical conclusions.

Or you can be a loon, like yourself.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 28, 2009)

8den said:


> Oswald graduated the USMC with a sharpshooter grade. It made him a mediocre shot by marine standards, but compared to most of us it made him an excellent shot.
> 
> Kennedy was travelling at around walking speed on a horizontal axis. This is the perfect line for a marksman. It's easier to hit someone travelling on a mainly Y axis than on the X axis.
> 
> It wasn't a hard shot to make. Oswald had three chances and over 3 seconds per shot. Any competent marksman could make it.



Given a decent weapon, anyway.


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 28, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Why isn't he dead then?



i haven't got to the point in the book where he tells why, but he actually started cycling to work because of death threats (logic being it was harder to hide a bomb on a pushbike).

and if he ever does get bumped off they'll all be queuing up on here to say "as the media said...it was an accident!"


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 28, 2009)

Why wasn't he killed?


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 28, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> Don’t be fucking stupid now, you can question things and come to logical conclusions.
> 
> Or you can be a loon, like yourself.




i don't think YOU have done much questioning.
A poll just after the "accident" showed about half of the UK thought it was murder. Thats a lot of loons!


----------



## fogbat (Oct 28, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> ain't establishment whores so rude!!



Ain't tediously, consistently, unrepentantly thick as pigshit twats so tediously, consistently, unrepentantly thick as pigshit?

I mean, seriously, how do you manage to post on the internets without a helper monkey?


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 28, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Why wasn't he killed?




who was doing the threatening if everything in UK society is fair and above board?


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 28, 2009)

fogbat said:


> Ain't tediously, consistently, unrepentantly thick as pigshit twats so tediously, consistently, unrepentantly thick as pigshit?
> 
> I mean, seriously, how do you manage to post on the internets without a helper monkey?




do you believe the moon is made of cheese ?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 28, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> who was doing the threatening if everything in UK society is fair and above board?



Sorry, i must have missed the bit where i argued that. Why wasn't he killed?


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 28, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Sorry, i must have missed the bit where i argued that. Why wasn't he killed?



why wasn't he? There's still time. What i'm saying is if he IS killed it will be an accident no doubt.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 28, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> utter bollocks. look at us army field manual 23-10 - sniper training. page 9-1 states clearly:https://rdl.train.army.mil:443/soldierPortal/atia/adlsc/view/public/9504-1/fm/23-10/fm23_10.pdf



He wasn't a sniper, you prannet, he was a sharpshooter. In other words, he proved he could place a certain number of rounds from an iron-sighted rifle into a certain size of target from 100-250 yards, *not* that he could blow somebody's brains out from 400-800 yards away with a telescopic-sighted rifle.


----------



## treelover (Oct 28, 2009)

bit late but KS said



> Re: increase in loonery...difficult to tell, since it's only recently that the loonies have been able to communicate with each other on such a wide scale. Nothing new with it really tho - it's just struck me that it's very similar to the tales of demons etc that would quickly pass from village to village back in the days before the printing press, but had very little actual bearing on reality.




But surely that wass before the days of universal education, the elightenment, Darwin, the diminishing of the power of religion, etc, though the last is reasserting itself in various guises.


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 28, 2009)

> But surely that wass before the days of universal education, the elightenment, Darwin, the diminishing of the power of religion, etc, though the last is reasserting itself in various guises.



You can't change the tendency in humans that create bad pattern matching tho - which ultimately is what drives superstitions and conspiracy theories. There's a specific term for it which I forget atm.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 28, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> You can't change the tendency in humans that create bad pattern matching tho - which ultimately is what drives superstitions and conspiracy theories. There's a specific term for it which I forget atm.



Paralogic?


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 28, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> i think it's only because of brave people like Mansfield etc that reigns in the security services, if everyone was like those on here and never questioned anything suspicious they would feel far more confident



I'm going to read Mansfield's book for myself, rather than just take your spin about it on trust ...


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 28, 2009)

> But surely that wass before the days of universal education, the elightenment, Darwin, the diminishing of the power of religion, etc, though the last is reasserting itself in various guises.



You can't change the tendency in humans that create bad pattern matching tho - which ultimately is what drives superstitions and conspiracy theories. There's a specific term for it which I forget atm.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 28, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> The thing is trev, you won't listen when someone confronts you with a simple piece of actual evidence - e.g. Diana wasn't wearing a seatbelt and that this was the main contributory factor to her injuries and subsequent death. Which is why many of us relegate you from 'healthy cynic' to 'swallows anything'.
> 
> Re: increase in loonery...difficult to tell, since it's only recently that the loonies have been able to communicate with each other on such a wide scale. Nothing new with it really tho - it's just struck me that it's very similar to the tales of demons etc that would quickly pass from village to village back in the days before the printing press, but had very little actual bearing on reality.
> 
> ...



This from kyser was way back on page 4 (only just caught up here  ) but I've bolded the bit that makes most sense. 

Being sceptical about conspiracy theories does *not* mean  that you're gullible to what the establishment tell you**. Illogical leap of thought is illogical.

**(as CTers persistantly and abusively insist, while simultaneously being gullible and undersceptical as fuck to any and every conspiranoid claim about anything)

So you'd really really do yourself a *major* favour trev, if you dropped all this 'establishment sheep' abuse  against anyone who doesn't share your levels of conspiracism about Diana  -- you're just undermining your own case ...


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 28, 2009)

> But surely that wass before the days of universal education, the elightenment, Darwin, the diminishing of the power of religion, etc, though the last is reasserting itself in various guises.



You can't change the tendency in humans that create bad pattern matching tho - which ultimately is what drives superstitions and conspiracy theories. There's a specific term for it which I forget atm.


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 28, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> You can't change the tendency in humans that create bad pattern matching tho - which ultimately is what drives superstitions and conspiracy theories. There's a specific term for it which I forget atm.



Heard you the first two times, anything new to say?


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 28, 2009)

trevhagl said:
			
		

> I think the smug establishment whores on here should read the Michael Mansfield book. I haven't got round to that chapter yet but i will back to argue with you all when i do!!



Just a moment on Mansfield. 

It would seem that he was paid, handsomely, to represent Mohamed Al Fayed legally. Perhaps, all the same, he really, sincerely entertains doubts about what really caused the death of Diana. On the other hand, maybe we should follow the conspiracy theorists' own favourite path and 'follow the money' and ask 'who benefits?' from Mansfield professing these doubts  ...  ?? 

His book will be very interesting in places no doubt, and at times in his career I'm aware he did some pretty admirable and brave things.

I have my own 'doubts' though that representing a well known and very rich conspiranoid fantasist represented MM's finest hour**

**This sentence is just my honest opinion and does not imply any actual allegation of fact </disclaimer>


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 28, 2009)

> But surely that wass before the days of universal education, the elightenment, Darwin, the diminishing of the power of religion, etc, though the last is reasserting itself in various guises.



You can't change the tendency in humans that create bad pattern matching tho - which ultimately is what drives superstitions and conspiracy theories. There's a specific term for it which I forget atm.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 28, 2009)

As for this thread overall ...



Yossarian said:


>


----------



## xes (Oct 28, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> This from kyser was way back on page 4 (only just caught up here  ) but I've bolded the bit that makes most sense.
> 
> Being sceptical about conspiracy theories does *not* mean  that you're gullible to what the establishment tell you**. Illogical leap of thought is illogical.


With this in mind, that conspiracies DO happen and stuff. Then which ones are real? (edit to add, this in reply to WoWs reply to the Kyser bit in bold)

Which "conspiracies" do the people who don't believe in the main lot of conspiracies, believe? 

Pretty much every single conspiracy is rubbished. Wether from lack of evidence, or lack of credible sources, whatever. And that's just fine, we all believe what we like. But when people say "yeah sure, the goverments are bad and do a little bit of conspiring here and there" just what are they refering to? I'd like to know  (please) 

So, a question to the "non conspiracy" people. What conspiracies _do_ you think are kosher?


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 28, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> You can't change the tendency in humans that create bad pattern matching tho - which ultimately is what drives superstitions and conspiracy theories. There's a specific term for it which I forget atm.



WTF is going on?


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 28, 2009)

xes said:


> With this in mind, that conspiracies DO happen and stuff. Then which ones are real? (edit to add, this in reply to WoWs reply to the Kyser bit in bold)
> 
> *Which "conspiracies" do the people who don't believe in the main lot of conspiracies, believe?*
> 
> ...



Not too many. 

But I'm a historian by background, so you might find me surprisingly open to work by independent minded investigative journalists/researchers/historians that use *proper* investigative methods. And show a healthy awareness to what real evidence is. And who recognise the biases and vested interests and flaws that are found in *all* sources, CTist just as much as 'establishment', yet are still able to balance claim against claim, fact against fact, voice against voice, and after that are _still_ able to draw rational, evidence-consistent conclusions, or at least possible conclusions. 
Recognising too the incompleteness and inconclusiveness that is sometimes all that is possible. 

And most of all, who disassociate themselves from *relying* (note bold) on indiscriminate, undersceptical, scattergun-approach conspiracist sources and websites.

I've bolded the bit of your post that IMO you've got arse about tit though -- how many *conspiracy supporters* _ever_ debunk or show scepticism towards their own or other conspiracy theories? How many CTers show equally heavy levels of scepticism towards conspiracist sources and claims as they do towards establishment sources and 'official' versions of events?

Except in odd cases where CTers engage in turf wars between themselves over same-conspiracy detail with other CTers in the same field, I rarely if ever see any CTer ever debunk a CT or accept any possibility that sites like that whale.to, Rense, Alex Jones and Icke are chock full of barkingly insane shite ....


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 28, 2009)

Our work internet broke and it made some weird things happen..

OR

It was the establishment lizards


----------



## Signal 11 (Oct 28, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> You can't change the tendency in humans that create bad pattern matching tho - which ultimately is what drives superstitions and conspiracy theories. There's a specific term for it which I forget atm.



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


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 28, 2009)

i've always thought there's something dodgy about diana's death as well. these type of threads make me despair because even though the official story for all of these things has massive holes in it, why believe something else that's even more blatantly a steaming pile of horseshit?


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 28, 2009)

Actually, the Diana narrative is pretty hole free.

And listen, please:

She died because she wasn't wearing a seatbelt. The only person who was wearing a seatbelt was her bodyguard and _he lived_.

As 8Den pointed out, it's a pretty shit assasination attempt that can be beaten with a seatbelt.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 28, 2009)

someone better tell that to my aunt, she regarded it as a personal attack that she was expected to wear a seatbelt in our car


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 28, 2009)

Sorry, that report ended up being a nightmare and I never got back to this discussion. And now I haven't time to go into the internet angle properly because my lunchtime is over. But I wanted to pass on some links that people might find interesting

Dr Patrick Leman at Royal Holloway and Professor Chris French  are very good on this subject and I recommend reading their stuff to find out factual stuff about the rise of conspiracy theories, as well as really interesting research into the psychology of believers and non-believers.


There was a  C4 Education documentary a few years back in which they tested out some of their findings.

(Documentary called' Who Really Runs the World' and is here). ( Full disclosure: I was a contributor to the doc but had nothing to do with their experiment)  

Dr Leman wrote a famous New Scientist article, a copy of which can be found here.

Key bits: apols for long C&P but it is a really good article


> Unfortunately there has been little research carried out into what kind of events trigger conspiracy theories, who tends to believe them, and why. We do know, however, that people who believe in one theory are more likely to believe in others: there is a good chance that someone who believes the moon landings were faked will also believe that JFK was killed by a second gunman from the infamous grassy knoll.
> 
> There are some variations in who believes what, though, as shown by an as yet unpublished study I carried out recently in the UK with psychologist Chris French at Goldsmiths College, London. We found that beliefs in JFK conspiracies are highest among people aged 36 and over, while those between 20 and 35 are most likely to see a conspiracy behind the 9/11 attacks. Surprisingly, perhaps, the youngest age group - 19 and under - are least likely to endorse any theory.
> 
> ...


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 28, 2009)

Chris French is a dude. He was my ex's psychology tutor, and he was excellent at debunking stuff...very funny man too...


----------



## elbows (Oct 28, 2009)

Great stuff BK. I find the stuff about age and disempowerment to be very interesting. Ive certainly noticed that some of the paranoid conspiracy types are looking for explanations as to why their lives and dreams have not come to fruition, and are looking for a simple force they can blame.

The comments about anti-conspiracy people having similar bias also rings true to me, for whilst there are a good many sensible posts here that refute the detail of conspiracies, there can be a tendency to protest too much, which probably only reinforces the beliefs of the conspiranoids.

Personally I tend to deal with all of these issues by coming to terms with the fact that I just dont know the exact reality behind many situations, there is usually plenty of murk and even if I cut away the more ridiculous ideas there are still plenty of question marks.


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 28, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Actually, the Diana narrative is pretty hole free.
> 
> And listen, please:
> 
> ...



some bodyguard if he didn't check she was wearing one - it wouldn't be the same bloke who had thousands paid into his bank account by spooks would it?


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 28, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> i've always thought there's something dodgy about diana's death as well. these type of threads make me despair because even though the official story for all of these things has massive holes in it, why believe something else that's even more blatantly a steaming pile of horseshit?



my sentiments entirely, but it's far easier to just gang up on someone and abuse them.


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 28, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> some bodyguard if he didn't check she was wearing one - it wouldn't be the same bloke who had thousands paid into his bank account by spooks would it?



The person with thousands in their bank account was Henri Paul, the driver who died, there was no evidence that the money had come from anywhere other than tips from wealthy clients, wages and rent from his tenants.


----------



## 8den (Oct 28, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> some bodyguard if he didn't check she was wearing one -



Oh piss off, they leapt into a dark car and which was speeding off, he's was her bodyguard not her fucking mummy. 



> Turning to the plan to fool the paparazzi, he said a decoy car was to leave from the front of the hotel while Dodi and the Princess slipped out of the rear and drove to an apartment off the Champs Elysees.
> 
> "I was not happy as Dodi was separating the two security officers, but I went along with the arrangement. It was also Dodi who decided that Paul would be driving the car," he said.
> 
> Under cross examination by Michael Mansfield QC, for Mr Al Fayed, he conceded it must have been Mr Paul who gave him details of the plan but insisted that it was still Dodi's idea.



So to be clear, this bodyguard who you suppose was in on it, was against the idea of going in that car. And Dodi picked Paul Henry as the driver. 



> it wouldn't be the same bloke who had thousands paid into his bank account by spooks would it?



Really where's your proof, because your precious Michael Mansfield



> Mr Rees was shown a letter written by Mr Fayed to Lord Stevens, who conducted an inquiry into the crash, in 2004.
> 
> In it, he described his former employee as "deceitful" and accused him of pretending to have lost his memory after been "paid off" by the security services to "suppress the truth" about the accident.
> 
> ...



Just to reiterate for the hard of fucking thinking. In court Dodi's Solicitor admits that there is no evidence that Rees Jones was paid off. 

Please shut the fuck up about it.  

Source


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 28, 2009)

If the royals HAD offed Di you'd expect them to be a bit quicker on the grief front, but they didn't even half mast the flags or anything untill it became clear that The Nation were having a mass Outpouring of Grief


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 28, 2009)

8den said:


> Oh piss off, they leapt into a dark car and which was speeding off, he's was her bodyguard not her fucking mummy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



oh great the establishment whore is back!! Get yourself a job as a solicitor for crooked old bill you twat


----------



## 8den (Oct 28, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> oh great the establishment whore is back!! Get yourself a job as a solicitor for crooked old bill you twat



Sticks and stones you immense fucking tard. For starts I'm Irish, so I'm not likely to be some curtseying queen lover. 

You've repeatedly claimed Jones was paid off, yet over a decade later Al Fayd has been forced to admit this claim is fucking baseless, it shows you as an idiotic gullible fool.


----------



## 8den (Oct 28, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> If the royals HAD offed Di you'd expect them to be a bit quicker on the grief front, but they didn't even half mast the flags or anything untill it became clear that The Nation were having a mass Outpouring of Grief



Look no one likes you bringing logic into this, much easier to just accuse people of being "establishment whores" if they disagree with you.


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 28, 2009)

8den said:


> Sticks and stones you immense fucking tard. For starts I'm Irish, so I'm not likely to be some curtseying queen lover.
> 
> You've repeatedly claimed Jones was paid off, yet over a decade later Al Fayd has been forced to admit this claim is fucking baseless, it shows you as an idiotic gullible fool.



wasn't it in the French papers? Don't you think there's an awful lot of coincidences, like the cameras at the tunnel pointing the wrong way and the route taken being the long way round etc etc?


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 28, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> my sentiments entirely, but it's far easier to just gang up on someone and abuse them.



That’s a bit rich coming from the man that starts it by referring to everyone that disagrees with him as ‘establishment sheep’ or ‘establishment whores’, without expecting a reaction.


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 28, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> That’s a bit rich coming from the man that starts it by referring to everyone that disagrees with him as ‘establishment sheep’ or ‘establishment whores’, without expecting a reaction.




only the ones that KNOW there was nothing sinister. Yet weren't there.


----------



## 8den (Oct 28, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> wasn't it in the French papers?



Thats nice, you'd think Al Fayd would have found proof before the 2nd inquiry then wouldn't you. 



> Don't you think there's an awful lot of coincidences, like the cameras at the tunnel pointing the wrong way



Yeah if you're going to try and covertly assassinate someone best make sure the cameras can't see if. Kinda difficult if they're being followed by a gaggle of french paparazzi on motorbikes?



> and the route taken being the long way round etc etc?



They were trying to shake off the paparazzi you fucking idiot.


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 28, 2009)

8den said:


> Thats nice, you'd think Al Fayd would have found proof before the 2nd inquiry then wouldn't you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



by giving them more chance to catch up? Anyway we're getting nowhere here. I will be back when i've read what Mansfield has to say.


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 28, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> like the cameras at the tunnel pointing the wrong way and the route taken being the long way round etc etc?



Most of the CCTV cameras on the route were security cameras pointing at buildings, and the traffic-monitoring camera above the underpass wasn't normally monitored at that time of night. 



> His report showed that the team identified ten locations of CCTV cameras. None of these had any images relevant to the inquiry, since they were principally security cameras facing the entrances to buildings. Most of the cameras were not maintained by the City of Paris - the owners of the buildings to which they were attached operated them privately.
> 
> There was a traffic-monitoring camera above the underpass in the Place de l’Alma itself but this was under the control of la Compagnie de Circulation Urbaine de Paris (Paris Urban Traffic Unit). That department closed down at about 11 p.m., had no night duty staff and made no recordings. Officers in the Police Headquarters Information and Command Centre could continue to view the pictures shown by the traffic camera in real time but could not control it. There would be no reason for those in the overnight control room in Paris to be viewing that camera in particular, before the crash.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Diana,_Princess_of_Wales_conspiracy_theories



trevhagl said:


> the route taken being the long way round etc etc?



They were trying to throw off the paparazzi.


----------



## toblerone3 (Oct 28, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> Dr Leman wrote a famous New Scientist article, a copy of which can be found here.



Fascinating article, but the only bit that relates to the rise (or fall) of belief in conspiracy theories is in the quote below. This shows that Jazzz in his post about the JFK assination is in agreement with 90% of the US population (as of 1990). But this rise predates the Internet era and I sense that (after a few years of peaking in the early 2000s, in very recent years belief in conspiracy theories has fallen.

"Belief in conspiracy theories certainly seems to be on the rise, and what little research has been done
investigating this question confirms this is so for perhaps the most famous example of all - the claim
that a conspiracy lay behind the assassination of JFK in 1963. A survey in 1968 found that about twothirds
of Americans believed the conspiracy theory, while by 1990 that proportion had risen to ninetenths."


----------



## 8den (Oct 28, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> by giving them more chance to catch up? Anyway we're getting nowhere here. I will be back when i've read what Mansfield has to say.



A chance to catch up? What feckless idiocy are you dribbling on about. 

If the driver was in on the plot and planned the route as part of the conspiracy, you think he'd have put on his own seatbelt.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 28, 2009)

Leman article said:
			
		

> It is important to remember that anti-theorists show a similar bias: they will seek out and evaluate evidence in a way that fits with the official or anti-conspiracy account. So conspiracy theorists are not necessarily more closed-minded than anti-theorists. Rather, the theorist and anti-theorist tend to pursue their own lines of thought and are often subject to cognitive biases that prevent their impartial examination of alternative evidence.





elbows said:


> Great stuff BK. I find the stuff about age and disempowerment to be very interesting. Ive certainly noticed that some of the paranoid conspiracy types are looking for explanations as to why their lives and dreams have not come to fruition, and are looking for a simple force they can blame.
> 
> *The comments about anti-conspiracy people having similar bias also rings true to me, for whilst there are a good many sensible posts here that refute the detail of conspiracies, there can be a tendency to protest too much, which probably only reinforces the beliefs of the conspiranoids*.
> 
> Personally I tend to deal with all of these issues by coming to terms with the fact that I just dont know the exact reality behind many situations, there is usually plenty of murk and even if I cut away the more ridiculous ideas there are still plenty of question marks.



elbows, I don't properly have time for this, but I find that particular bit of Leman, and your (bolded) agreement with it, is a bit of a false-equivalence reaction, as if anti conspiracist are equally flawed in their way of thinking to conspiracists.

No time for more, will continue tomorrow ....


----------



## elbows (Oct 28, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> elbows, I don't properly have time for this, but I find that particular bit of Leman, and your (bolded) agreement with it, is a bit of a false-equivalence reaction, as if anti conspiracist are equally flawed in their way of thinking to conspiracists.



Well anti-conspiracists are the same species, they are bound to make similar mistakes sometimes.

I do not think that they are equivalent in every way, but I certainly agree with the bit that says 'Rather, the theorist and anti-theorist tend to pursue their own lines of thought and are often subject to cognitive biases that prevent their impartial examination of alternative evidence.'

None of us are completely free from bias, I find the only way to avoid making mistakes on this front is to try hard not to form really firm conclusions.

What I tend to find with most conspiracy theories is that the evidence is not very good or is a complete joke. But as there are often plausible motives and by the nature of conspiracies you would not expect to find concrete evidence for them, I cannot completely rule out a lot of them. In my mind I do completely reject theories that are fantastical, are based on grotesque oversimplifications about how the world works (eg the New World Order), and a lot of the people who shout loudest about conspiracy theories have shown themselves to be quite deluded, blinkered and annoying, but Im often still left with some murky clouds surrounding the events that the theories are built around. Then I just play a numbers game, if I pick 10 smelly sounding deaths then maybe a couple of them are dodgy assassinations, but Im unlikely to ever find out which ones, unless some decent evidence emerges which almost never happens.


----------



## Obnoxiousness (Oct 28, 2009)

It is most probable that one conspiracy theory is correct in several hundred. Without going into specific odds/figures, it's gonna happen one day.


----------



## Diamond (Oct 28, 2009)

I did a bit of research into conspiracies last year and came across this book:

Age of Anxiety: Conspiracy Theory and the Human Sciences

It's from just before 9/11 so doesn't mention any of the stuff that's played out in the CT world in the last 8 years or so.

From that collection, *Human Sciences as Conspiracy Theory* by Martin Parker is well worth reading (the final article).

It's very readable and slightly tongue in cheek but it certainly made the largest impression on me out of all the analysis that I read.


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 29, 2009)

just started the chapter about Diana and contrary to popular belief (media)regarding the inquiry, the option "It was an accident" was NOT the one chose by the jury.
2 witnesses passing as the crash took place described a motorbike following and a car 'blocking' the Diana car - these 2 vehicles were never traced.

over to 8den, QC for the establishment


----------



## 8den (Oct 29, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> just started the chapter about Diana and contrary to popular belief (media)regarding the inquiry, the option "It was an accident" was NOT the one chose by the jury.
> 2 witnesses passing as the crash took place described a motorbike following and a car 'blocking' the Diana car - these 2 vehicles were never traced.
> 
> over to 8den, QC for the establishment



Page and book title please fucko.

Cause;



> Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed were unlawfully killed due to the "gross negligence" of driver Henri Paul and the paparazzi, an inquest has found.
> 
> The inquest jury also specified that Mr Paul's drink-driving and a lack of seatbelts contributed to their deaths.
> 
> Princes William and Harry said they "agreed" with the verdicts and thanked the jury for the "thorough way" in which they considered the evidence.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7328754.stm


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 29, 2009)

I know David Aaronovitch has massive and rightly much objected-to political baggage, but his recent book on conspiracy theories looks interesting and worth a read? Even if it some of its motives and conclusions are flawed. Sorry, my PC's playing up and I can't do the link right now  , but its called 'Voodoo Histories'

ETA : Here's the Independent's review of it. Plenty of others around.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 29, 2009)

elbows said:


> Well anti-conspiracists are the same species, they are bound to make similar mistakes sometimes.
> 
> I do not think that they are equivalent in every way, but I certainly agree with the bit that says 'Rather, the theorist and anti-theorist tend to pursue their own lines of thought and are often subject to cognitive biases that prevent their impartial examination of alternative evidence.'
> 
> ...



That's all fair enough, particularly about nobody being free of bias, anti conspiracists very much included. 

I think I'd go further than you though in being sceptical about the vast majority of conspiracies simply because of the so obviously cavalier and under rigorous approach to evidence and research of so many CTers and CT websites.

I do very much agree though that there'll be plenty of unknown dodginess in official circles -- history proves it. To me though, the job of exposing this credibly and _effectively_ should NOT be done by *anyone* with links to out and out conspiracist websites/organisations. Rather the job is best done by properly dilligent (and independent) investigative journalists and researchers and historians.

Who specifically disassociate themselves from CTism.

Call the above bias if you like, but it's bias based on my old background as a historian and what I used to know about reliable/credible sources, evidence, research.


----------



## 8den (Oct 29, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> I know David Aaronovitch has massive and rightly much objected-to political baggage, but his recent book on conspiracy theories looks interesting and worth a read? Even if it some of its motives and conclusions are flawed. Sorry, my PC's playing up and I can't do the link right now  , but its called 'Voodoo Histories'



If Aaronovitch makes you vomit in your mouth try CounterKnowledge by Damien Thompson. or How Mumbo Jumbo Conquered the World by Francis Whelan. 

Counterknowledge directly confronts, loose change, MMR bullshit etc. How mumbo jumbo (etc) goes into the same area but with greater sweep. They both challenge post modernism and other bullshit.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 29, 2009)

I think the official story of 9/11 is full of holes but there's no way I'm going to believe something else that's even more full of holes.


----------



## 8den (Oct 29, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> I think the official story of 9/11 is full of holes but there's no way I'm going to believe something else that's even more full of holes.



I'd be really surprised if there was any massive terrorist attack and there wasn't inconsistencies in the narrative and and contradictory accounts of events.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 29, 2009)

8den said:


> If Aaronovitch makes you vomit in your mouth try CounterKnowledge by Damien Thompson. or How Mumbo Jumbo Conquered the World by Francis Whelan.
> 
> Counterknowledge directly confronts, loose change, MMR bullshit etc. How mumbo jumbo (etc) goes into the same area but with greater sweep. They both challenge post modernism and other bullshit.



Got the Francis Wheen  book, it's very good 

Will look into the other one, ta.


----------



## Diamond (Oct 29, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> I think the official story of 9/11 is full of holes but there's no way I'm going to believe something else that's even more full of holes.



This is the central idea of that article that I recommended above and the author posits in the context of trying to explain why conspiracy theories proliferate in the modern 'age of anxiety'.



> It seems to me that the desire to find explanations, to theorize events, the 'will to connect' is centrally implicated in a culture that must explain everything.



I think it's quite relevant to the generalised suspicion that you express and that is the common point of departure for most people who start wandering towards 9/11 conspiracy theories.


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 29, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> just started the chapter about Diana and contrary to popular belief (media)regarding the inquiry, the option "It was an accident" was NOT the one chose by the jury.



Everyone knew that, well apart from you it appears, it was widely reported across TV, radio, newspapers and the web at the time - it was fucking everywhere, how the hell did you miss it?


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 29, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> Everyone knew that, well apart from you it appears, it was widely reported across TV, radio, newspapers and the web at the time - it was fucking everywhere, how the hell did you miss it?



I rarely read the papers but the general view from the ones that did was that A Fayed was proved wrong!!!


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 29, 2009)

8den said:


> Page and book title please fucko.
> 
> Cause;
> 
> ...



p314 - 335 Michael Mansfield - Radical Lawyer (you need to read the whole lot incl the bits about her phone being tapped, telling people she was in fear of her life, and even the non-Royal stuff where she was about to expose top people involved in selling landmines to Angola....)


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 29, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> I rarely read the papers but the general view from the ones that did was that A Fayed was proved wrong!!!



He was proved wrong.


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 29, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> He was proved wrong.



so the book is LYING about the jury not chosing the "Accident" option?


----------



## 8den (Oct 29, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> p314 - 335 Michael Mansfield - Radical Lawyer (you need to read the whole lot incl the bits about her phone being tapped, telling people she was in fear of her life, and even the non-Royal stuff where she was about to expose top people involved in selling landmines to Angola....)



Spoilt paranoid woman makes shit up. The jury specifically said that the fact that she wasn't wearing a seatbelt and her driver was drunk, and they were being chased by paparazzi as the major reasons for the crash. 

So to be clear. Your claims that Jones was paid off by the security services have been shown to be unsubstantiated. The claim that the cameras were off has been shown to be a lie. 

Essentially if the royal family were going to kill her in a car crash they were relying on the driver being pissed and Diana not wearing a seatbelt, which is a pretty shit way to try kill someone.


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 29, 2009)

8den said:


> Spoilt paranoid woman makes shit up. The jury specifically said that the fact that she wasn't wearing a seatbelt and her driver was drunk, and they were being chased by paparazzi as the major reasons for the crash.
> 
> So to be clear. Your claims that Jones was paid off by the security services have been shown to be unsubstantiated. The claim that the cameras were off has been shown to be a lie.
> 
> Essentially if the royal family were going to kill her in a car crash they were relying on the driver being pissed and Diana not wearing a seatbelt, which is a pretty shit way to try kill someone.




read the book, you're way out.
The cameras were pointing the WRONG WAY (not off)
It was Henri Paul who had mystery large deposits in the account (poor value for money as it turns out but i guess he wasn't to know that at the time)
As for paranoid woman, i'm sure you'll think David Kelly was paranoid too when he told people he would be found dead in the woods or something?


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 29, 2009)

your logic re the seat belt is like saying if a 4 x 4 ran over a motorcyclist , it was the motorcyclists fault he's deed if he wasn't wearing a helmet


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 29, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> so the book is LYING about the jury not chosing the "Accident" option?



No.


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 29, 2009)

Well i'm off oot on the lash now , you'll have to start on Clapham Boy now for saying "No"


----------



## 8den (Oct 29, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> read the book, you're way out.
> The cameras were pointing the WRONG WAY (not off)
> It was Henri Paul who had mystery large deposits in the account (poor value for money as it turns out but i guess he wasn't to know that at the time)



if Paul Henri was in on the plan to stage a car crash, why the fuck did he not take the basic precaution of wearing a seatbelt? 

Idiot. 



> As for paranoid woman, i'm sure you'll think David Kelly was paranoid too when he told people he would be found dead in the woods or something?



Complete Non sequitur. 

So the security services told him well beforehand how exactly they were planning on faking his suicide? That was helpful of them.


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 29, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> r
> The cameras were pointing the WRONG WAY (not off)



Not this horse shit again. 

Most of the CCTV cameras on the route were *security cameras pointing at buildings*, and the traffic-monitoring camera above the underpass wasn't normally monitored at that time of night due to the lack of fucking traffic. 



trevhagl said:


> It was Henri Paul who had mystery large deposits in the account (poor value for money as it turns out but i guess he wasn't to know that at the time)



He was a single man, with no dependants, who worked all his life, received massive tips (sometimes in the region of £500-£1000) from wealthy guests and a rental income from property - there was NO evidence of payments from any spooks.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 29, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> Well i'm off oot on the lash now , you'll have to start on Clapham Boy now for saying "No"



you'll be passed out by 4 and nicked for drunk and incapable by 5


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 29, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> Well i'm off oot on the lash now , you'll have to start on Clapham Boy now for saying "No"



There’s a big different between outright accident, accident caused by pissed-up driver & the paparazzi chase (unlawful killing verdict) and A Fayed’s government/royal/security services conspiracy theory.

If you’re too thick to work that out, no wonder you have come to the conclusion that you have and left yourself looking stupid on here.


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 31, 2009)

So, trev, have you got to the bit in the book that confirms A Fayed was proved wrong?


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 31, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> So, trev, have you got to the bit in the book that confirms A Fayed was proved wrong?



nah must've been edited out


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 31, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> There’s a big different between outright accident, accident caused by pissed-up driver & the paparazzi chase (unlawful killing verdict) and A Fayed’s government/royal/security services conspiracy theory.
> 
> If you’re too thick to work that out, no wonder you have come to the conclusion that you have and left yourself looking stupid on here.



the actual verdict was (I forget the actual words) it was either the vehicle they were travelling in, or a following vehicle to blame . A very vague judgement that could also include foul play


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 31, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> the actual verdict was (I forget the actual words) it was either the vehicle they were travelling in, or a following vehicle to blame . *A very vague judgement that could also include foul play*



Bollocks it was, the option Al Fayed and Mansfield wanted considered was _"that the crash was deliberately staged, with the intention of killing, harming or scaring? Deliberately causing the crash with the intention of killing the occupants of the car or causing them serious injury would support a verdict of unlawful killing by murder."_

There was no evidence whatsoever to support that option, the jury went with *"Unlawful killing (grossly negligent driving of the paparazzi and grossly negligent driving of the Mercedes)"* - that leaves no scope for foul play.

CORONER’S INQUESTS INTO THE DEATHS OF DIANA, PRINCESS OF WALES AND MR DODI AL FAYED



> It has taken more than 90 days, 270 witnesses and a bill of £10 million to slay the obsessive conspiracy theories of one man. And in the end yesterday, a jury discarded the soft option of accidental death and placed much of the blame for the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales, and Dodi Fayed on the shoulders of one of Mohamed Al Fayed’s own employees.
> 
> *The Princess and Dodi were unlawfully killed by a combination of their drunk driver, Henri Paul, and the paparazzi who were chasing their car, the jury at their inquests decided.*
> 
> *It was a disastrous outcome for the owner of Harrods, whose allegations of a murder plot masterminded by the Duke of Edinburgh were rejected decisively by the coroner for complete lack of evidence. It *was a damning indictment, too, of the pursuing photographers who must accept an equal share of the blame. Even the dead do not escape censure. The couple might have been alive today, the jury decided unanimously, had they been wearing their seatbelts.



The Times report


----------



## greenman (Oct 31, 2009)

Full page advert from 9-11 Troofers in the Indie today, sponsored by some Coffee Shop company


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 31, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> Bollocks it was, the option Al Fayed and Mansfield wanted considered was _"that the crash was deliberately staged, with the intention of killing, harming or scaring? Deliberately causing the crash with the intention of killing the occupants of the car or causing them serious injury would support a verdict of unlawful killing by murder."_
> 
> There was no evidence whatsoever to support that option, the jury went with *"Unlawful killing (grossly negligent driving of the paparazzi and grossly negligent driving of the Mercedes)"* - that leaves no scope for foul play.
> 
> ...



The book says that the wording 'paparazzi' was changed to 'following vehicles' which could mean the motorbike that never got traced (funnily enough)


----------



## Superdupastupor (Oct 31, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> The book says that the wording 'paparazzi' was changed to 'following vehicles' which could mean the motorbike that never got traced (funnily enough)



You know you are in a corner with the Express don't you ?   why do you care


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 31, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> The book says that the wording 'paparazzi' was changed to 'following vehicles' which could mean the motorbike that never got traced (funnily enough)



Go read the Coroner's Inquest link I provided above - any 'plot' was totally ruled out because there was no evidence whatsoever to support.

If the jury had any doubt they could have returned an open verdict, they did not.


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 31, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> Go read the Coroner's Inquest link I provided above - any 'plot' was totally ruled out because there was no evidence whatsoever to support.
> 
> If the jury had any doubt they could have returned an open verdict, they did not.




care to speculate as to why the 2 vehicles in the tunnel that were spotted by the 2 witnesses were never traced? And how fishy it looks that the witnesses said there was a car in front and motorbike behind (which wasn't paparzazzi)

mind you the above poster is right - why do i care?


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 31, 2009)

FFS - go read the Inquest evidence, everything is there, everything was covered and considered by a JURY, their descision was that there was no plot.

*Even after Mansfield changed his position*, the jury still decided there was no plot. 



> In the light of the evidence, Mr Mansfield QC has, quite properly, accepted that there is no direct evidence that the Duke played any part in the deaths and has accepted that there is no direct evidence of any involvement of the SIS. Mr Mansfield now submits that the jury should consider an alternative scenario, which he terms the ‘troublesome priest thesis’: a plan by unknown individuals (perhaps rogue SIS operatives) to stage the crash in order to serve the perceived interests or wishes of the Royal Family or ‘the Establishment’, as he and Mr Al Fayed term it. He also now submits that the aim of the plot may have been to scare the Princess. That submission may rest in part on a realistic acceptance that there could have been no certainty that the Princess and Mr Al Fayed would die or be seriously harmed. The lethal forces that resulted in the deaths of Diana, Dodi and Henri Paul resulted from the high speed of the Mercedes (about 65 mph at the moment of the collision) and the fact that it impacted with the corner of a pillar. Had the Mercedes hit the side of the pillar or gone out of control and hit the wall on the other side of its carriageway, it would probably have been deflected and the outcome may well have been different. Additionally, the occupants were not wearing seatbelts. The expert evidence was that wearing a seatbelt would either have prevented or at the very least diminished the prospect of a fatal injury.


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 31, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> FFS - go read the Inquest evidence, everything is there, everything was covered and considered by a JURY, their descision was that there was no plot.
> 
> *Even after Mansfield changed his position*, the jury still decided there was no plot.



still looks fishy to me!!


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 31, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> care to speculate as to why the 2 vehicles in the tunnel that were spotted by the 2 witnesses were never traced? And how fishy it looks that the witnesses said there was a car in front and motorbike behind (which wasn't paparzazzi)
> 
> 
> Theres my post above again for anyone to explain how that doesn't look fishy


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 31, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> still looks fishy to me!!



Well, go read the fucking inquest evidence! 

Just sticking to a pre-existing position whilst refusing to look at the evidence is a clear sign of a conspiraloon.

ETA: To make it easy for you, read from item 15 here


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 31, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> Well, go read the fucking inquest evidence!
> 
> Just sticking to a pre-existing position whilst refusing to look at the evidence is a clear sign of a conspiraloon.
> 
> ETA: To make it easy for you, read from item 15 here



even your own chosen document has fishy stuff in it, see 17e. The programme on Ch4 also covered this. You couldn't get more fishy in you owned a fish factory.

a bright light, strange signals to each other...

(if no one saw the Ch4 docu it basically said a motorcyclist shone a bright light at the driver in the tunnel)


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 31, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> even your own chosen document



It's not my 'chosen' document, it's the fucking official transcript from the inquest. 



trevhagl said:


> has fishy stuff in it, see 17e.



Section 17 (e):



> M Levistre gave evidence about seeing a blinding flash as a motorcycle overtook the Mercedes. However,* his evidence plainly falls into the category of ‘inherently weak evidence’* (in Galbraith terms). He spoke about seeing the riders of the motorcycle dismounting and making mysterious signals to each other; *a description which is not supported by any other witness*. He gave inconsistent accounts about what he saw, and gave an account of *his own speed and angle of vision which was difficult to accept*. After giving evidence, he contacted the Inquests secretariat with a *bizarre story involving bullet casings at the scene of the crash*. In short, his evidence could not be a proper foundation for the jury to form any view.





Section 17 (f):



> *A large number of witnesses did not see any flashing light, despite being specifically questioned on the point. The Metropolitan Police have listed 17 such witnesses.* Mr Mansfield points out that some (though not all) of these witnesses would not, or might not, have had a view of the Mercedes after it had actually entered the tunnel. However, *some of the witnesses on whose evidence Mr Mansfield relies concerning bright lights (such as Partouche) did not have a view into the tunnel either.*





Section 17 (g):



> The jury have been shown a video of vehicles entering and leaving the Alma tunnel. *The headlamps of vehicles can appear as bright lights as they ascend the slope.*


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 31, 2009)




----------



## Jazzz (Oct 31, 2009)

greenman said:


> Full page advert from 9-11 Troofers in the Indie today, sponsored by some Coffee Shop company



it's here, for those of use who don't have an Independent.

Ian Henshall's work. He's done a pretty damn good job too I think.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Oct 31, 2009)

I switched over to Controversial TV (sky channel 200) and immediately some conspiranuts were claiming that Germany (and Holland iirc) were going to make peadophillia legal. 

I have never come across such utter bollocks in my life. Even Icke made that look sane.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> it's here, for those of use who don't have an Independent.
> 
> Ian Henshall's work. He's done a pretty damn good job too I think.



So UK voters should pressure their elected amercian representatives to re-open the 911 investigation then? Master stroke.

The lead-in that shitty reverse spam demands an objective investigation gives a great example of just that when it talks of 'the 911 myth'.


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 31, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> it's here, for those of use who don't have an Independent.
> 
> Ian Henshall's work. He's done a pretty damn good job too I think.



It sort of starts alright, but then _"9/11 was not just the result of gross incompetence but some sort of an inside job"_ and bangs goes support from any sane human being.


----------



## Jazzz (Oct 31, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> It sort of starts alright, but then _"9/11 was not just the result of gross incompetence but some sort of an inside job"_ and bangs goes support from any sane human being.



You are misquoting. It's not presented as a statement of fact as you well know. You missed out 

"Speculation is now rife, not least in Pakistan and Afghanistan, that..."

You couldn't find very much wrong with it, could you?


----------



## Obnoxiousness (Oct 31, 2009)

9/11 wasn't an inside job.  It was Middle Eastern terrorists, the aliens told me.  I went through various American airports a while before it happened, and their security was very casual.


----------



## claphamboy (Oct 31, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> You are misquoting. It's not presented as a statement of fact as you well know. You missed out
> 
> "Speculation is now rife, not least in Pakistan and Afghanistan, that..."
> 
> You couldn't find very much wrong with it, could you?



I wasn't suggesting it was presented as fact, for that they would need evidence, which they don't have, it is indeed just 'speculation [by the fruitloons placing the ad] that it was an inside job', it doesn't alter the fact that support from any sane human being would be lost at the point of reading the words 'some sort of an inside job'.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 1, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> He's done a pretty damn good job too I think.



Yeah, but to be fair, what you normally think is utter bullcrap.


----------



## elbows (Nov 1, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> I switched over to Controversial TV (sky channel 200) and immediately some conspiranuts were claiming that Germany (and Holland iirc) were going to make peadophillia legal.
> 
> I have never come across such utter bollocks in my life. Even Icke made that look sane.



Oh blimey I did not know this channel existed, I will have to check it out for the lols.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 1, 2009)

i do think that the Bilderbergers woulda been planning to invade Iraq (at least) anyway and US and UK Govts sure made the most of scaremongering after 9/11, bringing in draconian laws. De Menezes would still be alive if it wasn't for 9/11


----------



## Awesome Wells (Nov 1, 2009)

elbows said:


> Oh blimey I did not know this channel existed, I will have to check it out for the lols.


They do have the occasional hour of non-conspiratorial 'alternative' discussion, but the majority of it seems to be independent media from 'truthers' and interviews with such. All the usual stuff.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 1, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> You are misquoting. It's not presented as a statement of fact as you well know. You missed out
> 
> "Speculation is now rife, not least in Pakistan and Afghanistan, that..."
> 
> You couldn't find very much wrong with it, could you?



I couldn't find much wrong with it either, but all it's really claiming is that the US Govt knew that such an attack was likely, failed to prevent it, and took advantage of it when it happened.  None of which is very controversial.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 1, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I couldn't find much wrong with it either, but all it's really claiming is that the US Govt knew that such an attack was likely, failed to prevent it, and took advantage of it when it happened.  None of which is very controversial.




it is to SOME people though.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 1, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> It's not my 'chosen' document, it's the fucking official transcript from the inquest.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



you are defending what quite likely was a murder, and spending hours doing so.


----------



## kyser_soze (Nov 1, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I couldn't find much wrong with it either, but all it's really claiming is that the US Govt knew that such an attack was likely, failed to prevent it, and took advantage of it when it happened.  None of which is very controversial.





trevhagl said:


> it is to SOME people though.



Well ummm...no it isn't. There's plenty of evidence that what was to become 9/11 was flagged as a possible by the CIA (see threads passim on this) but a combination of ideological position of Condi and a general distrust of the head of the CIA by the Bush admin (he was a Clinton appointee) meant that the intel was discarded as not very likely. 

For me this is the most likely combination of events because it sounds the most human - a combination of dislike, ideology and ditrust. This is called 'incompetence', not 'conspiracy', altho I doubt that you, trev, would appreaciate the subtle difference between the two.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 1, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> you are defending what quite likely was a murder, and spending hours doing so.





She only fucking died because the daft bint wasn’t wearing a seatbelt, even if there was a plot to cause the accident it was clearly not an attempt at murder, as even your hero Mansfield himself concluded during the inquest, because ‘they’ could never have counted on the seatbelt not being worn, the speed of the vehicle, etc. 

It only takes a few seconds to google the inquest notes and a few minutes to read them with the result that you can adopt an informed position, if for some reason it takes you ‘hours’, I would suggest you stick with it, because it’s far better than coming across as an uninformed ignorant twat TBH.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 1, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> She only fucking died because the daft bint wasn’t wearing a seatbelt, even if there was a plot to cause the accident it was clearly not an attempt at murder, as even your hero Mansfield himself concluded during the inquest, because ‘they’ could never have counted on the seatbelt not being worn, the speed of the vehicle, etc.
> 
> It only takes a few seconds to google the inquest notes and a few minutes to read them with the result that you can adopt an informed position, if for some reason it takes you ‘hours’, I would suggest you stick with it, because it’s far better than coming across as an uninformed ignorant twat TBH.



i am not really that sad. I'm only on HERE so much because of the post strike


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 1, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I couldn't find much wrong with it either, but all it's really claiming is that the US Govt knew that such an attack was likely, failed to prevent it, and took advantage of it when it happened.  None of which is very controversial.



With a private meeting with MPs happening tomorrow, and possible media scrutiny, I know the author decided it was important "not to go an inch beyond provable facts".


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 1, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> With a private meeting with MPs happening tomorrow, and possible media scrutiny, I know the author decided it was important "not to go an inch beyond provable facts".



Should be over within about 5 minutes in that case.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 2, 2009)

Is dwyer turning into a '9/11 troofer' now? 

His usual Urban motives for adopting such a position doubtless apply here as well.


----------



## aylee (Nov 2, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> it's here, for those of use who don't have an Independent.
> 
> Ian Henshall's work. He's done a pretty damn good job too I think.



It looks like a web page created by a nutter.


----------



## aylee (Nov 2, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> by giving them more chance to catch up? Anyway we're getting nowhere here. I will be back when i've read what Mansfield has to say.





trevhagl said:


> just started the chapter about Diana and contrary to popular belief (media)regarding the inquiry, the option "It was an accident" was NOT the one chose by the jury.
> 2 witnesses passing as the crash took place described a motorbike following and a car 'blocking' the Diana car - these 2 vehicles were never traced.
> 
> over to 8den, QC for the establishment





trevhagl said:


> p314 - 335 Michael Mansfield - Radical Lawyer (you need to read the whole lot incl the bits about her phone being tapped, telling people she was in fear of her life, and even the non-Royal stuff where she was about to expose top people involved in selling landmines to Angola....)



Do you think that there is any possibility that Mansfield repeated all this stuff in order to sell more copies of his book?

The very title demonstrates what an immense cock he is.


----------



## toblerone3 (Nov 2, 2009)

I thought that this thread title was quite interesting until the thread was hijacked and diverted off topic to discuss the merits and lack of merit of various conspiracy theories. 

I think Urban75 collectively is quite obsessed with conspiracy theories (mainly in debunking them). Its very hard for Urban to ignore a conspiraloon link. Its a bit like a scab or itch that it has to scratch.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 2, 2009)

toblerone3 said:
			
		

> I think Urban75 collectively is quite obsessed with conspiracy theories (mainly in debunking them). Its very hard for Urban to ignore a conspiraloon link. Its a bit like a scab or itch that it has to scratch.



You appear to categorise the *anti* conspiracists on Urban as the obsessive ones, which is a bit of a distortion of reality really.

Out and out conspiracy theorists are in a smallish minority on here sure, but to me the reason why Jazzz and posters like him are so roundly debunked by so many, is the sheer outlandishness of their claims, the dodginess/vested interests/conspiranoidery of their sources, the illogicality/anti-rationality of their reasoning, their cavalier take on the nature of facts/evidence/proof.

So OK Urban anti conspiracists may lose their tempers on occasion, and spend a bit too much time methodically demolishing in a bit too much detail the wildest of conspiracist claims. 

But if the antis go too far sometimes that's nearly always rooted in the sheer bonkersness and  nonsense posted up by the actual conspiracists in the first place.


----------



## toblerone3 (Nov 2, 2009)

The question remains when is a CT link posted by Jazzz ever ever roundly ignored?


----------



## toblerone3 (Nov 2, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> Out and out conspiracy theorists are in a smallish minority on here sure



Its a small group I agree.

They are:

Jazzz
Xes
Trev Hagl
Phil Dwyer
and
taffboy gwyrdd (?)

Any more?


----------



## kyser_soze (Nov 2, 2009)

Nah, phil's just a troll, outside of the AIDS stuff.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 2, 2009)

out and out conspiracy theorist because i think Diana was probably murdered, and i believe in the existance of the bilderberg group??


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 2, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Nah, phil's just a troll, outside of the AIDS stuff.



He's not trolling with the AIDs denialist stuff too then, d'you not think?

I thought that was all part of exactly the same 'pick a contrarian position for effect' stuff


----------



## xes (Nov 2, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> You appear to categorise the *anti* conspiracists on Urban as the obsessive ones, which is a bit of a distortion of reality really.


http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=306538

you sure about that?


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 2, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> out and out conspiracy theorist because i think Diana was probably murdered, and i believe in the existance of the bilderberg group??



This ^^ is fair comment, I was just about to point out that trev is only a conspiracy theorist as far as Diana is concerned.


----------



## toblerone3 (Nov 2, 2009)

I'm sure somebody's asked this before but what's the collective noun for a group of conspiracy theorists?


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 2, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> This ^^ is fair comment, I was just about to point out that trev is only a conspiracy theorist as far as Diana is concerned.




i dunno what the other poster said about AIDS but if it was that it was created in a lab in the US by the CIA then you could add that to my list cos it makes a lot more sense than green monkeys spreading it


----------



## xes (Nov 2, 2009)

toblerone3 said:


> Its a small group I agree.
> 
> They are:
> 
> ...





I emerge myself in twaddle, it's fucking way better than being normal


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 2, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> i dunno what the other poster said about AIDS but if it was that it was created in a lab in the US by the CIA then you could add that to my list cos it makes a lot more sense than green monkeys spreading it



In that case I withdraw my pervious post.


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 2, 2009)

toblerone3 said:


> Its a small group I agree.
> 
> They are:
> 
> ...


I think there are many more who are suspicious of various things or interested, but can't stand the lynch mob mentality on urban75 when it comes to challenging material of this nature. I've certainly had many pms saying as such over the years.

There's been quite a few others who have been banned too, which is a shame I think.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 2, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> I think there are many more who are suspicious of various things or interested, but can't stand the lynch mob mentality on urban75 when it comes to challenging material of this nature. I've certainly had many pms saying as such over the years.
> 
> There's been quite a few others who have been banned too, which is a shame I think.




good point. It's like being in the dodgy boozers i go to and shouting "Actually i think the media are lying about immigration"


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 2, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> I think there are many more who are suspicious of various things or interested, but can't stand the lynch mob mentality on urban75 when it comes to challenging material of this nature.



There are plenty of people that are suspicious of allsorts of things on here, including the majority that challenge you.

The different is they do not tend to constantly post the same old bonkers theories, whilst constantly ignoring the evidence from reliable sources and basic facts that debunk those theories. 



Jazzz said:


> I've certainly had many pms saying as such over the years.



Many PMs of support – lol.


----------



## chazegee (Nov 2, 2009)

At OP.
It should be, the whole fucking point of the internet is less people blindly believing authority. 
I mean, there might be a little overkill, but generally, it's a good thing.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 2, 2009)

i do think it's 'cool' to ridicule anyone with a conspiracy theory.

Thankfully nothing i like has been cool for at least 3 decades (proper punk rock etc) and i ain't gonna change now!


----------



## chazegee (Nov 2, 2009)

Yep. Trevhagl. I'm not  at you. Just Loon-haters...


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 2, 2009)

chazegee said:


> Yep. Trevhagl. I'm not  at you. Just Loon-haters...




there may well be some loons out there but most of the people i've seen ganged up on and ridiculed are putting forward perfectly likely scenarios.


----------



## aylee (Nov 2, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> there may well be some loons out there but most of the people i've seen ganged up on and ridiculed are putting forward perfectly likely scenarios.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Nov 2, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> there may well be some loons out there but most of the people i've seen ganged up on and ridiculed are putting forward perfectly likely scenarios.


If you are unfamiliar with the topic manner is it not possible you're mistaken about how possible it is? Thus to you it might appear that it is perfectly likely but to others it is obvious that it isn't.

That would merit an explanation of why it's not possible, but if the person expounding the flawed theory has been told that it's ludicrous in the past and is continuing to refuse to learn or accept that they are mistaken then the point of treating it like a sensible question/theory starts to evaporate.

Then you have Jazzz who doesn't believe in science unless it agrees with him.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 2, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> there may well be some loons out there but most of the people i've seen ganged up on and ridiculed are putting forward perfectly likely scenarios.



Examples?


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 2, 2009)

toblerone3 said:


> I'm sure somebody's asked this before but what's the collective noun for a group of conspiracy theorists?



A 'loonery', perhaps?


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 2, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> Examples?



Diana being murdered! I thought we'd done that though?


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Nov 2, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> Diana being murdered! I thought we'd done that though?


That's not an example is it


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 2, 2009)

Bob_the_lost said:


> That's not an example is it



depends how much faith you have in the media & establishment. I personally think they might LIE to us.


----------



## 8den (Nov 2, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> Diana being murdered! I thought we'd done that though?



You claimed Diana's bodyguard was paid off by the security services, when it shown to you that Al Fayed's lawyer admitted that this claim wasn't substantiated, you changed your tune and claimed Paul Henri was the one paid off. 

Idiotic nonsense.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Nov 2, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> depends how much faith you have in the media & establishment. I personally think they might LIE to us.


No, you're not listening. That's not an example, that's vaguely waving your hand in the direction of several examples. Pick one of them.


----------



## 8den (Nov 2, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> depends how much faith you have in the media & establishment. I personally think they might LIE to us.



*They* aren't monotonically institutes. Most of the news agencies need freelancers, to suggest all these people are in on it is idiotic.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 2, 2009)

claphamboy;9897387][QUOTE=trevhagl said:


> there may well be some loons out there but most of the people i've seen ganged up on and ridiculed are putting forward perfectly likely scenarios.



Examples?[/QUOTE]



trevhagl said:


> Diana being murdered! I thought we'd done that though?



You think you were 'putting forward perfectly likely scenarios', despite having admitted that you hadn't actually read the coverage of the inquest, which had dealt with those scenarios - lol. 

You were putting forward idiotic claims, that were suitably challenged by others, using facts and including the use of the actual inquest evidence - that's not 'ganging-up', that's reasoned debate.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 3, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> You think you were 'putting forward perfectly likely scenarios', despite having admitted that you hadn't actually read the coverage of the inquest, which had dealt with those scenarios - lol.
> 
> You were putting forward idiotic claims, that were suitably challenged by others, using facts and including the use of the actual inquest evidence - that's not 'ganging-up', that's reasoned debate.



this is going round in circles. Are you saying that as i didn't have personal PROOF that Michael Jackson was a paedophile, then he DEFINATELY WASN'T! This is the logic you're using, and you are forgetting just how powerful the establishment are. Look at David Kelly.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 3, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> this is going round in circles. Are you saying that as i didn't have personal PROOF that Michael Jackson was a paedophile, then he DEFINATELY WASN'T! This is the logic you're using, and you are forgetting just how powerful the establishment are. Look at David Kelly.



Aye to that.

I don't usually have much time for Peter Hitchens, but he has a good blast against the "conspiracy theory" denialists in his recent book:

"by using this silly and misleading term they are blinding themselves to a real process, which takes place often in the modern world.  Those who choose to believe that in modern London nobody has confidential discussions to obtain a co-ordinated purpose, in the hope that outsiders are unaware of this collusion, are voluntarily depriving themselves of important knowledge.  They are also exposing their naivety about politics and the media."

And, I would add, _a forteriori_ about "science."


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 3, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> depends how much faith you have in the media & establishment. I personally think they might LIE to us.



You _what?_

Loonspud, nutbobbin, bonkersman.  The media _lie_ to us?  Scientists _mislead_ the public?  _Scientists,_ who everybody knows are completely objective and disinterested in all their endeavors?

Hahahahahaha.  Ban this fool immediately please.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 3, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Aye to that.
> 
> I don't usually have much time for Peter Hitchens, but he has a good blast against the "conspiracy theory" denialists in his recent book:
> 
> ...



very good quote, something the others on here should bear in mind.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 3, 2009)

8den said:


> *They* aren't monotonically institutes.



Can anyone translate this into human please?


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 3, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> this is going round in circles. Are you saying that as i didn't have personal PROOF that Michael Jackson was a paedophile, then he DEFINATELY WASN'T! This is the logic you're using, and you are forgetting just how powerful the establishment are. Look at David Kelly.



No it's not the logic I am using, completely stupid comparisons.

In the Diana case you are just ignoring the biggest set of circumstances that resulted in her death, none of which could have been taken into account by any plotters, those being – not wearing a seatbelt, car travelling at twice the speed limit and driver twice over the legal alcohol limit.

It doesn’t matter how many tiny bits of other so-called evidence that you focus on in attempt to prove a plot, all of which in this case seem to have very logical explanations, especially when considered as part of the complete picture instead of isolated on their own, doesn’t alter those three most important elements of the crash.

Dr Kelly is a totally different set of circumstances, there isn’t a shed load of evidence and witnesses pointing towards an accident, the [lack of] evidence in that case leaves me with an open mind. 

Be buggered if I can see a conspiracy connection with the Michael Jackson case.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 3, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> *depends how much faith you have in the media & establishment*. I personally think they might LIE to us.



Do shut the fuck up about anti conspiracists being gullible establishment believers trev.

Perfectly possible to be sceptical about what the 'establishment version' says AND about conspiracy theories, especially the really barking ones.

Most anti conpiracists on here are no more pro establishment, or pro mainstream media,  than they are pro CT.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 3, 2009)

dwyer said:
			
		

> I don't usually have much time for Peter Hitchens, but he has a good blast against the "conspiracy theory" denialists in his recent book:
> 
> "by using this silly and misleading term they are blinding themselves to a real process, which takes place often in the modern world. Those who choose to believe that in modern London nobody has confidential discussions to obtain a co-ordinated purpose, in the hope that outsiders are unaware of this collusion, are voluntarily depriving themselves of important knowledge. They are also exposing their naivety about politics and the media."
> 
> And, I would add, a forteriori about "science."





trevhagl said:


> very good quote, something the others on here should bear in mind.



You do appreciate don't you trev, that dwyer is no more sympathetic in reality towards conspiracy theories than I am?

He's trolling, adopting a *pose* of going along with conspiracies (or more to the point concentrating his fire *exclusively* on anti conspiracists, as shown by his selecting that Hitchens quiote, while totally ignoring the flaws of conspiracies). And *just* for shitstirring purposes.

His long track record on here of being 'contrarian' for the sake of it, picking a position deliberately for maximum controversy, should be well known by now.

Anyway, as for that well known far right character Hitchens, all he's doing is repackaging the conspiracists' favourite lie. That anti conspiracists/conspiracy sceptics are gullible and naive about the estabishment and that they (the anti conspiracists) believe everything they're told.

It's bollocks. One of the main reason why most Urban CT-sceptics get so pissed off with dubious theories sourced from even more dubious websites** is that they *GET IN THE WAY* of _genuine_ investigations into Government dodginess, investigations by independent minded people using *proper* standards of proof and evidence, people who are equally sceptical to 'the establishment' and to CTers alike.


**(sites that dwyer and Jazzz for very different reasons, never criticise or question)


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 3, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> Dr Kelly is a totally different set of circumstances, there isn’t a shed load of evidence and witnesses pointing towards an accident, the [lack of] evidence in that case leaves me with an open mind.



I think we can pretty damn sure that the death of Dr. Kelly was no 'accident'. Even you, claphamboy.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 3, 2009)

chazegee said:


> At OP.
> It should be, the whole fucking point of the internet is less people blindly believing authority.
> I mean, there might be a little overkill, but generally, it's a good thing.



How about not blindly believing any old conspiracy theories, just because the CT purports to be 'anti authority' and claims to expose 'them'

How about a few basic standards of research and proof and evidence and fact?

'Loon hating' as you put it is not hatred of the loons per se (necessarily  ), just extreme  impatience towards CTers *gullibility and naivity*  towards  whatever outlandish creatively created claim is repeated and embellished by the oddballs who  post on Icke, Alex Jones, whale.to, Rense and similar bonkers sites.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 3, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> I think we can pretty damn sure that the death of Dr. Kelly was no 'accident'.



Very likely,  even though I might not go so far as 'pretty damn sure', I'm also very far from accepting of the official versions.

There are _also_ a lot of wild and exaggerated claims circulating about his case in the uncontrolled world of the conspiracist internet. Some of that material just as much gets in the way of the truth as do any establishment cover ups ...


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 3, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> In the Diana case you are just ignoring the biggest set of circumstances that resulted in her death, none of which could have been taken into account by any plotters, those being – not wearing a seatbelt, car travelling at twice the speed limit and driver twice over the legal alcohol limit.



_"For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying."_ - AH

One 'grossly impudent lie' here was the speedometer. With these things - 9/11/Diana/Kelly/whatever - it is crucial to spin your versions of events quickly. Then the forces of groupthink will hold and create that illusion for you. So with 9/11, the story of a high-speed accident driven by papparazzi was quickly spun with the magical passport. Anyway, yes, the speedometer.

The initial reports that the speedometer was frozen at 196km/h was complete bullshit. It was a lie, a lie, a terrible lie. How do we know this? Because Mercedes themselves (whose offer to examine the wrecked vehicle was refused) corrected it, by telling us that there was no way it could be true because in the event of a crash the speedometer would revert to zero.

But by the time that came out, the lie was spun.


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 3, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> Very likely,  even though I might not go so far as 'pretty damn sure'


You think he might have been out for a walk in the woods, and then kind of tripped up, and fell on his knife which had just accidentally fallen out of his pocket?


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 3, 2009)

On the Kelly case, I'm not certain of anything, not having researched it in as much detail as I'd need to to even approach certainty. That doesn't mean  though that I blindly accept official claims . Nor do I believe any wild conspiracist claim floating about the web in opposition to those, either.

Multi directional scepticism, the best kind   ,  very much includes scepticism towards conspiracy theories as well as towards 'the Government'


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 3, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> You appear to categorise the *anti* conspiracists on Urban as the obsessive ones, which is a bit of a distortion of reality really.



True.  After all, no-one could accuse you of obsession, eh William?


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 3, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> I think we can pretty damn sure that the death of Dr. Kelly was no 'accident'. Even you, claphamboy.



On the available [lack of] evidence it is impossible to conclude that Kelly was killed for sure, but it is certainly possible, unlike in the Diana case. 

See, I have an open mind, I don’t just assume things as fact without a decent level of evidence, unlike you.



Jazzz said:


> *The initial reports that the speedometer was frozen at 196km/h was complete bullshit. *It was a lie, a lie, a terrible lie. How do we know this? Because Mercedes themselves (whose offer to examine the wrecked vehicle was refused) corrected it, by telling us that there was no way it could be true because in the event of a crash the speedometer would revert to zero.
> 
> But by the time that came out, the lie was spun.



And here we have a classic example of how conspiraloons will grab one small bit of information as evidence of something more, without taking onboard the facts of the matter.

The speedometer situation came about because of initial media reports; the media often get things wrong, especially with early reports as everyone knows.

This was not part of the evidence presented to the jury at the inquest, because it was bollocks. What you ignore is the actual evidence of speeding from the French crash investigation team and several independent eyewitnesses.

The car wasn't travelling at 120mph as initial media reports claims, but at an estimated 65mph, twice the limit for the underpass, as presented in evidence at the inquest and from what I can see even Mansfield didn't dispute this fact.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 3, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> The initial reports that the speedometer was frozen at 196km/h was complete bullshit. It was a lie, a lie, a terrible lie. How do we know this? Because Mercedes themselves (whose offer to examine the wrecked vehicle was refused) corrected it, by telling us that there was no way it could be true because in the event of a crash the speedometer would revert to zero.



One thing is wrong/a lie/misreported

Therefore everything is wrong/a lie/misreported

Jazzz logic at it's finest.


----------



## xes (Nov 3, 2009)

Yeah but if 1 single thing has been lied about (and this goes for anything) then why beleve any of the original story? That's enough to be suspicious. What else has been lied about? You have to ask those questions, or blindly believe everything you've been told by goverments.
(I don't know enough about the Diana thing to pass comment, but I am skeptical of anything that is full of lies.....appart from the ufo subject  )


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 3, 2009)

xes said:


> Yeah but if 1 single thing has been lied about (and this goes for anything) then why beleve any of the original story?



It was media reports, not fucking official evidence.


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 3, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> On the available [lack of] evidence it is impossible to conclude that Kelly was killed for sure, but it is certainly possible, unlike in the Diana case.
> 
> See, I have an open mind, I don’t just assume things as fact without a decent level of evidence, unlike you.


The point was Kelly's death cannot possibly be 'accidental', as you and WoW seem to reserve an 'open mind' for. Some people think it may have been _suicide_.

I was just having a giggle at that.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 3, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> I think we can pretty damn sure that the death of Dr. Kelly was no 'accident'. Even you, claphamboy.



I agree. I'm pretty sure he intended to kill himself. It wasn't a morning stroll that went horrifically wrong.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 3, 2009)

8den said:


> You claimed Diana's bodyguard was paid off by the security services, when it shown to you that Al Fayed's lawyer admitted that this claim wasn't substantiated, you changed your tune and claimed Paul Henri was the one paid off.
> 
> Idiotic nonsense.



could it be that i'm not a sad twat that has a legalese standard grip of cases from 12 years ago. If i was Al Fayed then yes i would remember exactly who got paid what , but i don't really care that much except when people start trying to cover up what most likely was murder. And i like arguing with you lot


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 3, 2009)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> One thing is wrong/a lie/misreported
> 
> Therefore everything is wrong/a lie/misreported
> 
> Jazzz logic at it's finest.



always best to believe the worst when dealing with the tabloids, can anyone remember their views leading up to the Iraq war for example?


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 3, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> The point was Kelly's death cannot possibly be 'accidental', as you and WoW seem to reserve an 'open mind' for. Some people think it may have been _suicide_.



I haven't suggestd it was 'accidental', you fruitcake. 



Jazzz said:


> I was just having a giggle at that.



I am sure you were, whilst dribbling insanely at the same time.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 3, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> always best to believe the worst when dealing with the tabloids, can anyone remember their views leading up to the Iraq war for example?



You're not suggestıng that there was a _conspıracy_ between polıtıcıans and the press to lead the Brıtısh publıc ınto war are you?

Hahahahaha loonspud, nutbobbın, bonkersman.

Shouldn't thıs barkıng CT-er be banned?


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 3, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> You're not suggestıng that there was a _conspıracy_ between polıtıcıans and the press to lead the Brıtısh publıc ınto war are you?
> 
> Hahahahaha loonspud, nutbobbın, bonkersman.
> 
> Shouldn't thıs barkıng CT-er be banned?



Whilst most of the press certainly swallowed the government line and lies, there were plenty of articles questioning that position, so not much evidence of a conspiracy there.

But, then you don’t seriously believe there was anyway.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 3, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> Whilst most of the press certainly swallowed the government line and lies, there were plenty of articles questioning that position, so not much evidence of a conspiracy there.
> 
> But, then you don’t seriously believe there was anyway.



the whole thing was so OTT and gung-ho that you hardly dared speak out against the war at the time because the medias lies and brainwashing were so severe that woulda made you an unpatriotic commie faggot or something. It's totally different now the public have seen it all to be lies though, and most people are anti war now.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 3, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> the whole thing was so OTT and gung-ho that you hardly dared speak out against the war at the time because the medias lies and brainwashing were so severe that woulda made you an unpatriotic commie faggot or something.



You weren't on that 2 million strong march against the war then. Terrified of speaking out we all were.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 3, 2009)

goldenecitrone said:


> You weren't on that 2 million strong march against the war then. Terrified of speaking out we all were.



unfortunately i was stuck in Stanley working with morons


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 3, 2009)

dwyer said:
			
		

> You're not suggestıng that there was a conspıracy between polıtıcıans and the press to lead the Brıtısh publıc ınto war are you?
> 
> Hahahahaha loonspud, nutbobbın, bonkersman.
> 
> Shouldn't thıs barkıng CT-er be banned?





claphamboy said:


> Whilst most of the press certainly swallowed the government line and lies, there were plenty of articles questioning that position, so not much evidence of a conspiracy there.
> 
> *But, then you don’t seriously believe there was anyway*.



Dwyer doesn't seriously believe a single damn thing he ever posts, as you know ....

The above trollery from him is just part of his continuing smear campaign against conspiracy-sceptics, to lie (trollingly) about them being gullible sheeple-dupes of the establishment.

As I posted earlier, complete bollocks.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 3, 2009)

goldenecitrone said:


> You weren't on that 2 million strong march against the war then. Terrified of speaking out we all were.



...but that comment reminds me of another aspect to the media/govt conspiracy to promote the war, the amount of underhanded tactics the old bill used to stop marchers getting there, even escorting coaches out of harms way...


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 3, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> Dwyer doesn't seriously believe a single damn thing he ever posts, as you know ....
> 
> The above trollery from him is just part of his continuing smear campaign against conspiracy-sceptics, to lie (trollingly) about them being gullible sheeple-dupes of the establishment.
> 
> As I posted earlier, complete bollocks.



he was just being sarcastic about people having a go at me for putting forward plausible theories


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 3, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> ...but that comment reminds me of another aspect to the media/govt conspiracy to promote the war, the amount of underhanded tactics the old bill used to stop marchers getting there, even escorting coaches out of harms way...



Didn't do a great job then did they? Rubbish, incompetent conspiracy ...


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 3, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> he was just being sarcastic about people having a go at me for putting forward plausible theories



I think I more aware of his real agenda on threads like this than you are tbh.

He's no more a *genuine* supporter of conspiracy theories than I am.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 3, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> ...but that comment reminds me of another aspect to the media/govt conspiracy to promote the war, the amount of underhanded tactics the old bill used to stop marchers getting there, even escorting coaches out of harms way...



I think the jingoism that lead up to the Falklands war was far worse, to be honest. I wouldn't call that a conspiracy though, just the whipping up of nationalist fervour.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 3, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> Didn't do a great job then did they? Rubbish, incompetent conspiracy ...




all part of the Bilderberg agenda.
Huge media hype for the war, Blair pulling out all the stops to intimidate MPs, old bill denying thousands their democratic right to march. This war was GOING TO HAPPEN AT ALL COSTS, whatever the public did. But at least the 2 million (or whatever) that DID make it, showed huge opposition to their lies


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 3, 2009)

goldenecitrone said:


> I think the jingoism that lead up to the Falklands war was far worse, to be honest. I wouldn't call that a conspiracy though, just the whipping up of nationalist fervour.



very similar , yes, but Thatcher's main objective was to get idiots to forget the massacre she caused to jobs in this country and offer them a nice bit o patriotism instead, then calling an election


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 3, 2009)

>>391

I meant the Bill weren't very effective at stopping people getting to the demo, as you seem to be implying was part of the conspiracy. *That* part of it at least didn't work too well ...

Not that the demo achieved anything very much more broadly, but that's another debate.


----------



## 8den (Nov 3, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> The point was Kelly's death cannot possibly be 'accidental', as you and WoW seem to reserve an 'open mind' for. Some people think it may have been _suicide_.
> 
> I was just having a giggle at that.



Wheres your evidence it wasn't suicide?


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 3, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> the whole thing was so OTT and gung-ho that you hardly dared speak out against the war at the time because the medias lies and brainwashing were so severe that woulda made you an unpatriotic commie faggot or something. It's totally different now the public have seen it all to be lies though, and most people are anti war now.



Bollocks, absolute bollocks. There were plenty of us speaking out, millions of us marched, there were plenty of articles in the press questioning the government line - not that you would know as you have admitted you never read newspapers, you just form ideas in your own head from thin air.   



trevhagl said:


> he was just being sarcastic about people having a go at me for putting forward plausible theories



Oh you poor little bunny, posters 'having a go at you'. He’s all hurt at posters ‘having a go at him’ - bless. 

After all it's not like you would ever 'have a go' at other posters would you? No sire. 

How ironic.


----------



## kyser_soze (Nov 3, 2009)

> you just form ideas in your own head from thin air.



'In the thin air inside your head'


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 3, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> Whilst most of the press certainly swallowed the government line and lies, there were plenty of articles questioning that position, so not much evidence of a conspiracy there.
> 
> But, then you don’t seriously believe there was anyway.



Oh don't get all William on me here.  What do you call it when senior politicians hold clandestine meetings with newspaper editors and plan how to to foist a set of lies on the public?

I call it a conspiracy myself.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 3, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> Dwyer doesn't seriously believe a single damn thing he ever posts, as you know .....



In which case, William, you won't mind when I say that you are an obsessive, paranoid, weed-addled old hippy nutter.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 3, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Oh don't get all William on me here.  What do you call it when senior politicians hold clandestine meetings with newspaper editors and plan how to to foist a set of lies on the public?
> 
> I call it a conspiracy myself.



Would that be the same newspaper editors that allowed articles from contributors that questioned the government line to be published?

Or are you just talking about the tabloid comics here?


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 3, 2009)

I think I'd rather be 'all William' than 'all dwyer'  

At least I'm _honest_ about my intentions, and in posting what I *really* think ...


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 3, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> Would that be the same newspaper editors that allowed articles from contributors that questioned the government line to be published?
> 
> Or are you just talking about the tabloid comics here?



You won't seriously deny that the media were wholeheartedly supportive of the war?

Of course they allowed a few dissenting voices, to give the appearance of a fair debate.  That's how they do.  Read yer Chomsky.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 3, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> I think I'd rather be 'all William' than 'all dwyer'
> 
> At least I'm _honest_ about my intentions, and in posting what I *really* think ...



You're not honest about having me on ignore though, you nit.

Seriously, what's the point of claiming to put someone on ignore, then responding to _every single one_ of their posts when quoted by others?

What's the point?

Especially when your responses consist entirely of: "he doesn't really believe that you know."

Pull yourself together man.


----------



## 8den (Nov 3, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> You won't seriously deny that the media were wholeheartedly supportive of the war?
> 
> Of course they allowed a few dissenting voices, to give the appearance of a fair debate.  That's how they do.  Read yer Chomsky.



Would you like a list of the editorials and articles opposing the war? Hang on wasn't David Kelly "killed" over a BBC piece that exposed the government's claims about 45 minutes being a complete lie?


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 3, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> You won't seriously deny that the media were wholeheartedly supportive of the war?
> 
> Of course they allowed a few dissenting voices, to give the appearance of a fair debate.  That's how they do.  Read yer Chomsky.



FFS, I think everyone can accept that much of the media was suckered in by the government’s lies, just like the rest of the Commons was, but to suggest newspaper editors were somehow part of a conspiracy and actually knew the truth is barking mad.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 3, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Oh don't get all William on me here.  What do you call it when senior politicians hold clandestine meetings with newspaper editors and plan how to to foist a set of lies on the public?
> 
> I call it a conspiracy myself.




i think i'll just leave YOu to argue with em, ya say it far better than i could. But it still won't get through to em.

Like i mean, WHICH dissenting voices were allowed at the start of the Iraq war? I can't remember any!! NOWADAYS yes it is, but apart from a few bits in The Mirror, the tabloids were all full steam into the Bilderberg agenda


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 3, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> FFS, I think everyone can accept that much of the media was suckered in by the government’s lies, just like the rest of the Commons was, but to suggest newspaper editors were somehow part of a conspiracy and actually knew the truth is barking mad.



_Everyone_ knew the truth.  I knew it, the 2 million who marched against the war knew it, which means you knew it, and the newspaper editors most certainly knew it too.

So why did they print their lies?  You find it "barking mad" to assert that they did so as a result of "briefing" by government ministers?

Well guess what?  That's what is commonly known as conspirators conspiring in a conspiracy.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 3, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> FFS, I think everyone can accept that much of the media was suckered in by the government’s lies, just like the rest of the Commons was, but to suggest newspaper editors were somehow part of a conspiracy and actually knew the truth is barking mad.



Read Jon Ronson "Them" , but if you can't be bothered, he tracked a meeting down to remote woodland in Spain where he watched as ex heads of state, that cunt Mandelson and newspaper OWNERS went past.


----------



## southside (Nov 3, 2009)

Illuminate anyone?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 3, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> Read Jon Ronson "Them" , but if you can't be bothered, he tracked a meeting down to remote woodland in Spain where he watched as ex heads of state, that cunt Mandelson and newspaper OWNERS went past.



Did you read that piece where Denis Healey was asked what went on at Bilderberg meetings?  His reply was succinct and informative: "fuck off."


----------



## 8den (Nov 3, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> Read Jon Ronson "Them" , but if you can't be bothered, he tracked a meeting down to remote woodland in Spain where he watched as ex heads of state, that cunt Mandelson and newspaper OWNERS went past.



Did you miss the bit where he interviewed a Bilderberger and discussed the group at length?


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 3, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> _Everyone_ knew the truth.  I knew it, the 2 million who marched against the war knew it, which means you knew it, and the newspaper editors most certainly knew it too.
> 
> So why did they print their lies?  You find it "barking mad" to assert that they did so as a result of "briefing" by government ministers?
> 
> Well guess what?  That's what is commonly known as conspirators conspiring in a conspiracy.



What a ridiculous claim to make, most people didn't know the full truth – how the fuck could they?

Most people I knew and spoke too that were anti-war still believed certain claims, such as the possession of weapons of mass destruction – the main claim to justify the war. 

There's a big different between government briefing the media with lies and a conspiracy between the government and media - perhaps you need to check on the definition of the word 'conspiracy' and get back to us when you have learnt its meaning. 



trevhagl said:


> Read Jon Ronson "Them" , but if you can't be bothered, he tracked a meeting down to remote woodland in Spain where he watched as ex heads of state, that cunt Mandelson and newspaper OWNERS went past.



And. So. What?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 3, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> Most people I knew and spoke too that were anti-war still believed certain claims, such as the possession of weapons of mass destruction – the main claim to justify the war.



In that case, most people you know are idiots and suckers of the first water.  Everyone I know was perfectly well aware that they were being lied to.  Thing was, there was nothing we could do about it.  Why not?  Because of a very effective _conspiracy._



claphamboy said:


> There's a big different between government briefing the media with lies and a conspiracy between the government and media - perhaps you need to check on the definition of the word 'conspiracy' and get back to us when you have learnt its meaning.



Well according to the Princeton dictionary, a "conspiracy" is:

"# a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act
# a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot)
# a group of conspirators banded together to achieve some harmful or illegal purpose."

So it appears that I was right, does it not?  The UK was led into war by a _conspiracy._  Are you still planning to deny this?  Thought not.

It would thus further seem that, far from being barking mad, conspiracy theorists are actually the only ones to see the truth of the matter.

http://www.google.com.tr/search?hl=...&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title&ved=0CAYQkAE


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 3, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> In that case, most people you know are idiots and suckers of the first water.  Everyone I know was perfectly well aware that they were being lied to.  Thing was, there was nothing we could do about it.  Why not?  Because of a very effective _conspiracy._



Now, you are either telling porkies or trolling.

It was perfectly reasonable to assume Iraq had WMDs on the basis that they had been supplied with them in the past and had indeed used them. The '45-minute threat' was clearly nonsense, but the fact that WMDs could have existed was very possible. 



phildwyer said:


> Well according to the Princeton dictionary, a "conspiracy" is:
> 
> "# a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act
> # a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot)
> ...



Well done, they say 'you learn something new every day', so your work is done for today.

Tomorrow's lesson will be the different between the government briefing the newspapers with lies and the newspapers being in on a conspiracy, which as you have just learnt would need them to know that were being lied too and coming to an agreement to ignore the truth and print falsehoods.

It's actually a very simple lesson, I am sure if you sleep on it by the morning you'll get it and then you'll be able to enjoy the rest of tomorrow without needing to learn anything more.


----------



## elbows (Nov 3, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> It was perfectly reasonable to assume Iraq had WMDs on the basis that they had been supplied with them in the past and had indeed used them. The '45-minute threat' was clearly nonsense, but the fact that WMDs could have existed was very possible.



Actually most of the people I know who were against the war didnt believe the WMD stuff at all, not just the exagurated 45 minutes version. I sort of know what you mean about the possibility still existing but the amount of previous weapons inspections & destruction of ingredients and facilities and how crippled Saddams regime was made it seem a bit unlikely. I must admit though I expected they would be able to find something, no matter how lame, after the invasion to at least make the WMD stuff seem partially true, but that never happened.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 3, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> It was perfectly reasonable to assume Iraq had WMDs on the basis that they had been supplied with them in the past and had indeed used them. The '45-minute threat' was clearly nonsense, but the fact that WMDs could have existed was very possible.



No it wasn't. Did you believe it?  I didn't believe it for a second.  You know why?  Because I recognize a _conspiracy_ when I see one.



claphamboy said:


> Tomorrow's lesson will be the different between the government briefing the newspapers with lies and the newspapers being in on a conspiracy, which as you have just learnt would need them to know that were being lied too and coming to an agreement to ignore the truth and print falsehoods.



And the latter is exactly what happened.


----------



## elbows (Nov 3, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> Tomorrow's lesson will be the different between the government briefing the newspapers with lies and the newspapers being in on a conspiracy, which as you have just learnt would need them to know that were being lied too and coming to an agreement to ignore the truth and print falsehoods.



Im not sure I see it as that black & white. I would imagine that some journalists were quite aware that some stuff they were being briefed with was not true. Im not sure if I would call these things conspiracies because they tend to be systemic in nature, and people within various different parts of the system may be quite happy to spread lies and propaganda if they genuinely believe it serves the national interest in some very important way. 

The buildup to the Iraq war was a bit atypical because this stuff was questioned far more by institutions such as the BBC than I would normally expect. They even called some of our own stuff propaganda. I assume this is because there was a big split amongst the various elites and managerial classes as to whether this war was a good thing, and because the threat to our national interest from Iraq did not seem that great, they were more willing to question it.

I guess one of the lessons of this is that even when you have a system where people within the system are used to lies and are fairly cynical, you still ahve to put a bit of effort in so that they have something they can cling to to enable them to doublethink just enough to go along with things without causing a stink. Crises of confidence are easily dealt with by systems if they affect isolated minority of people, but when it goes to far there is a mess and a possibility of change, one that is usually neutered by people desperately trying to make token gestures and 'draw a line under it'.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 3, 2009)

elbows said:


> Actually most of the people I know who were against the war didnt believe the WMD stuff at all, not just the exagurated 45 minutes version. I sort of know what you mean about the possibility still existing but the amount of previous weapons inspections & destruction of ingredients and facilities and how crippled Saddams regime was made it seem a bit unlikely. I must admit though I expected they would be able to find something, no matter how lame, after the invasion to at least make the WMD stuff seem partially true, but that never happened.



I am surprised that most of the people you knew believed the WMDs claim was totally wrong, in view of the facts that no one denies (a) Saddam had had them and (b) Saddam had used them.

The inspections & destruction policy was all well and good, but (a) Saddam had been giving the weapons inspectors the run around and (b) Iraq is a bloody big country and 'needle and haystack' situation comes into play.

I, like you, was surprised they didn't find something to prove the WMD stuff was true, to follow the 'conspiracy' rather than 'complete cock-up' theory you would have expected the Americans would have smuggled some evidence in to support the lie, but strangely they didn't.


----------



## elbows (Nov 3, 2009)

Oops I forgot one of my main points was that as so much of this is systemic and an understandable compromise between the various opinons and wants of those that have power, Im not sure I would describe it as a conspiracy, it seems much broader than that. With something like Iraq there would have been a variety of small conspiracies which were part of trying to achieve specific aims, and maybe it was closer to a conspiracy than a lot of wars because it didnt serve the needs of a broad enough spectrum of powerful interests. But the word conspiracy is becoming another soiled label due to its modern useage, and I go down my usual path of thought where I ridicule many conspiracy theorists for expressing surprise or anger at the idea that powerful people have power. If you dont pretend that rhetoric and political ideals and democracy are supposed to be taken at face value, then its hard to see everything as a shadowy conspiracy.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 3, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> No it wasn't. Did you believe it?  I didn't believe it for a second.  You know why?  Because I recognize a _conspiracy_ when I see one.



Oh, the ye olde ‘all seeing eye’ move, which without any logic to back it up  fails to impress anyone.



phildwyer said:


> And the latter is exactly what happened.



See above, 0/10 – must try harder.


----------



## elbows (Nov 3, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> I am surprised that most of the people you knew believed the WMDs claim was totally wrong, in view of the facts that no one denies (a) Saddam had had them and (b) Saddam had used them.
> 
> The inspections & destruction policy was all well and good, but (a) Saddam had been giving the weapons inspectors the run around and (b) Iraq is a bloody big country and 'needle and haystack' situation comes into play.



Arguments along these lines I remember quite well, but it was usually those in favour or not very against the looming war that made points about Saddam having them in the past, giving inspectors the run-around, burying them in the desert.

Without wishing to have a complete rerun of this argument, the counterpoints went along the lines of 'the weapons had a use-by date, it was very hard for him to import new ones from anyone, we had mangled his capacity in many ways over many years, how much he hindered the inspections was hyped for propaganda purposes and he let them back in anyway, plus the government evidence for WMD was so weak it suggested the reality was even weaker'.

Perhaps faking evidence of WMD to save face was considered far too risky because if it went wrong and was exposed, well the last thing they needed was more damage to their credibility.

I was quite fascinated by the Rumsfeld & friends explanation later on that Saddam had wanted us to think he had weapons. Ho ho. I assume that sort of brinkmanship is a standard feature of global politics and people in charge of analysing threats would take such possibilities into account, certainly Saddam would not have wanted neighbours like Iran to know how weak he really was, but I think the reality was fairly easy to predict.

Anyways in general I think its clear that there are a large number of different reasons why the different power players do the things they do, and why they lie about stuff. Sometimes their motives and methods are just as dodgy and corrupt as conspiracy theorists would have us believe, but the reality is so much more complex and nuanced, including governments actually trying to act in the way they think best serves their nation and people. Its not really that hard to imagine what it would be like to be a decider of some kind, what limits there are, and that there is not one shadowy force at work, but a collection of persuasive factors. Sometimes a belief may cause a dodgy decision, sometimes some other powerful people or group exerting pressure, sometimes personal interest, sometimes forces from the past. Sometimes knowing the reality, having quality info and seeing what the real threats are, coupled with a lack of faith in masses or other groups reacting in the right way, and having to play the international poker game and so not be transparent to other players, leads to dodgy things. Fear, greed, and the will to get ones way surely lead to all manner of suspect decisions, perhaps some of them resemble plots, but good luck ever being truly sure whats occurring.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 3, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> Oh, the ye olde ‘all seeing eye’ move, which without any logic to back it up  fails to impress anyone.



I've no idea why you find it implausible that people didn't believe Iraq had WMDs.  It was perfectly obvious to me and everyone I knew at the time that this was pure warmongering lies.

Maybe it's because I was in the USA, where the government didn't really have to bother with the WMD crap, they just hinted that Saddam had been involved in 9/11.  But even there no-one I knew believed them.

In any case, since it turned out that we skeptics were right, and we were in fact being lied to, surely the onus is on those who were fooled--such as yourself--to explain how you came to be fooled so badly.  I would suggest that your reluctance to believe in conspiracies had much to do with it.

Unfortunately it doesn't really seem like you've learned much from the experience.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 3, 2009)

elbows said:


> Without wishing to have a complete rerun of this argument, the counterpoints went along the lines of 'the weapons had a use-by date, it was very hard for him to import new ones from anyone, we had mangled his capacity in many ways over many years, how much he hindered the inspections was hyped for propaganda purposes and he let them back in anyway, plus the government evidence for WMD was so weak it suggested the reality was even weaker'.



I tend to agree with most of what you say, but a couple of things:

1 - The UN inspectors were, if memory serves me right, very much against being pulled out so the war could happen, but at the same time made it very clear that Saddam had been 'playing with them', and making their job difficult, but despite that they believed they could complete their job. That was widely reported at the time - little in the way of propaganda there.

2- Anyone that believed that Saddam couldn't get outside help for WMDs would also believe that Pakistan, for example, could never have got outside help for their development of nuclear weapons, of course, reality proves otherwise.

At the end of the day, shit happens, the world is random, conspiraloons are too weak to accept that basic fact and need to believe that some sort of ‘powerful elite’ are running the show worldwide. 

I guess, going back a couple of generations they would put it down to 'God', now it's down to the 'lizards'.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 3, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I've no idea why you find it implausible that people didn't believe Iraq had WMDs.  It was perfectly obvious to me and everyone I knew at the time that this was pure warmongering lies.



As I said earlier, because no one denies that (a) he had had them and (b) he had used them.

So, perhaps instead of just waffling you would like to explain your logic in believing he could not possibly have still had them?


----------



## elbows (Nov 3, 2009)

Im not suggesting Saddam never hindered the inspectors, but it was certainly overplayed for propaganda purposes, I forget the details but I seem to remember something with Hans Blix and others using the word cooperation in a way that was not helpful to the US & UKs narrative.

Saddam getting outside help with weapons would require him to have allies with decent capability and the will & strategic interest in giving him some weapons. Potential candidates for this were fairly thin on the ground since UK & USA stopped being his buddy, and whilst there was some sort of Russian dimension they had their own reasons not to help him that much, and other candidates would probably have been afraid of getting their regimes twatted by USA if they helped him out. Anyway at the time I did not 100% discount the idea he had any WMDs, I just considered it quite unlikely and nothing to do with the reasons why we might want to have a war.


----------



## elbows (Nov 3, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> At the end of the day, shit happens, the world is random, conspiraloons are too weak to accept that basic fact and need to believe that some sort of ‘powerful elite’ are running the show worldwide.
> 
> I guess, going back a couple of generations they would put it down to 'God', now it's down to the 'lizards'.



No I think there are plenty of other scapegoats than god. Communists, Chinese, Japanese, Germans, French, Jews, Oil-rich Arabs, Industrialists, Satanists, Catholics, Protestants, Scientists, the Pope, The Mafia, the media, there is never a shortage of scapegoats and even lizards or other non-humans have probably featured in that role for some for a lot longer than the last decade or so. 

I wouldnt take the concept of random too far either. More likely chaos and coincidence mixed in with all of human history, seizing opportunity, all the different powerful groups and elites, economy, ideology and belief. Pockets of order are made out of chaos, its  just a question of believing not only in a new world order but considering the old world order, and what sort of order the conspiracy theorists really strive for instead. I mistrust the conspiracy theorists not just for their sloppy attitude towards evidence, but because their motives and aims are even less apparent than those they shout and point at and blame.


----------



## free spirit (Nov 3, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> I am surprised that most of the people you knew believed the WMDs claim was totally wrong, in view of the facts that no one denies (a) Saddam had had them and (b) Saddam had used them.
> 
> The inspections & destruction policy was all well and good, but (a) Saddam had been giving the weapons inspectors the run around and (b) Iraq is a bloody big country and 'needle and haystack' situation comes into play.
> 
> I, like you, was surprised they didn't find something to prove the WMD stuff was true, to follow the 'conspiracy' rather than 'complete cock-up' theory you would have expected the Americans would have smuggled some evidence in to support the lie, but strangely they didn't.


tbh claphamboy, I'm not really sure where you're going with this arguement, but by saying that you believed the bullshit about WMD, it really doesn't help your credibility when arguing about other conspiracy type stuff.

It was very obvious that Iraq was very very unlikely to actually possess anything even vaguely resembling a functioning WMD programme to anyone who could be bothered to do a few hours digging around beyond the mainstream press at the time. The reasons were comprehensively outlined at the time on the website of the University professor who'd been the first to spot that blairs dossier had been plagiarised from a years old university dissertation (I forget his name and the site name now), or read the words of the weapons inspectors... ie some basic research.

and in this case there absolutely was a conspiracy between those at the top of the US government, and those in the UK government to silence those in the intelligence community who disagreed, and push the thread of WMD in the public arena way beyond anything that was justified by the evidence they were being given in private. 

This is one conspiracy theory (conspiracy fact) that you're welcome to attempt to debunk if you want, but you're on a sticky wicket from the off being as you've already admitted you were one of the gullible many who fell for it hook line and sinker.

I'm not saying that rumsfeld, cheney et al actually knew for a fact that he didn't have any wmd, and bullshitted entirely about it, as in that case you're probably right, they probably would have made some attempt to plant some. I actually think they were both so blinkered that they genuinely thought there'd have been no way that Saddam would have actually destroyed everything, and that they'd be bound to find something somewhere that they could use as justification. 

Fact remains though that they actively conspired to suppress all the evidence that pointed to Iraq no longer possessing WMD's, and heavily promote any snippet of information no matter how flimsy it was that supported their WMD scare story to allow them to launch a war they'd been planning since well before Bush won the election, never mind 911. This is a conspiracy by any definition of the word, and one that led to an illegal war in which a million or so people may well have died or been seriously injured, millions more become refugees, and trillions of dollars worth of contracts have changed hands.


----------



## free spirit (Nov 3, 2009)

balls. I really wish we'd managed to club together to sub the server fund back in the day so that the mods hadn't had to cull most of the threads on the board. I was hoping to find one of the threads from the time to demonstrate what I'm talking about, but they all seem to have vanished into the ether


----------



## elbows (Nov 3, 2009)

Perhaps one of the reasons that I tend not to think of the Iraq stuff as a conspiracy theory is because that soiled label is usually only applied to things that are much less certain than the dubiousness of the Iraq war.

Although I do seem to recall Tony Blair (or maybe Bush) trying to dismiss the Iraq Oil War possibility as a silly conspiracy theory.

Good luck trying to rehabilitate the term conspiracy theory.

And no I dont believe there is a single conspiracy to distort and devalue language, rather there is a general trend towards such things, not quite as overt or planned as Orwells newspeak, but all the same one function of the term conspiracy theory is to limit the spectrum of what is considered to be legitimate debate. Outside of that increasingly shrunken spectrum, there are no shortage of truths and lies to be found, and in a war against he lies some truth will be lost as 'collateral damage'. Not to mention people seem to find it easier or more entertaining to argue about the sillier stuff than drone on about the more realistic, equally as grim possible realities.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2009)

free spirit said:


> balls. I really wish we'd managed to club together to sub the server fund back in the day so that the mods hadn't had to cull most of the threads on the board. I was hoping to find one of the threads from the time to demonstrate what I'm talking about, but they all seem to have vanished into the ether


it's my recollection that most of those threads disappeared because of their utter loonspuddery


----------



## free spirit (Nov 3, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> it's my recollection that most of those threads disappeared because of their utter loonspuddery


no, those ones got kept in their own special archive forum. Some of the best of the rest were originally kept in the main archive forum (though many would have been missed), but then I think even these got lost when the board moved forums or something, so that anyone searching now will only find the conspiraloon ones.

as well as the more nutty 911 threads there were some fairly well researched threads specifically unpicking the WMD claims, the 2 dossiers etc, though I guess they were probably a lot shorter than the conspiraloon ones.


----------



## elbows (Nov 3, 2009)




----------



## Jazzz (Nov 3, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> What a ridiculous claim to make, most people didn't know the full truth – how the fuck could they?
> 
> Most people I knew and spoke too that were anti-war still believed certain claims, such as the possession of weapons of mass destruction – the main claim to justify the war.



This is true. You see, most people just relied on the mainstream media. Even those who didn't want war with Iraq. They appealed for 'more time' etc.

However, claphamboy, had you been reading urban75 in the run-up to the Iraq war, you might well have realised that it was all a sack of shit. We had sites like iraqwar.ru telling us the truth of the whole affair.

The whole thing was orchestrated rubbish. It was certainly a 'conspiracy'. As Colin Powell had said just a little earlier, defending the regime of sanctions

_"The sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction ... And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq ... "_ Colin Powell 24.2.2001

on the 'run-around', this is what John Pilger has to say (he's worth paying attention to)



> Iraqi non-compliance often came only after provocation from the US administration. In March 1998 Clinton announced that Iraq had to open its palaces - percieved by Iraqis as symbols of their sovereignty - "anytime, without any conditions, deadlines or excuses". In addition, the Iraqis discovered evidence that American members of Unscom were spying for Washington. After initial vociferous denials the US was forced to concede the truth of the allegations following an embarrassing expose in the Washington Post.


 source

wake up claphamboy, it's a murkier world than you think.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 3, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> This is true. You see, most people just relied on the mainstream media. Even those who didn't want war with Iraq. They appealed for 'more time' etc.



First line, first lie.


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 4, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> First line, first lie.


How we forget!

It was not permitted to question the idea of whether Saddam actually had the things in the mainstream media. That was 'crazy conspiracy talk'. I can remember the pre-war 'question time'. On one hand you had the warmongers saying let's go in now, on the other there were those appealing for 'more time' and peaceful resolutions. Those arguing against war were totally unable to put the idea that the whole thing was nonsense.

Of course David Icke had it right when he said that they didn't need inspectors in the first place, if they wanted to know whether Saddam had WMDs they need only check the receipts!


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2009)

No, i said
v





> This is true. You see, most people just relied on the mainstream media. Even those who didn't want war with Iraq. They appealed for 'more time' etc.



It was the first line of your post. I didn't read the rest because this was a lie. Simple as that. Why lie? Why insult me?


----------



## elbows (Nov 4, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> Of course David Icke had it right when he said that they didn't need inspectors in the first place, if they wanted to know whether Saddam had WMDs they need only check the receipts!



Well inspectors main job was to make sure the stuff on the receipts had been destroyed, not to confirm whether it existed in the first place, and also its a recycled Bill Hicks joke from the earlier war with Iraq:


----------



## Yossarian (Nov 4, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> How we forget!
> 
> It was not permitted to question the idea of whether Saddam actually had the things in the mainstream media. That was 'crazy conspiracy talk'.



_That so-called evidence about Saddam's arsenal is accepted by all those who desire war, as Economist editor Bill Emmott made clear in a radio interview explaining why his magazine last week called for an invasion. The reason, said his editorial, was the likelihood that Iraq's "advanced technology and potential oil wealth" could soon give Saddam an atomic bomb. 

This belief lies at the heart of every argument for attacking Iraq. As Guardian leader writer Simon Tisdall points out, all the "evidence" that Saddam has the potential to construct weapons of mass destruction is really an "assertion". In the end, what all journalists have to decide is whether or not they believe information supplied by America's intelligence agencies.

Indeed, the anti-war journalists can point to the fact that at least one key reason advanced by America for making war on Saddam - that he was linked in some way to al-Qaida - has already collapsed. If American intelligence experts were wrong about that, could they also be wrong about the weapons of mass destruction?_


Guardian, August 2002, and there were no shortage of similar pieces before the war, echoing widely held sentiments.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2002/aug/05/mondaymediasection.politics


----------



## free spirit (Nov 4, 2009)

yep, while there undoubtedly was a fair part of the antiwar movement, and antiwar press who still believed some or all of the wmd shit, severe scepticism or outright non belief of the wmd claims was a pretty mainstream current in the wider antiwar movement and antiwar mainstream press.

fuck all way that either the holographic plane brigade, or the gullible who fell for the WMD should be allowed to get away with this type of historic revisionism


----------



## free spirit (Nov 4, 2009)

took some digging seeing as all the original host sites seem to now be defunct, but IMO the counter dossier by Dr Glen Rangwala was the most authoritative piece of research done prior to the war to counter the WMD bullshit coming from the US and UK governments.

This was presented to both MPs & members of Congress prior to the key debates, as well as the mainstream press, and was drawn upon by most of the journalists who wrote articles questioning the WMD 'intelligence'. The information was out there if you could be arsed to read it to make it very obvious that Saddam was very unlikely to have anything in the way of usable WMD's left by 2002/3.

Rangwala was the guy I mentioned earlier who'd first spotted that Blairs dossier had largely been plagiarised btw, and is a Cambridge University politics lecturer specialising in the middle east, so pretty credible as sources go, and his work was fully referenced.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 4, 2009)

free spirit said:


> tbh claphamboy, I'm not really sure where you're going with this arguement, but by saying that you believed the bullshit about WMD, it really doesn't help your credibility when arguing about other conspiracy type stuff.



Exactly.  

If one fails to recognize a fairly obvious conspiracy such as that, one will clearly fail to recognize others.  Indeed we might even say that one is predisposed to believe what one is told, and thus prejudiced against acknowledging the existence of any conspiracy at all.


----------



## A Dashing Blade (Nov 4, 2009)

Hang on a sec . . . 

There were no secret WMDs because we tried to find evidence and couldn't.

But there was a secret 9/11 conspiracy because we tried to find evidence . . .


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 4, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> No, i said
> v
> 
> It was the first line of your post. I didn't read the rest because this was a lie. Simple as that. Why lie? Why insult me?




he's not lying. I knew people who are usually sussed about things, and such was the scale of a propaganda they just wouldn't argue the case of it being dodgy, for fear they were seen as an odd ball


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 4, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Exactly.
> 
> If one fails to recognize a fairly obvious conspiracy such as that, one will clearly fail to recognize others.  Indeed we might even say that one is predisposed to believe what one is told, and thus prejudiced against acknowledging the existence of any conspiracy at all.




Free Spirit's certainly shut him up! It was a lot easier for him and his ilk when it was only me against the lot of em!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 4, 2009)

8den said:


> Wheres your evidence it wasn't suicide?



Come, come. jazzz doesn't do "evidence", only allusion.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 4, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Oh don't get all William on me here.  What do you call it when senior politicians hold clandestine meetings with newspaper editors and plan how to to foist a set of lies on the public?
> 
> I call it a conspiracy myself.



The proper word is _propagandising_, and it's been going on since the media got large enough to be worth using. It's not like new Labour introduced a new and shockingly cynical tactic to the world.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 4, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> Read Jon Ronson "Them" , but if you can't be bothered, he tracked a meeting down to remote woodland in Spain where he watched as ex heads of state, that cunt Mandelson and newspaper OWNERS went past.



Which proves what?
That, since time immemorial, the rich and the powerful have got together. That's all. It doesn't prove that there was or must have been a conspiracy over the war.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 4, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> _Everyone_ knew the truth.  I knew it, the 2 million who marched against the war knew it, which means you knew it, and the newspaper editors most certainly knew it too.
> 
> So why did they print their lies?  You find it "barking mad" to assert that they did so as a result of "briefing" by government ministers?
> 
> Well guess what?  That's what is commonly known as conspirators conspiring in a conspiracy.



Something known by tens or hundreds of millions of people isn't a conspiracy.


----------



## kyser_soze (Nov 4, 2009)

Trev, I know you aren't really that interested in things like actual evidence, but if you want to know the really deep roots of the Iraq war, why it was inevitable irrespective of 911 and fake WMDs etc, you should track down a book called 'The Bush Dyslexicon'.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 4, 2009)

Is maddie a muslim? ask the Daily Star


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 4, 2009)

free spirit said:


> tbh claphamboy, I'm not really sure where you're going with this arguement, but by saying that you believed the bullshit about WMD, it really doesn't help your credibility when arguing about other conspiracy type stuff.
> 
> It was very obvious that Iraq was very very unlikely to actually possess anything even vaguely resembling a functioning WMD programme to anyone who could be bothered to do a few hours digging around beyond the mainstream press at the time. The reasons were comprehensively outlined at the time on the website of the University professor who'd been the first to spot that blairs dossier had been plagiarised from a years old university dissertation (I forget his name and the site name now), or read the words of the weapons inspectors... ie some basic research.



Well considering the people in the best position to know if Iraq had any WMDs were the UN Inspectors, who couldn’t confirm that all had been destroyed gave weight to what I described earlier as ‘perfectly reasonable to assume’ they still had some.

There were plenty of conflicting reports, which again destroy the idea that the media was involved in a conspiracy, on both sides of the argument, but it was the UN inspectors that were the key to acceptance IMO.

The fact that if they still had WMDs numbers/volumes would be small, the UN inspectors reckoned it would only take a few more months to complete their mission and declare Iraq WMD-free, it was blatantly clear this was no justification for war, and on reflection gave me, and many others, no reason to question the issue any deeper.



free spirit said:


> and in this case there absolutely was a conspiracy between those at the top of the US government, and those in the UK government to silence those in the intelligence community who disagreed, and push the thread of WMD in the public arena way beyond anything that was justified by the evidence they were being given in private.
> 
> This is one conspiracy theory (conspiracy fact) that you're welcome to attempt to debunk if you want, but you're on a sticky wicket from the off being as you've already admitted you were one of the gullible many who fell for it hook line and sinker.
> 
> ...



And I absolutely agree 100% with everything you say - there was a conspiracy at the top of the US & UK governments to push forward evidence for the war, including exaggerating the WDM threat, which at the time seemed minimal, but proved to be completely non-existence.

I haven’t denied a conspiracy within the governments, I only expressed surprise that they didn’t smuggle in at least a small amount of material to justify the war, but I reckon you are right they were so blinkered that they expected to find some materials anyway, which was not that unreasonable to assume in view of Saddam’s history.   

What I do not accept is that the media was involved in the conspiracy – yes they were briefed, yes they were lied too, but they certainly weren’t part of the conspiracy as is evidence from the amount of coverage that was questioning of the governments and their evidence. 



elbows said:


> Perhaps faking evidence of WMD to save face was considered far too risky because if it went wrong and was exposed, well the last thing they needed was more damage to their credibility.



No, I am with free sprit on this, I think they genuinely assumed they would find something, no matter how small it was.

But, it’s an interesting idea that they couldn’t trust using a small team of highly trained and dedicated military personnel for such a conspiracy operation for fear of being found out, yet some seem to think they could trust hundreds, if not thousands, of media people to be in on the conspiracy.


----------



## xes (Nov 4, 2009)

The media are not "in" on any conspiracy. They write what they are told to write, and that's it. Ok, there are a few publications that are very open with what they write, but on the whole, the media is very controlled. As (and I hate to quote him, cos even I think he's Mentlar Murdock with his dandylion and burdock) Mr Icke says, they are repeaters. Repeating what they've been told to repeat.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 4, 2009)

xes said:


> The media are not "in" on any conspiracy. They write what they are told to write, and that's it. Ok, there are a few publications that are very open with what they write, but on the whole, the media is very controlled. As (and I hate to quote him, cos even I think he's Mentlar Murdock with his dandylion and burdock) Mr Icke says, they are repeaters. Repeating what they've been told to repeat.



Who tells them what to write?


----------



## xes (Nov 4, 2009)

I don't know. To be perfectly honest. But someone does. (IMO natch)


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 4, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> The whole thing was orchestrated rubbish. It was certainly a 'conspiracy'. As Colin Powell had said just a little earlier, defending the regime of sanctions
> 
> wake up claphamboy, it's a murkier world than you think.



I haven't denied there was a 'conspiracy' within government, I am fully awake thank you, I can see a murky world, but unlike you I don't blindly believe in each and every conspiracy theory no matter how barking mad it is.   



Jazzz said:


> Of course David Icke had it right when he said that they didn't need inspectors in the first place, if they wanted to know whether Saddam had WMDs they need only check the receipts!



Iraq had in the past admitted to the UN that they had produced biological agents that were unaccounted for, but claimed to have destroyed them, so for the Icke nutter to claim it was as easy as checking receipts is totally wrong.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 4, 2009)

xes said:


> I don't know. To be perfectly honest. But someone does. (IMO natch)


----------



## xes (Nov 4, 2009)

I know, not trusting the media, is just maaaaad, man.

Or is the mad thing, to trust everything you are told by them? I can never quite remember......


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 4, 2009)

xes said:


> I know, not trusting the media, is just maaaaad, man.
> 
> Or is the mad thing, to trust everything you are told by them? I can never quite remember......



 

What's worse is you don't know why I'm going


----------



## xes (Nov 4, 2009)

My ignorance on the general purpose of life?


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 4, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Exactly.
> 
> If one fails to recognize a fairly obvious conspiracy such as that, one will clearly fail to recognize others.  Indeed we might even say that one is predisposed to believe what one is told, and thus prejudiced against acknowledging the existence of any conspiracy at all.



As already pointed out, to believe one part of the information available does not prevent you from believing that overall there's a conspiracy in government, which in itself demonstrates one is not predisposed to believe everything one is told.

To believe there's a conspiracy in government does not mean you have to believe the media is in on the conspiracy, as you have claimed, or that every barking mad conspiracy theory must be right. 



trevhagl said:


> Free Spirit's certainly shut him up!



What are you banging on about now, you halfwit?

I've seen you make posts like this several times, and frankly it makes you look stupid, just because someone doesn't reply within a time scale that suits you doesn't mean they have been 'shut up', some of us do have a life beyond urban.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 4, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> As already pointed out, to believe one part of the information available does not prevent you from believing that overall there's a conspiracy in government, which in itself demonstrates one is not predisposed to believe everything one is told.
> 
> To believe there's a conspiracy in government does not mean you have to believe the media is in on the conspiracy, as you have claimed, or that every barking mad conspiracy theory must be right.
> 
> ...



yes, some of us can find hours to cut and paste text from the internet to 'prove' the establishment are squeaky clean!!

Like it being called a halfwit when it was YOU who believed what he was told over Iraq


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 4, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Which proves what?
> That, since time immemorial, the rich and the powerful have got together. That's all. It doesn't prove that there was or must have been a conspiracy over the war.




"deciding who goes to war" was one of the phrases in the book. Everything said in the book is remarkably true to life even a European superstate which is constantly getting nearer and murderer Blair is being touted for presidency, whilst Mandelson (one of those spotted on the way to the Bilderberg meeting) was given a cushy job in Europe, this all happened years after the book was written


----------



## Barking_Mad (Nov 4, 2009)

Why would anyone want to invade Iraq if Saddam had WMD, and as was claimed, was prepared to use them on a mass scale?


----------



## 8den (Nov 4, 2009)

xes said:


> I don't know. To be perfectly honest. But someone does. (IMO natch)



No, blithely assuming the media is controlled, by dark mysterious forces that you don't know about is fucking retarded.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Nov 4, 2009)

Chomsky on the media is about as accurate as it gets in my view.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 4, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> yes, some of us can find hours to cut and paste text from the internet to 'prove' the establishment are squeaky clean!!



That's the second time you have claimed I spent 'hours' debunking your Diana claims, and I'll repeat in nice big type to make it easiler for you to understand -

*it only takes a few seconds to google the inquest notes and a few minutes to read them*



trevhagl said:


> Like it being called a halfwit when it was YOU who believed what he was told over Iraq



No, I believed a small part of what was said over Iraq, I didn't consider it that relevant and certainly no justification for war, I considered most of what was claimed to be bullshit, which is why I was against the war.

Do you have trouble reading words on a screen?

The different between you and me, is that I can look at the whole picture and draw a correct conclusion despite getting a small part wrong, which I am happy to admit, whereas you can draw conclusions by taking small parts of information that are wrong and ignore the overall picture in order to arrive at an incorrect conclusion.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 4, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> That's the second time you have claimed I spent 'hours' debunking your Diana claims, and I'll repeat in nice big type to make it easiler for you to understand -
> 
> *it only takes a few seconds to google the inquest notes and a few minutes to read them*
> 
> ...



You have made establishment defence your hobby. Beats trainspotting i guess!
I recently picked up Richard Tomlinsons book so i predict more arguments in the future. Care to start your research now?


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 4, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> You have made establishment defence your hobby.



Accepting there was a conspiracy in the top level of government over the Iraq war is defending the establishment?

Fuck me you are thick.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 4, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> Accepting there was a conspiracy in the top level of government over the Iraq war is defending the establishment?
> 
> Fuck me you are thick.



so now you're saying the opposite! You said earlier, or suggested, that they weren't lying to us???


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 4, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> so now you're saying the opposite! You said earlier, or suggested, that they weren't lying to us???



So, you do have trouble reading words on a screen.


----------



## xes (Nov 4, 2009)

8den said:


> No, blithely assuming the media is controlled, by dark mysterious forces that you don't know about is fucking retarded.



I know you are you said you are so what I am then?


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 4, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> So, you do have trouble reading words on a screen.




i believe your words were

Well considering the people in the best position to know if Iraq had any WMDs were the UN Inspectors, who couldn’t confirm that all had been destroyed gave weight to what I described earlier as ‘perfectly reasonable to assume’ they still had some.

There were plenty of conflicting reports, which again destroy the idea that the media was involved in a conspiracy, on both sides of the argument, but it was the UN inspectors that were the key to acceptance IMO.

The fact that if they still had WMDs numbers/volumes would be small, the UN inspectors reckoned it would only take a few more months to complete their mission and declare Iraq WMD-free, it was blatantly clear this was no justification for war, and on reflection gave me, and many others, no reason to question the issue any deeper.


ever heard the Killjoys song "Naive" ho ho


----------



## 8den (Nov 4, 2009)

xes said:


> I know you are you said you are so what I am then?



You really would lose a battle of wits with a toddler.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 4, 2009)

8den said:


> You really would lose a battle of wits with a toddler.




says the man who KNOWS that Diana's death was an accident


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 4, 2009)

Do you actually have a point to make trev or are you happy just to act like a twat?


----------



## bhamgeezer (Nov 4, 2009)

In regards to conspiraloonacy being in acendancy, has anyone seen this program "V". It seems to principally be about evil reptoids coming out of space to subversively take control of the human race. The resemblence to Icke's nutty theories is uncanny


----------



## fogbat (Nov 4, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> Do you actually have a point to make trev or are you happy just to act like a twat?



He's really not worth engaging with.

When someone revels in their own ignorance, like a pig in its own shit, there's no point even trying.


----------



## 8den (Nov 4, 2009)

bhamgeezer said:


> In regards to conspiraloonacy being in acendancy, has anyone seen this program "V". It seems to principally be about evil reptoids coming out of space to subversively take control of the human race. The resemblence to Icke's nutty theories is uncanny



You do realise that it's a remake of the 1983 Miniseries "V" ala Battlestar Galactica? 

"V" didn't rip off Icke, it's widely believed that Icke ripped off "V".


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 4, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> Do you actually have a point to make trev or are you happy just to act like a twat?



i just like pissing you all off


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 4, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> "deciding who goes to war" was one of the phrases in the book.


Who do you think *does* decide who goes to war, Trev? 
You and me? Not in this so-called democracy we live in. It is and always has been the power-mongers who decide. The fact that you believe that Ronson has exposed something new and previously un-thought of just shows that you're a bit naive.


> Everything said in the book is remarkably true to life...


Because Jon-boy didn't say anything that a person doing a politics A-level couldn't have worked out with access to the right books and the internet. 


> ...even a European superstate which is constantly getting nearer...


Except that it isn't. A unitary currency and *some* political union doesn't make a "European superstate", which would need, at the very least, full federation of all member-states.


> ...and murderer Blair is being touted for presidency...


Although not by anyone credible, you may have noticed.
Blair's name was mentioned as a "spoiler", so that other candidates would look like a safe bet compared to phoney tony.


> whilst Mandelson (one of those spotted on the way to the Bilderberg meeting) was given a cushy job in Europe, this all happened years after the book was written


Mandelson is also a member of the British-American Project for the Successor Generation and attends their meetings. he's a power-monger who does his business with other power-mongers. I'd be more surprised if our government *didn't* have connections like this.
Trev, Jon Ronson wrote a pot-boiler based mostly on other people's work


----------



## xes (Nov 4, 2009)

8den said:


> You really would lose a battle of wits with a toddler.



I know you would you said you would.....ect....


----------



## 8den (Nov 4, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> says the man who KNOWS that Diana's death was an accident



There's no evidence presented that makes me think it wasn't an accident. Lies about money being deposited into staff's account, lies, about security cameras turned the wrong way, and the simple fact that if they were trying to kill her, they could have been thwarted by her wearing a seatbelt. 

It's an idiotic conspiracy. If there was any evidence for a murder it would have come out in either of the inquests. In fact your precious Mansfield, even conceded that the royal family tried to kill her that night in Paris.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 4, 2009)

Barking_Mad said:


> Chomsky on the media is about as accurate as it gets in my view.


Yep, but it's easier to believe in conspiracies than to acknowledge that you might have been manipulated quite so easily.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 4, 2009)

xes said:


> I know you are you said you are so what I am then?



Pissed?


----------



## kyser_soze (Nov 4, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yep, but it's easier to believe in conspiracies than to acknowledge that you might have been manipulated quite so easily.



The problem as well is that someone like trev would mis-read (wilfully or otherwise) Chomsky's work to fit his conspiracy world-view (which lets face it is quite easy - same goes for Marxism)


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 4, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> i just like pissing you all off



Well you're not doing a very good job, I am laughing at your ignorance not getting pissed off by it.


----------



## xes (Nov 4, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Pissed?



For a change, NO!


----------



## bhamgeezer (Nov 4, 2009)

8den said:


> You do realise that it's a remake of the 1983 Miniseries "V" ala Battlestar Galactica?
> 
> "V" didn't rip off Icke, it's widely believed that Icke ripped off "V".



I see  before my time I'm afraid. Yet I feel that it's all too likely that Icke did indeed get his inspiration from battlestar galactica


----------



## free spirit (Nov 4, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> Well considering the people in the best position to know if Iraq had any WMDs were the UN Inspectors, who couldn’t confirm that all had been destroyed gave weight to what I described earlier as ‘perfectly reasonable to assume’ they still had some.


ah, ok I guess there's a bit of a difference between believing they had anything like enough weaponised or weaponisable WMD to pose any sort of a threat as the US & UK governments were saying at the time to justify the march to war, vs believing that Iraq may have had the odd little bit of something left somewhere vs Iraq having absolutely nothing left to be found at all.

Reading the weapons inspectors reports again, there was absolutely nothing in them to back up the US, UK position, but yes, they do tend to support the middle option to some extent. At the same time though, if you looked at those reports from the perspective of the people writing them, it'd be very unlikely that you'd ever get a report that categorically stated that a country definately didn't have any wmd programme, especially when they were only part way into their work schedule, as they couldn't provide categorical proof of a negative.

Scott Ritters assessment at the time was quite instructive on this IMO



> There’s no doubt Iraq hasn’t fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated... We have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesn’t necessarily constitute a threat... It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in its totality doesn’t amount to much, but which is still prohibited... We can’t give Iraq a clean bill of health, therefore we can’t close the book on their weapons of mass destruction. But simultaneously, we can’t reasonably talk about Iraqi non-compliance as representing a de-facto retention of a prohibited capacity worthy of war. (page 28)
> We eliminated the nuclear program, and for Iraq to have reconstituted it would require undertaking activities that would have been eminently detectable by intelligence services. (page 32)
> If Iraq were producing [chemical] weapons today, we’d have proof, pure and simple. (page 37)
> [A]s of December 1998 we had no evidence Iraq had retained biological weapons, nor that they were working on any. In fact, we had a lot of evidence to suggest Iraq was in compliance. (page





> What I do not accept is that the media was involved in the conspiracy – yes they were briefed, yes they were lied too, but they certainly weren’t part of the conspiracy as is evidence from the amount of coverage that was questioning of the governments and their evidence.


conspiracy is probably too strong a word, but IMO there were significant sectors of the media who were actively complicit in the deception of the british public via the media that led to war. 

Essentially in he UK we had the Sun, Times, Telegraph, Mail, Star and Express with a combined readership of around something like 19 million with an editorial policy of actively supporting the march to war lined up against the Mirror, Guardian and Independent with a readership of around 9 million actively opposing the war. In terms of setting editorial policy, I don't think it's a coincidence that the antiwar papers are all owned by some sort of relatively independent trust or wide shareholding, whereas the pro war papers were wholly or majority owned by tycoons including mordoch, conrad black, Lord Rothmere, Richard Desmond etc.

Now, I'm not saying that all these media tycoons would have been sat down in a big meeting and given every single detail of the plan and their role within it, as would be the case if they were active conspirators. That would have been pretty stupid and entirely unecessary. These are establishment players, who can pretty much be relied upon to ensure their media outlets tow the party line anyway, but in this case I'd expect that words would have been had both here and in the US to make sure they were fully on message, as the media outlets they controlled would have been seen as being absolutely vital in terms of tipping the balance of public and parliamentary opinion in favour of a war based on such a flimsy premise.




> But, it’s an interesting idea that they couldn’t trust using a small team of highly trained and dedicated military personnel for such a conspiracy operation for fear of being found out, yet some seem to think they could trust hundreds, if not thousands, of media people to be in on the conspiracy.


IMO rumsfeld and Cheney are just too experienced to go for plans with such obvious potential for blow back. This is particularly the case when they had a CIA that was openly hostile to them and their ideas, and felt that it had been effectively left out to dry by them over the 911 intelligence failings that were largely Rumsfeld and Cheney's fault in the first place (for ignoring the CIA's warnings that AQ posed the biggest threat to the US interests). If you've made enemies of the CIA, then you'd be incredibly naive to start mounting black ops to plant WMD's in Iraq, and these 2 didn't get where they were then by being incredibly naive.

Basically I think that they partly presumed that Saddam would have kept something tucked away in reserve somewhere*, but also knew that essentially once anyone was in a position to know for sure that WMD's weren't going to be found, it'd be way too late as the war would already have been fought, and the billions upon billions of dollars of prize money contracts would have already been issued to the corporate interests they represented, the dice for any new oil contracts with Iraq would be loaded heavily in their favour (or so they thought), and they'd have re-established the US dominance in the region that had been threatened when Saddam went rogue at the end of the 80's. They basically knew that if and when Bush was forced to let them go, they'd be able to seemlessly slip back into power in the corporate world in the knowledge that they'd managed to get the US embroiled in 2 wars that'd easily keep the contracts flowing for most of the rest of their lives one way or another.


*a serious misreading of Saddam's likely reaction to his early 90's situation, and the power of a feared dictator to ensure that slightly irrational decisions, such as destroying all WMD in a way that can't easily be verified, will be enacted rapidly by everyone without a severe death wish lest they be the ones to get caught out by an inspection... as history shows.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 4, 2009)

Barking_Mad said:


> Chomsky on the media is about as accurate as it gets in my view.



yep


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 4, 2009)

8den said:


> You do realise that it's a remake of the 1983 Miniseries "V" ala Battlestar Galactica?
> 
> "V" didn't rip off Icke, it's widely believed that Icke ripped off "V".



I loved V when I was a teenager!


----------



## 8den (Nov 4, 2009)

bhamgeezer said:


> I see  before my time I'm afraid. Yet I feel that it's all too likely that Icke did indeed get his inspiration from battlestar galactica



No again see you're wrong 



Spoiler: Original V



the baddie aliens were actually lizards in disguise


 Thats were Icke got his inspiration. 


Blagsta, the new version aired in the US last night.


----------



## kyser_soze (Nov 4, 2009)

fre spirit - you forgot to add that Baby Bush wanted to please Daddy and do the job he wasn't allowed to and managed to convince himself that he lost to Slick Willy in 92 over, not the whole 'No New Taxes' thing...


----------



## bhamgeezer (Nov 4, 2009)

8den said:


> No again see you're wrong
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Those clips are both hilarious and awesome


----------



## free spirit (Nov 4, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> fre spirit - you forgot to add that Baby Bush wanted to please Daddy and do the job he wasn't allowed to and managed to convince himself that he lost to Slick Willy in 92 over, not the whole 'No New Taxes' thing...


what bush wanted to do was largely irrelevant to what would actually happen IMO.

it's entirely plausible that that was the extent of his rationale for wanting to target Iraq, cheney, rumsfeld, wolfowitz and their cohorts are an entirely different matter. They had bigger fish to fry as players in histories great games.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 4, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Who do you think *does* decide who goes to war, Trev?
> You and me? Not in this so-called democracy we live in. It is and always has been the power-mongers who decide. The fact that you believe that Ronson has exposed something new and previously un-thought of just shows that you're a bit naive.
> 
> Because Jon-boy didn't say anything that a person doing a politics A-level couldn't have worked out with access to the right books and the internet.
> ...



i agree with most of that, but Ronson's book WAS his own work. It was he who went to the remote woodland to watch the procession of tossers go to the bildeberg meeting and the book actually starts investigating loons and disbelieving them until he investigates further


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 4, 2009)

8den said:


> There's no evidence presented that makes me think it wasn't an accident. Lies about money being deposited into staff's account, lies, about security cameras turned the wrong way, and the simple fact that if they were trying to kill her, they could have been thwarted by her wearing a seatbelt.
> 
> It's an idiotic conspiracy. If there was any evidence for a murder it would have come out in either of the inquests. In fact your precious Mansfield, even conceded that the royal family tried to kill her that night in Paris.



the last bit doesn't make sense , you are backing up (sort of) MY argument (although i don't think it was actually the royals that killed her)


----------



## 8den (Nov 4, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> the last bit doesn't make sense , you are backing up (sort of) MY argument (although i don't think it was actually the royals that killed her)





Should have been 



> Mansfield, even conceded that the royal family *Didn't* try to kill her that night in Paris.





> *In the light of the evidence, Mr Mansfield QC has, quite properly, accepted that there is no direct evidence that the Duke played any part in the deaths and has accepted that there is no direct evidence of any involvement of the SIS.* Mr Mansfield now submits that the jury should consider an alternative scenario, which he terms the ‘troublesome priest thesis’: a plan by unknown individuals (perhaps rogue SIS operatives) to stage the crash in order to serve the perceived interests or wishes of the Royal Family or ‘the Establishment’, as he and Mr Al Fayed term it. He also now submits that the aim of the plot may have been to scare the Princess. That submission may rest in part on a realistic acceptance that there could have been no certainty that the Princess and Mr Al Fayed would die or be seriously harmed. The lethal forces that resulted in the deaths of Diana, Dodi and Henri Paul resulted from the high speed of the Mercedes (about 65 mph at the moment of the collision) and the fact that it impacted with the corner of a pillar. Had the Mercedes hit the side of the pillar or gone out of control and hit the wall on the other side of its carriageway, it would probably have been deflected and the outcome may well have been different. Additionally, the occupants were not wearing seatbelts. The expert evidence was that wearing a seatbelt would either have prevented or at the very least diminished the prospect of a fatal injury.



From the Inquest




> It has taken more than 90 days, 270 witnesses and a bill of £10 million to slay the obsessive conspiracy theories of one man. And in the end yesterday, a jury discarded the soft option of accidental death and placed much of the blame for the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales, and Dodi Fayed on the shoulders of one of Mohamed Al Fayed’s own employees.
> 
> The Princess and Dodi were unlawfully killed by a combination of their drunk driver, Henri Paul, and the paparazzi who were chasing their car, the jury at their inquests decided.
> 
> *It was a disastrous outcome for the owner of Harrods, whose allegations of a murder plot masterminded by the Duke of Edinburgh were rejected decisively by the coroner for complete lack of evidence.*It was a damning indictment, too, of the pursuing photographers who must accept an equal share of the blame. Even the dead do not escape censure. The couple might have been alive today, the jury decided unanimously, had they been wearing their seatbelts.



again


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 4, 2009)

how would you get evidence of collusion between racist Phil and the security services? Mansfield, like anyone else who isn't an establishment robot, thinks that there was foul play. You never seem to mention the 2 witnesses that saw a bright light, and the car sandwiched between a motorbike and another car. You only highlight the bits the establishment would want you to.

But this is going round in circles and will continue to do so forever


----------



## 8den (Nov 4, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> how would you get evidence of collusion between racist Phil and the security services? Mansfield, like anyone else who isn't an establishment robot, thinks that there was foul play.



Except for the fact that he doesn't



> Mr Mansfield QC has, quite properly, accepted that there is no direct evidence that the Duke played any part in the deaths and has accepted that there is no direct evidence of any involvement of the SIS. M





> You never seem to mention the 2 witnesses that saw a bright light,



Because Cameras. like the ones, y'know, paparazzi have, occasionally have these things, called "flashes"



> and the car sandwiched between a motorbike and another car. You only highlight the bits the establishment would want you to.



Because anyone who witnesses a crime or a crash will tell you're you're likely to get conflicting accounts. 

What about those accounts that match the physical evidence? 



> But this is going round in circles and will continue to do so forever



How about I just start calling you Al Fayed' little bitch boy?


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 4, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> You never seem to mention the 2 witnesses that saw a bright light



Already dealt with, but ignored by you together with the 17 witnesses that didn't see the 'bright light'. 



trevhagl said:


> the car sandwiched between a motorbike and another car.



The car was speeding, so any vehicle ahead in its lane would have impeded it and have appeared to be blocking it and the car was being followed by the paparazzi on motorbikes.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 4, 2009)

'no direct evidence' doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Are you saying that those who murdered Stephen Lawrence WEREN'T the ones interviewed about it because the coppers left their enquiries until after the evidence had been disposed of?


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 4, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> Already dealt with, but ignored by you together with the 17 witnesses that didn't see the 'bright light'.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




the only 2 witnesses in the tunnel when it happened or paparazzi 100's of yards back, who to believe?


----------



## 8den (Nov 4, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> 'no direct evidence' doesn't mean it didn't happen.



Direct or indirect, theres no evidence either the driver or bodyguard was paid, or evidence that SIS or MI5/6 were active in paris that day. 

In the words of Lionel Hutz "I"ve got conjecture and speculation, those are sorta like proof".



> Are you saying that those who murdered Stephen Lawrence WEREN'T the ones interviewed about it because the coppers left their enquiries until after the evidence had been disposed of?



We'll just pencil in the law into the ever growing list of shit you know fuck all about.


----------



## 8den (Nov 4, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> the only 2 witnesses in the tunnel when it happened or paparazzi 100's of yards back, who to believe?



Jacques Morrell? Who was flown over to the UK and interviewed for days. And who surprise surprise published a book filled with Diana Conspiracy theories, released before the 2nd inquest published it's findings. 


Oh he seems like a fan fucking tastic witness.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 4, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> the only 2 witnesses in the tunnel when it happened or paparazzi 100's of yards back, who to believe?



The type of strobe light alleged by Tomlinson to have been used was so powerful that a flash from it would have been bright enough to illuminate a very wide area and been seen by dozens of witnesses.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 4, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> The type of strobe light alleged by Tomlinson to have been used was so powerful that a flash from it would have been bright enough to illuminate a very wide area and been seen by dozens of witnesses.




or at least bright enough to dazzle a driver , causing him to crash


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 4, 2009)

8den said:


> Jacques Morrell? Who was flown over to the UK and interviewed for days. And who surprise surprise published a book filled with Diana Conspiracy theories, released before the 2nd inquest published it's findings.
> 
> 
> Oh he seems like a fan fucking tastic witness.




bad luck for the establishment eh? One of the only two witnesses that could actually see the crash happens to be a 'conspiraloon'  !!!  By that odds does that mean half of France are?


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 4, 2009)

8den said:


> Direct or indirect, theres no evidence either the driver or bodyguard was paid, or evidence that SIS or MI5/6 were active in paris that day.
> 
> In the words of Lionel Hutz "I"ve got conjecture and speculation, those are sorta like proof".
> 
> ...




ok then smartarse, tell us what really happened with the case. Maybe you could name the murderers if they weren't the ones accused? Seeing as you know the Diana crash was an accident, i'm sure you can tell us who killed Lawrence?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 4, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> Accepting there was a conspiracy in the top level of government over the Iraq war is defending the establishment?



Do you accept that?  My impression was that you were denying it.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 4, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Do you accept that?  My impression was that you were denying it.




he certainly baffled me....


----------



## 8den (Nov 4, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> bad luck for the establishment eh? One of the only two witnesses that could actually see the crash happens to be a 'conspiraloon'  !!!  By that odds does that mean half of France are?



You really are a simpleton. There was over a dozen eyewitnesses in and around the tunnel that night. Amazingly you fixate on the one, who supports your claim, and ignore the others. It's called "confirmation of bias" you complete little fucktard. You want there to be a conspiracy, so you choose the eyewitness that supports your claim. A eyewitness who's opinion isn't coberated by other eye witness accounts, and who happens to have a big old conspiracy theory book ready to flog at the time to cash in the controversy. 

But you're too busy being Al Fayed's little bitch boy to notice this.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 4, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Do you accept that?  My impression was that you were denying it.



You know full well that it was your claim of a media conspiracy that I was disagreeing with.  



trevhagl said:


> he certainly baffled me....



The evidence would suggest that isn't difficult.


----------



## 8den (Nov 4, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> ok then smartarse, tell us what really happened with the case. Maybe you could name the murderers if they weren't the ones accused? Seeing as you know the Diana crash was an accident, i'm sure you can tell us who killed Lawrence?



Look Cretin. Could you just stick to one non sequitur at time, when you get exposed as being fucking clueless about Diana, so start ranting about David Kelly, or Steven Lawrence. 

The Daily Mail happily named the killers, but you know, and the only reason they've not tried again, is because of double jeopardy, a legal concept that the criminal justice act of 2003 sought to fix. The Steven Lawerence murder trial is considered to be a major influence to this act. 

Because you'd know all this, Nah, much better to call everyone who disagrees with you an "establishment whore" While you parrot the idiotic conspiracy theories of a billionaire, you fucking hypocritical little bitch boy.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 4, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> You know full well that it was your claim of a media conspiracy that I was disagreeing with.



I didn't know that, no.

And I've no idea why, since you now accept that there was a government conspiracy, you find it implausible that the media was involved as well.

Care to explain?


----------



## 8den (Nov 4, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I didn't know that, no.
> 
> And I've no idea why, since you now accept that there was a government conspiracy, you find it implausible that the media was involved as well.
> 
> Care to explain?



Can you explain why you think they were involved?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 4, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> i agree with most of that, but Ronson's book WAS his own work. It was he who went to the remote woodland to watch the procession of tossers go to the bildeberg meeting and the book actually starts investigating loons and disbelieving them until he investigates further



Well, actually it was Ronson and a mad Yank, and it was the mad Yank who pointed out most of the people and gave Ronson the run-down on Bilderberg. This was on his little tv series (a couple of years before the book) where he also met "Sheikh" Omar Bakri and assorted other fruit-cakes.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 4, 2009)

8den said:


> Can you explain why you think they were involved?



Sure.

Fleet St.'s editors and columnists are from the same class as the politicos.  They went to school and uni together.  They socialize together all the time and they co-ordinate their objectives together--yes I know this for a fact, I'm not from the same class or school, but I am from the same university.  Anyone who suggests that they just happened to spout exactly the same lies by chance is a naive fool.


----------



## 8den (Nov 4, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Sure.
> 
> Fleet St.'s editors and columnists are from the same class as the politicos.  They went to school and uni together.  They socialize together all the time and they co-ordinate their objectives together--yes I know this for a fact, I'm not from the same class or school, but I am from the same university.  Anyone who suggests that they just happened to spout exactly the same lies by chance is a naive fool.



Oh do fuck off like a good chap, if they're all best chums with the old school ties, why the fuck did fleet street and the Mail, put in the boot to everyone in the expenses scandal? Or Cash for Honours? Mark Oaten? The Jo "good day to bury bad news" Moore's 911 e-mail? Peter Hain's resignation? David Kelly?

You're talking fucking nonsense Phil.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 4, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I know this for a fact, I'm not from the same class or school, but I am from the same university



Genius.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 4, 2009)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Genius.



So I'm told.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 4, 2009)

8den said:


> Oh do fuck off like a good chap, if they're all best chums with the old school ties, why the fuck did fleet street and the Mail, put in the boot to everyone in the expenses scandal? Or Cash for Honours? Mark Oaten? The Jo "good day to bury bad news" Moore's 911 e-mail? Peter Hain's resignation? David Kelly?



They're not the same class.  As a foreigner you can't be expected to understand.


----------



## 8den (Nov 4, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> They're not the same class.  As a foreigner you can't be expected to understand.



As a foreigner who's worked in 3 or 4 news rooms in this country, I can confidentially tell you, you're talking fucking bollocks.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 4, 2009)

8den said:


> As a foreigner who's worked in 3 or 4 news rooms in this country, I can confidentially tell you, you're talking fucking bollocks.



Sorry, I meant to say "as a_ twat_ you can't be expected to understand."


----------



## 8den (Nov 4, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Sorry, I meant to say "as a_ twat_ you can't be expected to understand."



I can see that "twat" and "foreigner" are like a couple of characters apart, and contain many of the same letters. 

So we'll go ahead and add, racist, to the list of things Phil is*

So I may be a foreign twat, but, I'm a foreign twat who got a much greater working understanding how UK newsrooms work, than you Phil. 

*List stands at: unfunny, liar, ignorant, immensely punchable, bigot, and clueless asshole"


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 4, 2009)

8den said:


> I can see that "twat" and "foreigner" are like a couple of characters apart, and contain many of the same letters.



You've certainly caught me out there!

You're not really so stupid after all are you?

_[Can you *fucking believe* this guy?]_


----------



## 8den (Nov 4, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> You've certainly caught me out there!
> 
> You're not really so stupid after all are you?
> 
> _[Can you *fucking believe* this guy?]_



I'll just go ahead and add "dimwit" and "very easy to troll", to the list then Phil.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 4, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Sure.
> 
> Fleet St.'s editors and columnists are from the same class as the politicos.  They went to school and uni together.  They socialize together all the time and they co-ordinate their objectives together--yes I know this for a fact, I'm not from the same class or school, but I am from the same university.  Anyone who suggests that they just happened to spout exactly the same lies by chance is a naive fool.



Which would explain why a number of newspapers were against the war, and several, including The Times & The Mail, whilst supporting the war, also published several articles questioning the government's motives, agenda and evidence.


----------



## free spirit (Nov 4, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Sure.
> 
> Fleet St.'s editors and columnists are from the same class as the politicos.  They went to school and uni together.  They socialize together all the time and they co-ordinate their objectives together--yes I know this for a fact, I'm not from the same class or school, but I am from the same university.  Anyone who suggests that they just happened to spout exactly the same lies by chance is a naive fool.


er yes, because journalists, columnists and yes even editors are really responsible for setting the overall editorial policy of the papers they work for on the big stuff.

I'm sure the express's obsession with diana's all down to the journalists having gone to the same school as al fayed... erm, yes, that's obviously it.

btw, when doing DIY do you scream in pain and wave your hand around every time you accidentally hit a nail on the head with the hammer, and stare at the nail wondering why it's not going in when you're successfully hammering your thumb?


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 5, 2009)

A Dashing Blade said:


> Hang on a sec . . .
> 
> There were no secret WMDs because we tried to find evidence and couldn't.
> 
> But there was a secret 9/11 conspiracy because we tried to find evidence . . .



Absolutely, in both cases, there is crucial evidence missing.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> Absolutely, in both cases, there is crucial evidence missing.



of what?


----------



## editor (Nov 5, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> Absolutely, in both cases, there is crucial evidence missing.


There's never enough evidence to satisfy lunatic conspiracy nuts - unless they're talking about their own pet theories where usually no evidence is required _at all_ - or, at best, some rambling DVD flogging charlatan with no relevant qualifications.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 5, 2009)

editor said:


> There's never enough evidence to satisfy lunatic conspiracy nuts - unless they're talking about their own pet theories where usually no evidence is required _at all_ - or, at best, some rambling DVD flogging charlatan with no relevant qualifications.



True enough.  But in these debates I'm seeing more and more _anti-_ conspiracy nuts, or "conspiracy denialists."  

People who, perhaps in reaction to the more outlandish conspiracy theories, simply refuse to believe that powerful people ever get together to plan sinister actions in secret.  Which is about as naive as you can possibly get.

Both extremes are mistaken.  But the conspiracy denialists are far more dangerous and harmful, for they encourage and actively foster a blind faith in what our rulers choose to tell us.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 5, 2009)

free spirit said:


> er yes, because journalists, columnists and yes even editors are really responsible for setting the overall editorial policy of the papers they work for on the big stuff.



Obviously not.  Indeed, the entire media agenda is largely set by a single individual (I won't insult your intelligence by naming him).  I know for a fact that he regularly organizes long weekends in which prominent politicians, editors and columnists hole up together in a discrete location to "discuss current affairs."

But surely that makes conspiracies _easier_ to carry out, and far more plausible?


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 5, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> True enough.  But in these debates I'm seeing more and more _anti-_ conspiracy nuts, or "conspiracy denialists."
> 
> People who, perhaps in reaction to the more outlandish conspiracy theories, simply refuse to believe that powerful people ever get together to plan sinister actions in secret.  Which is about as naive as you can possibly get.
> 
> Both extremes are mistaken.  But the conspiracy denialists are far more dangerous and harmful, for they encourage and actively foster a blind faith in what our rulers choose to tell us.



brilliant post. I think i'll cut and paste it every time the terminally naive argue with me on here.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 5, 2009)

8den said:


> You really are a simpleton. There was over a dozen eyewitnesses in and around the tunnel that night. Amazingly you fixate on the one, who supports your claim, and ignore the others. It's called "confirmation of bias" you complete little fucktard. You want there to be a conspiracy, so you choose the eyewitness that supports your claim. A eyewitness who's opinion isn't coberated by other eye witness accounts, and who happens to have a big old conspiracy theory book ready to flog at the time to cash in the controversy.
> 
> But you're too busy being Al Fayed's little bitch boy to notice this.



or could it be that those 2 witnesses were the only ones near enough to see what happened? Did you go to Eton with your establishment friends?


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 5, 2009)

8den said:


> Look Cretin. Could you just stick to one non sequitur at time, when you get exposed as being fucking clueless about Diana, so start ranting about David Kelly, or Steven Lawrence.
> 
> The Daily Mail happily named the killers, but you know, and the only reason they've not tried again, is because of double jeopardy, a legal concept that the criminal justice act of 2003 sought to fix. The Steven Lawerence murder trial is considered to be a major influence to this act.
> 
> Because you'd know all this, Nah, much better to call everyone who disagrees with you an "establishment whore" While you parrot the idiotic conspiracy theories of a billionaire, you fucking hypocritical little bitch boy.




ah right, as you KNOW that Diana's death was an accident, then i thought you were criticising my Stephen Lawrence post because you were about to defend the establishments failures on THAT one. Be more precise in future


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 5, 2009)

8den said:


> I can see that "twat" and "foreigner" are like a couple of characters apart, and contain many of the same letters.
> 
> So we'll go ahead and add, racist, to the list of things Phil is*
> 
> ...




You better add DWYER to the above remark, or people will think you're talking about your wank fantasy Phil Windsor


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 5, 2009)

editor said:


> There's never enough evidence to satisfy lunatic conspiracy nuts - unless they're talking about their own pet theories where usually no evidence is required _at all_ - or, at best, some rambling DVD flogging charlatan with no relevant qualifications.



Fair point, only on THIS thread we are talking about Diana and Iraq, and cosy establishment get togethers/conspiracys

all of which you haven't gotta be a mentalist to believe in.


----------



## 8den (Nov 5, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Obviously not.  Indeed, the entire media agenda is largely set by a single individual (I won't insult your intelligence by naming him).  I know for a fact that he regularly organizes long weekends in which prominent politicians, editors and columnists hole up together in a discrete location to "discuss current affairs."
> 
> But surely that makes conspiracies _easier_ to carry out, and far more plausible?



Do they get naked and worship Molocha as well?


----------



## 8den (Nov 5, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> ah right, as you KNOW that Diana's death was an accident, then i thought you were criticising my Stephen Lawrence post because you were about to defend the establishments failures on THAT one. Be more precise in future



Does the cognitive dissoance give you many headaches? 



> or could it be that those 2 witnesses



Thats a massive "or could". You've no way of knowing this, you just like to believe this, despite the fact that their accounts don't match other eye witnesses. 



> were the only ones near enough to see what happened? Did you go to Eton with your establishment friends?



Yes you little wanker I went to Eton and quaffed champers with Dave and Boris. 

I'm sure coming up with these little crude sketches of those who disagree with you, makes it easier to continue your bigoted narrow minded worldview.


----------



## kyser_soze (Nov 5, 2009)

> Anyone who suggests that they just happened to spout exactly the same lies by chance is a naive fool.



Including, presumably, Noam Chomsky? That the process of collusion isn't overt, it's behavioural, a manifestation of a kind of group think, which is common in many areas of human activity?

Again, pisspoor trolling.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 5, 2009)

8den said:


> Do they get naked and worship Molocha as well?



OK, let's get this straight.  You don't believe that Rupert Murdoch invites leading politicians, editors and columnists to spend long weekends together in order to "discuss current affairs."  Is that right?  You find this concept implausible?

If so, you are a perfect example of a loony-tunes _conspiracy denialist._  You have no idea how the world works.  You are nuttier than the craziest conspiracy theorist.  And far, far more dangerous.  You would believe anything you are told by people in authority, and you would do anything they told you to do.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 5, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Including, presumably, Noam Chomsky? That the process of collusion isn't overt, it's behavioural, a manifestation of a kind of group think, which is common in many areas of human activity?



No, it is not "overt," in the sense that it is public.  But it is most certainly overt in the sense that it is conscious and deliberate.  

Are you really saying that you don't believe leading politicians, publishers, editors and columnists co-ordinate their activities in secret?

It doesn't surprise me that an ignoramus like 8den should be such a _naif,_ but I'm surprised at you tbf.


----------



## 8den (Nov 5, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> OK, let's get this straight.  You don't believe that Rupert Murdoch invites leading politicians, editors and columnists to spend long weekends together in order to "discuss current affairs."  Is that right?  You find this concept implausible?



No I find it hilarious that you seem to think it strange that a multibillionare media tycoon would do such a thing. 

How should he spend his weekends? Eating beans on toast and voting on the X Factor?



> If so, you are a perfect example of a loony-tunes _conspiracy denialist._  You have no idea how the world works.  You are nuttier than the craziest conspiracy theorist.  And far, far more dangerous.  You would believe anything you are told by people in authority, and you would do anything they told you to do.



Phil be a dear and change the fucking record.


----------



## kyser_soze (Nov 5, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> No, it is not "overt," in the sense that it is public.  But it is most certainly overt in the sense that it is conscious and deliberate.
> 
> Are you really saying that you don't believe leading politicians, publishers, editors and columnists co-ordinate their activities in secret?
> 
> It doesn't surprise me that an ignoramus like 8den should be such a _naif,_ but I'm surprised at you tbf.



I think that the process is far, far more complicated and varied than you're attempting to make out. Do I think that there _can be_ collusion between MPs and journos and publishers? Yes. Do I think that Dacre, Wade et al all sat down with Alastair Campbell, Karl Rove, Murdoch, Rothermere and the Barclay twins to sketch out how, when and what would be published? No I don't, because it didn't _need_ to happen - as you well know this collusion doesn't require meetings in back rooms and quiet lunches in private dining rooms - it's a function of the press that it reproduces r/c memes...depending on which bit of the r/c that paper happens to support...which is why there was such a disjunct between the Observer and Guardian's editorial position on the war (and as everyone who has read Flat Earth News knows, the Observer's position on this was largley the result of having an editor who was completely inexperienced in dealing with politics (his previous position was editor of the sports section) for example.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 5, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> or at least bright enough to dazzle a driver , causing him to crash





trevhagl said:


> or could it be that those 2 witnesses were the only ones near enough to see what happened?



It was only one witness in the underpass, his evidence was directly contradicted by his wife who was in the car with him and he had pervious criminal record for offences involving dishonesty. 

Operation Paget Report - chapter 7 - but that's over 870 pages in total, so you may want to just check the reference to it on Wikipedia



> The detail of eyewitness testimony was thoroughly reviewed and Operation Paget officers succeeded in uncovering two new witnesses. The police found that *only one eyewitness at the scene of the crash, François Levistre, made a clear, specific reference to seeing a bright flash.* He claimed to have seen it in his rear-view mirror and recounted other elements of what he saw in considerable detail while he was negotiating the difficult bend out of the tunnel, a task which would have required his full attention on the road in front of him. *Crucially, however, his testimony was directly contradicted by his then-wife, who sat in the passenger seat next to him. *Television documentaries produced by Channel 4 in 2004 and the BBC in 2006 both raised the issue of *Levistre's prior criminal record for offences involving dishonesty*.
> 
> Other eyewitness testimony made little reference to the appearance of any inexplicable flashes at the crash site. *Several witnesses who would be expected to have seen a blinding flash made no reference to one.
> *
> In any event, *the detailed crash reconstruction revealed that the chain of events that led to the car unavoidably colliding with the pillar started well before it was at the mouth of the tunnel where the flash is alleged to have been discharged*. Furthermore, *a strobe light of the type that was alleged to have been used is so powerful that a flash emitted from it would have been bright enough to illuminate a very wide area. It would have likely blinded not only Henri Paul, but also the driver of the white Fiat Uno, the pursuing paparazzi and witnesses standing at the road side.* The Operation Paget report concluded the alleged flash did not happen.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 5, 2009)

8den said:


> No I find it hilarious that you seem to think it strange that a multibillionare media tycoon would do such a thing.



I don't find it strange in the slightest that he spends his time _conspiring._

I do find it strange that, despite your admitted knowledge that such _conspiring _ is commonplace, you still find it appropriate to deride those who _theorize_ about such _conspiring._


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 5, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Sure.
> 
> Fleet St.'s editors and columnists are from the same class as the politicos.  They went to school and uni together.


Except, of course, for the many who didn't.


> They socialize together all the time and they co-ordinate their objectives together--yes I know this for a fact, I'm not from the same class or school, but I am from the same university.


Not, though, from the same faculty.  


> Anyone who suggests that they just happened to spout exactly the same lies by chance is a naive fool.


As opposed to a non-naive stirring fool such as yourself?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 5, 2009)

8den said:


> Oh do fuck off like a good chap, if they're all best chums with the old school ties, why the fuck did fleet street and the Mail, put in the boot to everyone in the expenses scandal? Or Cash for Honours? Mark Oaten? The Jo "good day to bury bad news" Moore's 911 e-mail? Peter Hain's resignation? David Kelly?
> 
> You're talking fucking nonsense Phil.



Now there's a surprise.
All that sleep deprivation seems to have sent him a bit garritty, or he'd realise that subscription to a dominant discourse (which some editors and journos did indeed subscribe to, to a lesser or greater extent, over the basis for war in Iraq, *isn't* quite the same as there being an airtight "old boy network" between the political establishment and the media.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 5, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> So I'm told.



Only by your sycophants though, phil.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 5, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> I think that the process is far, far more complicated and varied than you're attempting to make out. Do I think that there _can be_ collusion between MPs and journos and publishers? Yes. Do I think that Dacre, Wade et al all sat down with Alastair Campbell, Karl Rove, Murdoch, Rothermere and the Barclay twins to sketch out how, when and what would be published? No I don't, because it didn't _need_ to happen - as you well know this collusion doesn't require meetings in back rooms and quiet lunches in private dining rooms - it's a function of the press that it reproduces r/c memes...depending on which bit of the r/c that paper happens to support...which is why there was such a disjunct between the Observer and Guardian's editorial position on the war (and as everyone who has read Flat Earth News knows, the Observer's position on this was largley the result of having an editor who was completely inexperienced in dealing with politics (his previous position was editor of the sports section) for example.



Well it's a combination of the two innit.

There most certainly are meetings where Murdoch, Rove, Campbell et al sit down and conspire about what should be published, when and where.  You bet your life there are.  

On the other hand, as Chomsky notes, one effect of such meetings is to produce a climate of opinion, a limited range of possible viewpoints, which dictates that the desired effect is communicated to the public mind by discursive auto-pilot.

We see on these boards every day how people's opinions, and more importantly the range of opinions considered sane and acceptable, are determined in this manner.  Part of this process is to allow a certain amount, and a certain kind, of dissent.  We've moved far beyond the crude methods of mid-C20th totalitarians.  

But no-one should be in any doubt that our rulers actively conspire among themselves all the time.  That is their job.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 5, 2009)

8den said:


> I can see that "twat" and "foreigner" are like a couple of characters apart, and contain many of the same letters.
> 
> So we'll go ahead and add, racist, to the list of things Phil is*
> 
> ...



You forgot "deliberate shit-stirrer, egotist and troll".


----------



## 8den (Nov 5, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I don't find it strange in the slightest that he spends his time _conspiring._



For all you know they're conspiring about what desert to have. 



> I do find it strange that, despite your admitted knowledge that such _conspiring _ is commonplace, you still find it appropriate to deride those who _theorize_ about such _conspiring._



You mean, I'd like to see evidence of a coherent plot that came out of these meetings. For example, despite this level of control that you claim Murdoch has, he's never been able to break up the BBC, something that infuriates him. He's also thrown his weight behind Cameroon, and he's still not PM. 

Suspicion of conspiracy isn't evidence of conspiracy you simple minded gerbil.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 5, 2009)

8den said:


> Do they get naked and worship Molocha as well?



You forgot about them all chugging each others' pipes.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 5, 2009)

8den said:


> Suspicion of conspiracy isn't evidence of conspiracy you simple minded gerbil.



I wish to protest about this statement on behalf of gerbils worldwide.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 5, 2009)

8den said:


> For all you know they're conspiring about what desert to have.


The Mojave is Murdoch's favourite. 


> You mean, I'd like to see evidence of a coherent plot that came out of these meetings. For example, despite this level of control that you claim Murdoch has, he's never been able to break up the BBC, something that infuriates him. He's also thrown his weight behind Cameroon, and he's still not PM.


That's all part of the conspiracy! (taps side of nose with index finger).


> Suspicion of conspiracy isn't evidence of conspiracy you simple minded gerbil.


The distinction doesn't matter if you're a shit-stirrer.


----------



## 8den (Nov 5, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> I wish to protest about this statement on behalf of gerbils worldwide.



It's not all Gerbils, it's the simple minded ones, you know the ones that eat their wheel, and then try and rape the water bottle.


----------



## kyser_soze (Nov 5, 2009)

> There most certainly are meetings where Murdoch, Rove, Campbell et al sit down and conspire about what should be published, when and where. You bet your life there are.



OK, you see this is where it goes a bit awry. People like Campbell and Rove _attempt_ to manage media output, and control the agenda - as does anyone who works in what can universally be termed 'PR'. They do not sit down together and 'conspire' to produce a completely controlled outcomes with the proprieters and editors - they don't need to. 

Indeed, knowing several people who work in govt communications, this really isn't how it works - much to their chagrin in fact.

The climate of opinion Chomsky talks about doesn't require such meetings to take place - as you well know, political journos will be threatened with loss of access to ministers (for example) if they step out of line. The process of control _is_ far more subtle and insidious than totalitarian regimes, as you say - which is why the clandestine meetings aren't required, this is a self-starting and maintaing process of...manufacturing consent, which is a process that is 00s, if not 000s of years old the difference now being that it's now visible because the scale of it runs beyond small elite groups such as priests and noblemen...it's all there in Machivelli and the behaviour of the Medici, and no doubt there are examples of it before then too.


----------



## fogbat (Nov 5, 2009)

8den said:


> It's not all Gerbils, it's the simple minded ones, you know the ones that eat their wheel, and then try and rape the water bottle.



That pretty much is all gerbils, tbf.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 5, 2009)

fogbat said:


> That pretty much is all gerbils, tbf.



Racist!


----------



## 8den (Nov 5, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> Racist!



I once had a hamster that committed suicide by jumping off my sister. 

I heard Murdoch made him do it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 5, 2009)

8den said:


> I once had a hamster that committed suicide by jumping off my sister.
> 
> I heard Murdoch made him do it.



Perhaps the hamster had been watching "V", and thought your sister was going to eat it?


----------



## fogbat (Nov 5, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> Racist!



I'm not a racist, I just think that all non-indigenous rodents would be happier in their country of origin.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 5, 2009)

8den said:


> I once had a hamster that committed suicide by jumping off my sister.
> 
> I heard Murdoch made him do it.



maybe it saw you coming with a roll of sellotape


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 5, 2009)

8den said:


> Does the cognitive dissoance give you many headaches?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



sure does!!


----------



## 8den (Nov 5, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Perhaps the hamster had been watching "V", and thought your sister was going to eat it?



And Murdoch has never invited a rodent to his remote parties. Or maybe he does, and they're on the menu. ICKE WAS RIGHT!


----------



## 8den (Nov 5, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> sure does!!



Hmmm was I using too many big words there trev?



> maybe it saw you coming with a roll of sellotape



Are you suggesting that I enjoy being cruel to small animals trev?


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 5, 2009)

as for the conspiracy thing with the media and top politicians, lets look at the benefits clampdowns.
Did the govt and all the tabloids start branding claimants as scroungers and calling for a harsher system at the same time, sorta great minds think alike, just a coincidence?
Or was there some agreement that the tabloids wouldn't slag the govt for persecuting the disabled etc?


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 5, 2009)

8den said:


> Hmmm was I using too many big words there trev?
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that I enjoy being cruel to small animals trev?



ha ha, just another one of those mental images i like to picture when arguing with you.


----------



## 8den (Nov 5, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> as for the conspiracy thing with the media and top politicians, lets look at the benefits clampdowns.
> Did the govt and all the tabloids start branding claimants as scroungers and calling for a harsher system at the same time, sorta great minds think alike, just a coincidence?
> Or was there some agreement that the tabloids wouldn't slag the govt for persecuting the disabled etc?



Yes because calling people on benefits "scroungers" is a really new thing that newspapers never engaged in until the government benefits clampdowns.


----------



## 8den (Nov 5, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> ha ha, just another one of those mental images i like to picture when arguing with you.



Ohhhhh you're such a class act.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 5, 2009)

8den said:


> Yes because calling people on benefits "scroungers" is a really new thing that newspapers never engaged in until the government benefits clampdowns.



well not with such intensity. Notice they've slackened off on it now they all got their own way


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 5, 2009)

8den said:


> Ohhhhh you're such a class act.



so the girls say, so the girls say!

and THAT's NOT a conspiracy theory!


----------



## 8den (Nov 5, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> well not with such intensity. Notice they've slackened off on it now they all got their own way



And of course you can prove both these statements...


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 5, 2009)

8den said:


> And of course you can prove both these statements...




yes i can. Try to claim a crisis loan, then come back and tell me you managed it.


----------



## 8den (Nov 5, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> yes i can. Try to claim a crisis loan, then come back and tell me you managed it.



Yeah, I wouldn't even qualify, so why. No I mean, show me that the media blitz on benefits was worse than ever before. 

And crisis loans thats your entire point?


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 5, 2009)

8den said:


> Yeah, I wouldn't even qualify, so why. No I mean, show me that the media blitz on benefits was worse than ever before.
> 
> And crisis loans thats your entire point?



as you don't qualify you won't know how bad it is. If the COUNCIL were as awkward and bureaucratic concerning bins as the DWP are with the most vulnerable in society, the media would be screaming blue murder, but hey ho, it's only those scruffs that live on council estates, so why care...


----------



## 8den (Nov 5, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> as you don't qualify you won't know how bad it is. If the COUNCIL were as awkward and bureaucratic concerning bins as the DWP are with the most vulnerable in society, the media would be screaming blue murder, but hey ho, it's only those scruffs that live on council estates, so why care...



Ah bless, so this is the tangent you're on now, the government had Diana killed and the media covered it up, and you know all this, because the media works for the government, because you don't hear about crisis loans, and the bins! yeah, oh and the Dept of Works and Pensions!

So the DWP arranged to have Diana killed. WE'RE THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS PEOPLE!


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 5, 2009)

dwyer said:
			
		

> But in these debates I'm seeing more and more anti- conspiracy nuts, or "conspiracy denialists."
> 
> People who, perhaps in reaction to the more outlandish conspiracy theories, simply refuse to believe that powerful people ever get together to plan sinister actions in secret. Which is about as naive as you can possibly get.
> 
> Both extremes are mistaken. *But the conspiracy denialists are far more dangerous and harmful, for they encourage and actively foster a blind faith in what our rulers choose to tell us*.





trevhagl said:


> brilliant post. I think i'll cut and paste it every time the terminally naive argue with me on here.



It's a brilliant example of dwyer's continuing pseudo-campaign against conspiracy-sceptics, yes, but it would be somewhat more convincing if he actually believed any of it.  

Which he doesn't, not a word.

He's only adopted the anti-conspiracy-sceptic faux-'stance' that he has, as a deliberately 'contrarian' shitstir, and for no other reason. He's only repeating this 'anti-conspiracists blindly back up the establishment' rubbish for the same reason.

FWIW I agree with what free spirit (and elbows) posted a few pages back about the build up to the Iraq war and with what kyser said about why the mainstream media so often (but not in every instance) echo ruling class/establishment themes.

I'm also very much an anti-conspiracist, but the above paragraph hardly makes me someone who's 'actively fostering a blind faith in what our rulers tell us' as per dwyer's lie quoted above ...


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 5, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> It's a brilliant example of dwyer's continuing pseudo-campaign against conspiracy-sceptics, yes, but it would be somewhat more convincing if he actually believed any of it.



Another example of William's continuing pseudo-campaign to establish that I don't believe what I haven't not said which would be more convincing if he actually didn't believe that I believed in real ale what he said (as quoted by dwyer above) about not believing that he has him on real ale ignore, while he believes dwyer that I wouldn't say anything that Glastonbury he didn't believe wasn't true against the pseudo-anti-conspiraloon non-believers who wouldn't spliff claim that he didn't believe a single word of what he wasn't saying Glastonbury when he claimed to believe a word of what William was pretending to not think about the conspiracy to prevent anyone from believing the shitstirring purpose behind his pseudo-conspiracy dwyer unbelief in the kind of thing that wasn't believed by the shitstirring unconvincing non-posting lying conspiracy-believing troll-going Glastonbury claiming that he wouldn't believe the "fact" (as quoted above) yesterday that the shitstirring Guardian-reading non-pseudo conspiring true lies against the troll non-weed smoking believers real ale-drinking untrolling non-dwyer example of pseudo-Guardian spliff pint trolling unreal Glastonbury mad William head exploding ale dwyerequse troll-supporting non-conspiring pseudo-bollocks.

Hic.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 5, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> It's a brilliant example of dwyer's continuing pseudo-campaign against conspiracy-sceptics, yes, but it would be somewhat more convincing if he actually believed any of it.
> 
> Which he doesn't, not a word.
> 
> ...



i was never having a go at you, much of what you say in other threads is sound. Its those who have a go about perfectly plausable theories.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 5, 2009)

Dwyer get over to the smug thread and make your nominations


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 5, 2009)

>>@581 : Fair enough. It's no secret that I think dwyer's full of shit though.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 5, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> Fair enough. It's no secret that I think dwyer's full of shit though.



i don't really know what he's posted on other threads but he is well sound on this one i reckon, and funny.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 5, 2009)

We'll have to agree to disagree then.

If most people on Urban were putting forward conspiracy theories and defending them, he'd choose to attack them, just for maximum shit stirring and lulz purposes.

In any case, the suggestion that anti-conspiracists are 'actively fostering blind faith in what we're told' is just nonsense, not in any way logical. Even if he did mean it, which he doesn't.


----------



## toblerone3 (Nov 5, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> We'll have to agree to disagree then.
> 
> If most people on Urban were putting forward conspiracy theories and defending them, he'd choose to attack them, just for maximum shit stirring and lulz purposes.
> 
> In any case, the suggestion that anti-conspiracists are 'actively fostering blind faith in what we're told' is just nonsense, not in any way logical. Even if he did mean it, which he doesn't.



William if you were to take up an alter ego (WOW alt) on an Internet bulletin board defending conspiracy theories against doubters (such as WOW original) how would you go about it?


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 5, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> Its those who have a go about perfectly plausable theories.





Not one single poster has agreed with your bonkers claims over Diana, not even dwyer, plausible my arse.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 5, 2009)

toblerone3 said:


> William if you were to take up an alter ego (WOW alt) on an Internet bulletin board defending conspiracy theories against doubters (such as WOW original) how would you go about it?




That's just another way of describing what dwyer's doing, which is what you're getting at isn't it?


----------



## toblerone3 (Nov 5, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> That's just another way of describing what dwyer's doing, which is what you're getting at isn't it?



How do you know that Dwyer was not 

1. Originally a conspiracy theorist 
2. Started posting on Urban75 against conspiracy theories just to be different.
3. Noticed that virtually everybody else on Urban was attacking conspiracy theorists
4. Went back to supporting conspiracy theories just to be different.

Dwyer eats himself, William is annoyed.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 5, 2009)

Way too convaluted. Dwyer-reality is much simpler IMO, as is his Urban history on all sorts of topics  not just conspiracies.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 5, 2009)

Some recently and correctly binned conspiracism (AIDS denialism).

It's exactly the sort of thing that anti conspiracists get pissed off about most. Plus people treating it as reputable science when all really reputable sources know that it's sheer nonsense.


----------



## Balbi (Nov 6, 2009)

*B3ta delivers*


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 6, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> Not one single poster has agreed with your bonkers claims over Diana, not even dwyer, plausible my arse.




at least 3 on this thread alone and half the UK population in a Poll a few weeks after it happened.
Are half the Uk mental or is it YOU?


----------



## 8den (Nov 6, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> at least 3 on this thread alone



Jazzz, Dwyer, and... fela? taffy?

Not exactly the urban MENSA chapter now is it? 




> and half the UK population in a Poll a few weeks after it happened.
> Are half the Uk mental or is it YOU?



In the weeks after that attack during that week of national insanity yes, half the UK population are mental. 

Incidently do you think that half the population of the UK still believe in your bonkers conspiracy theory??


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 6, 2009)

8den said:


> Jazzz, Dwyer, and... fela? taffy?
> 
> Not exactly the urban MENSA chapter now is it?



Heh.  That's _exactly_ what it is.  In fact that's the major problem the conspiracy denialists on these boards face.

I don't agree with everything Jazzz says, but he's quite obviously a highly intelligent, highly educated man.  All other things being equal, I'll take his opinion over that of a dullard such as yourself every time.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 6, 2009)

8den said:


> In the weeks after that attack during that week of national insanity yes, half the UK population are mental.



For example, this makes no sense whatsoever.  Nothing to do with what 8den may be trying to say--the problem is that he's too stupid to express whatever it is he's trying to say.  He's simply incapable of making himself understood in written English. 

I'm not saying there are no intelligent conspiracy denialists here, because there are.  But let's be honest: a clear majority of them are either mentalists like WoW or thickos like 8den.

You can't necessarily judge a cause by the intelligence of those who espouse it, but it's not a bad place to start.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 6, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> at least 3 on this thread alone and half the UK population in a Poll a few weeks after it happened.
> Are half the Uk mental or is it YOU?



Firstly, a quick search for 'Diana' on this thread only throws up one person posting in support of your conspiracy theory on Diana and that was Jazzz, but he doesn’t count because he believes any evidence-free shit that pops up in his head, from 911 being an inside job to flu vaccine being more dangerous than flu. 

And, yes, just after the death and BEFORE the investigation and BEFORE the inquiries and BEFORE hearing any evidence, it’s possible that a large number of people did believe that it was more than just an accident.

In fact it turned-out to be more than just an accident anyway, it was an accident caused by the negligence of the driver and the photographers following.

Besides even if half of the population still believed in some conspiracy it wouldn’t be a choice between them being mental or me would it? What about the other half of the population?

You really come across as an ignorant twat at times.


----------



## fogbat (Nov 6, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Heh.  That's _exactly_ what it is.  In fact that's the major problem the conspiracy denialists on these boards face.
> 
> I don't agree with everything Jazzz says, but he's quite obviously a highly intelligent, highly educated man.  *All other things being equal*, I'll take his opinion over that of a dullard such as yourself every time.



There's your problem, right there.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 6, 2009)

fogbat said:


> There's your problem, right there.



I agree, all other things aren't equal.

But still, it makes you wonder.  Just because 8den is a moron, it doesn't _necessarily_ follow that everything he believes is wrong.  Just because Jazzz is very clever, it doesn't _necessarily_ follow that his claims are true.  But it makes you wonder.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 6, 2009)

dwyer said:
			
		

> I don't agree with everything Jazzz says



Exactly ...


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 6, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I don't agree with everything Jazzz says, but he's quite obviously a highly intelligent, highly educated man.



Just a couple of recent examples, he used a quote off the whale.to site from a  'cancer expert' without knowing the quack in question lived in the early 1900s and had a case proved against him for treating a cancer patient with his quack remedy by post! He also quoted as a reliable source a website sponsored by a miracle cure for AIDS, cancer, swine flu, etc. etc.

I don't think using such information to support his agenda is the sign of a highly intelligent, highly educated man myself and I would suggest you re-consider your position.


----------



## 8den (Nov 6, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I agree, all other things aren't equal.
> 
> But still, it makes you wonder.  Just because 8den is a moron, it doesn't _necessarily_ follow that everything he believes is wrong.  Just because Jazzz is very clever, it doesn't _necessarily_ follow that his claims are true.  But it makes you wonder.



Like the time he claimed that holographic planes were real and pointed to a military manual that proved this? Alas the manual was a piece of science fiction, and no thats not a euphemism, the author wrote a military manual of weapons that were common place in 2030. 

He's a fucking genius is Jazzz.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 6, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> Just a couple of recent examples, he used a quote off the whale.to site from a  'cancer expert' without knowing the quack in question lived in the early 1900s and had a case proved against him for treating a cancer patient with his quack remedy by post! He also quoted as a reliable source a website sponsored by a miracle cure for AIDS, cancer, swine flu, etc. etc.
> 
> I don't think using such information to support his agenda is the sign of a highly intelligent, highly educated man myself and I would suggest you re-consider your position.



OK.  I agree that, in the service of his case, Jazzz can sometimes cite some dubious sources.  I'm not here to defend everything he says.  But he's quite clearly very clever, and very well-read too.  

You won't harm your case by admitting this (although to be frank you could do without the support of completely uneducated ignorant idiots like 8den).


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 6, 2009)

dwyer said:
			
		

> I don't agree with everything Jazzz says, but he's quite obviously a highly intelligent, highly educated man.






			
				claphamboy said:
			
		

> Just a couple of recent examples, he used a quote off the whale.to site from a  'cancer expert' without knowing the quack in question lived in the early 1900s and had a case proved against him for treating a cancer patient with his quack remedy by post! He also quoted as a reliable source a website sponsored by a miracle cure for AIDS, cancer, swine flu, etc. etc.
> 
> I don't think using such information to support his agenda is the sign of a highly intelligent, highly educated man myself and *I would suggest you re-consider your position*.



He doesn't need to consider his *real* position 

Just his increasingly over-obvious tactical manoeuvres ...  

I think Jazzz should reconsider his gullible gratitude for dwyer's 'support', however ....


----------



## 8den (Nov 6, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> OK.  I agree that, in the service of his case, Jazzz can sometimes cite some dubious sources.  I'm not here to defend everything he says.  But he's quite clearly very clever, and very well-read too.
> 
> You won't harm your case by admitting this (although to be frank you could do without the support of completely uneducated ignorant idiots like 8den).



Coming from a witless idiot who didn't know the difference between anti viral drugs, and a vaccine, that means nothing at all.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 6, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> OK.  I agree that, in the service of his case, Jazzz can sometimes cite some dubious sources.  I'm not here to defend everything he says.  But he's quite clearly very clever, and very well-read too.
> 
> You won't harm your case by admitting this (although to be frank you could do without the support of completely uneducated ignorant idiots like 8den).


----------



## fogbat (Nov 6, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> *OK.  I agree that, in the service of his case, Jazzz can sometimes cite some dubious sources.  I'm not here to defend everything he says.  But he's quite clearly very clever, and very well-read too.  *



Happy to agree with all of that. 

There's no doubt he's a clever guy, and when not discussing health or conspiracies, I've plenty of confidence in what he has to say.

I think talking about Jazzz as if he's not here is a bit weird, though, so I'm going to leave it at that.


----------



## Maidmarian (Nov 6, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> I think Jazzz should reconsider his gullible gratitude for dwyer's 'support', however ....




Yes this ^^^^^^^^^

Unless, of course , jazzz too is on a wind-up. 

Are you , jazzz ?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 6, 2009)

Blagsta said:


>



So basically you're saying that phil has no genitals?


----------



## fogbat (Nov 6, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> So basically you're saying that phil has no genitals?



_Great_ hair, though


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 6, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> OK.  I agree that, in the service of his case, Jazzz can sometimes cite some dubious sources.  I'm not here to defend everything he says.  But he's quite clearly very clever, and very well-read too.
> 
> You won't harm your case by admitting this (although to be frank you could do without the support of completely uneducated ignorant idiots like 8den).



Can 'sometimes' cite some dubious sources?????

He does it almost all the time he cites any source on conspiracy threads, whereas on other occasions he just posts total bollocks without anything to back it up, demands others disproves it and when that's done, he ignores it completely. His claim that the west spends more on vaccines than providing clean water supplies in the third world being a classic example for this. 

If you call reading conspiracy sites well read, I would have to agree with you, but I don't think you do.

ETA - my comments are only in regards to conspiracy threads, because that is what this thread is about.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 6, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> He doesn't need to consider his *real* position
> 
> Just his increasingly over-obvious tactical manoeuvres ...
> 
> I think Jazzz should reconsider his gullible gratitude for dwyer's 'support', however ....



Really William, your agenda is too transparent now.

Does _anyone_ really believe that William really believes that I don't really believe what Jazzz really believes?

Anyone at all?


----------



## Maidmarian (Nov 6, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Really William, your agenda is too transparent now.
> 
> Does _anyone_ really believe that William really believes that I don't really believe what Jazzz really believes?
> 
> Anyone at all?



<puts hand up>


----------



## fogbat (Nov 6, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Really William, your agenda is too transparent now.
> 
> Does _anyone_ really believe that William really believes that I don't really believe what Jazzz really believes?
> 
> Anyone at all?



I believe you'll quite gleefully post whatever you think will get the greatest rise out of people.

And you're very, very good at it


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 6, 2009)

Maidmarian said:


> <puts hand up>



I'm sorry, but I simply don't believe that you believe that William believes that I don't believe what Jazzz believes.  

I wasn't born yesterday you know.


----------



## Maidmarian (Nov 6, 2009)

Maidmarian said:


> Yes this ^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Unless, of course , jazzz too is on a wind-up.
> 
> Are you , jazzz ?




Ahhhh-----------



phildwyer said:


> I'm sorry, but I simply don't believe that you believe that William believes that I don't believe what Jazzz believes.
> 
> I wasn't born yesterday you know.



<sound of penny dropping>


Sooo----- you & jazzz are CONSPIRING together ?


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 6, 2009)

It hardly needs clarifying, nor should I need to repeat it, but it should be pretty transparently obvious by now that dwyer doesn't *really* believe a single word he's posting, either on conspiracies or most other stuff.




			
				fogbat said:
			
		

> I believe you'll quite gleefully post whatever you think will get the greatest rise out of people.



He adopts a deliberately 'controversial' pose on this and many other subjects. This 'only ever criticise anti conspiracists and scarcely ever say a critical thing about conspiracies' shtick is much of a muchness with the rest of the dwyer Urban pose .... Blagsta's pic has it right.

It's hardly a secret, but where he's good is that so many people respond to dwyer's posts as if he means them. I've fallen for that enough times myself in the past.

(Or sometimes just to take the piss back, tbf  ).

As for Jazzz, if he really belives anything dwyer posts on conspiracies or about Jazzz himself is either sincerely meant or helpfully supportive, then he's a naive idiot.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Nov 6, 2009)

Maidmarian said:


> <puts hand up>


<puts hand up>


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 6, 2009)

fogbat said:


> I believe you'll quite gleefully post whatever you think will get the greatest rise out of people.
> 
> And you're very, very good at it



No, too be very good at it would require it to be believable, in this case far too many exceptions have been made since the initial claim, so he fails the litmus test. 

<puts hand up>


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 6, 2009)




----------



## fogbat (Nov 6, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


>



You're looking well, Will.

That move to Wales has done you the world of good


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 6, 2009)

Took years off me!


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 6, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> <puts hand up>



Jesus.  

Alright, would anyone be so good as to tell me what I actually _do_ believe then?  Since you're all such experts like.


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 6, 2009)

This obsession with what Dwyer 'actually believes' is quite fascinating.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 6, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> Firstly, a quick search for 'Diana' on this thread only throws up one person posting in support of your conspiracy theory on Diana and that was Jazzz, but he doesn’t count because he believes any evidence-free shit that pops up in his head, from 911 being an inside job to flu vaccine being more dangerous than flu.
> 
> And, yes, just after the death and BEFORE the investigation and BEFORE the inquiries and BEFORE hearing any evidence, it’s possible that a large number of people did believe that it was more than just an accident.
> 
> ...



Dwyer, Jazz and X-something (i forget his name) makes 3.
Plus half the Uk population.
I guess if we're stretching it it COULD have been an accident but then most drivers who have accidents don't have a bright light pointing in their eyes.

you have a way with words oh establishment whore


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 6, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> This obsession with what Dwyer 'actually believes' is quite fascinating.




happens to everyone who doesn't believe the establishment version of events i guess


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 6, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> Dwyer, Jazz and X-something (i forget his name) makes 3.



Phil has made no mention of Diana and Xes only mentioned her once...


xes said:


> .
> I don't know enough about the Diana thing to pass comment


- if you are counting that as support you are more deluded than you appear. 



trevhagl said:


> Plus half the Uk population.



Well, we only have your word for that; I don't suppose you have a link to prove it, I doubt it, because you're not too much into evidence, are you?

And, even if that's true, it was BEFORE the evidence was made available, again I realise why you don't get this - because you don't do evidence.   



trevhagl said:


> I guess if we're stretching it it COULD have been an accident but then most drivers who have accidents don't have a bright light pointing in their eyes.



There was no miracle 'bright light', other than headlights & camera flashes there was no light.  



trevhagl said:


> you have a way with words oh establishment whore



Ignorant twat.


----------



## 8den (Nov 6, 2009)

> Plus half the Uk population.



Half the US population believe in a literal Biblical account of creation, so I guess 6,000 years ago our grandparents were in the garden of Eden. 

Idiot. 



> I guess if we're stretching it it COULD have been an accident but then most drivers who have accidents don't have a bright light pointing in their eyes.



A large portion of them are pissed and speeding though. Don't forget that part you doltish little fucktard. 



> you have a way with words oh establishment whore



Change the fucking record trev. Or at least mix up your insults a bit.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 6, 2009)

Jazzz said:
			
		

> This obsession with what Dwyer 'actually believes' is quite fascinating.





trevhagl said:


> happens to everyone who doesn't believe the establishment version of events i guess



Dwyer's *trolling* trev, why on earth do you think he's really agreeing with anything you're posting?  

Jazzz, perhaps you might like to ask the odd questions of *dwyer's* obsesseion with inventing fake positions to shir shit up and for no other reason at all.

He sure as fuck isn't agreeing with you in the slightest in reality, and is of no real help or support to you if you had any sense. He's just inventing faux-opinions simply and only to attack anti-conspiracists and for no other purpose. 

He's got a track record of adopting 'contrarian' positions on Urban on any subject you care to think of, a record that's as long as your arm, remember?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 6, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Alright, would anyone be so good as to tell me what I actually _do_ believe then?  Since you're all such experts like.



I believe you once (still have for all I know) had a little webpage telling the world what you believe when it comes to the internet....


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 6, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> Dwyer's *trolling* trev, why on earth do you think he's really agreeing with anything you're posting?
> 
> Jazzz, perhaps you might like to ask the odd questions of *dwyer's* obsesseion with inventing fake positions to shir shit up and for no other reason at all.
> 
> ...



But William can’t you see that in reality dwyer is only pretending not to disbelieve in anything you say on here without the slightest Guardian chance that he actually doesn’t think that you weren’t being serious when you said that real ale he could claim that the Glastonbury position he “pretends” not to hold wasn’t at first the one that you spliff said before that he refused to engage seriously with his trolling attempt to real ale convince everyone that Jazzz and he really agreed without Glastonbury that you actually believed what he (trollingly) ever insincerely thought that people wouldn’t smoke pint put thoughts in his pretending brain with me and your claim to assume when your conspiraloon friends wanted everyone on here to real ale think that the so-called (quoted above) untrue (lyingly) banned claims to have not believed however never ever Glastonbury truthers nutjob with his real ale shouldn’t re-examine dwyer’s false opinion that in reality he thought too many Urbanites hadn’t seen through his usual technique of spliff and troll fantasist anti-William non-dwyer 9/11 nutbobbin see-through my on ignore (as quoted above) troll maneuver Guardian real-life opinion trollery loonscum forum in the untrue pretence that he wasn’t not believing much (if at all) ever that we said yesterday?

Hic.


----------



## 8den (Nov 6, 2009)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I believe you once (still have for all I know) had a little webpage telling the world what you believe when it comes to the internet....



Oh pm please. 

Doing a check on Phil Dwyer on google just reveals his a character in those emo vampire twilight books.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 7, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> Phil has made no mention of Diana and Xes only mentioned her once...
> 
> - if you are counting that as support you are more deluded than you appear.
> 
> ...



the nasty man he swear at me


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 7, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> the nasty man he swear at me



It matters so much to them, doesn't it?

It not only matters to them that there must be no conspiracies.  It is vitally important to them that no-one even _believes_ in conspiracies. 

In fact, as we've seen here, the most hysterical of the conspiracy denialists can't even accept that anyone _does_ believe in conspiracies.

How mad is that?


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 7, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> It matters so much to them, doesn't it?
> 
> It not only matters to them that there must be no conspiracies.  It is vitally important to them that no-one even _believes_ in conspiracies.
> 
> ...



I could understand it if they worked for M15/M16 or if they were government ministers but i don't think they'd have the intelligence (pardon the pun)


----------



## fogbat (Nov 7, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> I could understand it if they worked for M15/M16 or if they were government ministers but i don't think they'd have the *intelligance* (pardon the pun)



lulz


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 7, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> I could understand it if they worked for M15/M16 or if they were government ministers but i don't think they'd have the intelligance (pardon the pun)



I think I understand it.

Their entire world-view is constructed on the assumption that our rulers are basically benign and truthful.  When this is shown to be an illusion with regard to one issue, it raises the awful possibility that we are being lied to _systematically--_ that our entire system is based on lies.

Some people can't handle that.  Thus the following chain of crazy logic develops:

1.  They don't want to believe that powerful people ever conspire together against the public interest.

2.  They don't want_ you_ to believe that powerful people conspire together against the public interest.  

3.  They don't even want to believe that you really _do _believe that powerful people conspire together against the public interest.

And so before we know it, we're on the fast train to Williamville.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 7, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> the nasty man he swear at me



That's it is it? That's all you can come back with?

Well, that and calling anyone that disagrees with your bonkers an establishment whore. 

Oh, how ironic.   



phildwyer said:


> It matters so much to them, doesn't it?
> 
> It not only matters to them that there must be no conspiracies.  It is vitally important to them that no-one even _believes_ in conspiracies.
> 
> ...



No one has denied there must be _no_ conspiracies, and no one has denied that _anyone_ can’t possibly believe in conspiracies - only that _you_ don't believe some/most/all the stuff that _you_ have posted on this thread.

But, you carry on repeating the lies, I am sure if you do it enough some twat that comes along will actually believe it.....

...oh, they have already.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 7, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I think I understand it.
> 
> Their entire world-view is constructed on the assumption that our rulers are basically benign and truthful.  When this is shown to be an illusion with regard to one issue, it raises the awful possibility that we are being lied to _systematically--_ that our entire system is based on lies.
> 
> ...



this is true. I don't think William is as bad as the rest though, who simply bear grudges and follow you to the ends of the earth looking for arguments, even on the thread about the post office where I said that the management would wait till the new year when mail slackens off then RM will start the intimidation/liberty taking again, and guess what? Clapham Boy, for the sake of arguing, said that mail levels were more or less the same throughout the year cos of business post !!!!

If i come on here saying "I love obnoxious cockney wankers" he would STILL argue the toss


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 7, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> I could understand it if they worked for M15/M16 or if they were government ministers but i don't think they'd have the *intelligence *(pardon the pun)



lolz

* It doesn't matter correcting the spelling, you questioning other people's intelligence is still funny as fuck.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 7, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> this is true. I don't think William is as bad as the rest though, who simply bear grudges and follow you to the ends of the earth looking for arguments, even on the thread about the post office where I said that the management would wait till the new year when mail slackens off then RM will start the intimidation/liberty taking again, and guess what? Clapham Boy, for the sake of arguing, said that mail levels were more or less the same throughout the year cos of business post !!!!
> 
> If i come on here saying "I love obnoxious cockney wankers" he would STILL argue the toss



A - That is not what you said.

B - That is not what I said.

C - I didn't follow you on to that thread, I posted on it before you.

D - Cross-thread trolling, as you have done here, is against the rules, please refrain for doing it.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 7, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> this is true. I don't think William is as bad as the rest though



He's not "bad" at all.  Mad certainly, and dangerous to know possibly, but not in any way malign.  

He does however have real difficulty in accepting that other people may hold views that differ from his own.  To William, his approach to life is obviously correct, so clearly well-balanced and rational, that he sincerely cannot conceive that others might see things differently.

It's the same on the "God" threads.  William is an atheist, which is fair enough.  But he simply _will_ not accept that there are some intelligent and rational people who believe in God.  For him, anyone who says they believe in God is either insane or lying.  And it's not just him either, there are loads of people like him here.

It just goes to show the power of ideology.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Nov 7, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I think I understand it.
> 
> Their entire world-view is constructed on the assumption that our rulers are basically benign and truthful.  When this is shown to be an illusion with regard to one issue, it raises the awful possibility that we are being lied to _systematically--_ that our entire system is based on lies.
> 
> ...


Completely predicated on false assumptions, yawn.


Let's take the example of a political activist. Or a whistle blower. Or an investigative journalist. Who want to alert the public to the fact that powerful people are conspiring together to do something bad. Like, dump toxic waste and hide evidence that it's toxic. Or do a bit of insider trading. Or land rendition planes in the UK. Or whatever. I am sure that you can think of lots pf people who fall into this category, and a lot of members of the public, people who watch the news, take an interest in current affairs etc  including the majority of people on this board, who would be keen on seeing *investigations mounted, evidence discovered and published,* wrongdoers exposed, justice done, conspiracies prosecuted etc etc.

Do they believe that people in power are entirely benign and truthful?
No.
Do they have to believe in *evidence-unsupported* 'truther' conspiracy theories in order to pursue investigations into abuses of power? No.

Canard.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 7, 2009)

Thing is, someone upthread said that some AW3 speakers were sensible like Norman Baker, but anyone who has read his book knows that even though he is super-cautious he goes into some very shady areas like South Africas Project Coast and the deaths of microbiologists.

Then there are people who aint loons, but some here would love to think were, like Cynthia Mckinney who has been  a consistent asker of common sense questions on 911.

The net has made people more aware of things but there is also an echochamber, an tendancy with some to see a conspiracy in everything. It's just not as simple as saying "oh, it's their psychology" on one side or "why do you always trust the government?" on the other.

Case by case basis, and there is some weird old stuff out there.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 7, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> Canard.



Well the way I look at it is, there are nutters on both sides.

There are certainly people who are predisposed to believe any conspiracy theory, and who will blithely disregard the lack of any supporting evidence.

Equally certainly however, there are people who are predisposed to dismiss any conspiracy theory as crazy, loony, nutbobbin etc., and who will blithely disregard any evidence that is produced.  William is a fine example of this type.

Both extremes are deluded.  However, the conspiracy denialists are much more dangerous, because they play straight into the hands of the genuinely evil and manipulative people who rule us.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 7, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Case by case basis, and there is some weird old stuff out there.



Agreed.

If we accept that those who rule our society are basically corrupt and self-interested, then it follows as surely as night follows day that there _must_ be quite a few genuine conspiracies afoot.

The task is to identify them.

That task is not made easier by the suckers and dupes who howl down all conspiracy theories as bonkers, loonspud, barking etc: the pathological conspiracy denialists.  And there are many more conspiracy denialists than there are conspiracy theorists.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Nov 7, 2009)

'Conspiracy-denialist' = 'Person who thinks the powerful do no wrong'  is pretty much a canard as well: a last-ditch attempt by conspiracy-theorists to try to even it up. Even Sister Wendy types and Fotherington-Thomases tend to accept that bad people do bad things. 

Can you actually find me an example of someone who disses conspiracy theories such as 'the jews were warned about 9/11' or 'Diana was killed because carrying a Muslim baby'' or 'the Twin Towers were wired with explosives' or whatever specifically saying 'Governments do no wrong' and 'powerful people don't ever conspire together against the public interest'?

Is it really reasonable to make claims that people who don't buy conspiracy theories think Governments do no wrong and powerful people never conspire against the public interest? Really? 

It's an incredibly weak, logic-stretching place to bat from, isn't it?  I agree people can be over-vociferous in attacking conspiracy theories but to extrapolate from that the conspiraloon-attackers are all Pollyannas who think powerful people can do no wrong is  pretty ludicrous.

That conspiracy theorists have to resort to such tactics just makes them look paranoid and unable to grasp facts and weigh evidence without projecting emotion all over it, which is no surprise tbf.


----------



## editor (Nov 7, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Both extremes are deluded. However, the conspiracy denialists are much more dangerous, because they play straight into the hands of the genuinely evil and manipulative people who rule us.


Tsk. Very low quaity trolling.





phildwyer said:


> Equally certainly however, there are people who are predisposed to dismiss any conspiracy theory as crazy, loony, nutbobbin etc., and who will blithely disregard any evidence that is produced.  William is a fine example of this type..


This is your last and final warning. Stop this or be banned.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 7, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> Can you actually find me an example of someone who disses conspiracy theories such as 'the jews were warned about 9/11' or 'Diana was killed because carrying a Muslim baby'' or 'the Twin Towers were wired with explosives' or whatever specifically saying 'Governments do no wrong' and 'powerful people don't ever conspire together against the public interest'?




They might not put it in such general terms, but there are plenty of people who will, in practice, deny any specific conspiracy, no matter how uncontroversial.

Just recently on here I've encountered people who denied that the Mafia had a hand in the murder of JFK (8den), and that the CIA sold cocaine to fund the Contras (Blagsta).  Both of which are as solidly established facts as one could wish for.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Nov 7, 2009)

I am asking you to back up your (incredibly feeble) point; 'conspiracy -denialists' ( ie. people who do not believe the conspiracy theories, which is most people, remember since conspiracy theorists are a minority) think ''rulers are basically benign and truthful'' and ''powerful people do not conspire against the public interest''.






			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> Their entire world-view is constructed on the assumption that our rulers are basically benign and truthful. When this is shown to be an illusion with regard to one issue, it raises the awful possibility that we are being lied to systematically-- that our entire system is based on lies.
> 
> Some people can't handle that. Thus the following chain of crazy logic develops:
> 
> ...



You can't.

It is a canard.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 7, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> Even Sister Wendy types and Fotherington-Thomases tend to accept that bad people do bad things.



But they don't follow that belief through to its logical conclusion.

Look: do you accept that the politicians and capitalists who rule our society are corrupt and self-interested?

If you do, surely you must accept that they undoubtedly often conspire to nefarious ends.

So the existence of conspiracies is not in doubt.  The only problem is to identify them.  With me so far?

Well, you're not going to get very far identifying them with the knee-jerk conspiracy denialism that we see on these boards day after day.  Not that all denialists are nutters, but we need to treat their theories with a healthy dose of skepticism.  And it seems to me that your argument prevents us from doing that.


----------



## editor (Nov 7, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> But they don't follow that belief through to its logical conclusion.
> 
> Look: do you accept that the politicians and capitalists who rule our society are corrupt and self-interested?
> 
> ...


Still trolling away, I see. How very, very dull.

BK: I wouldn't bother with him, myself.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 7, 2009)

editor said:


> Still trolling away, I see. How very, very dull.
> 
> BK: I wouldn't bother with him, myself.



And that, amigos, is what we call an admission of defeat.

My work here is done.  For now...


----------



## Badger Kitten (Nov 7, 2009)

Phil, trying to claim that everyone ( which is most people) who doesn't buy conspiracy theories acts that way because they ''think ''rulers are basically benign and truthful'' and ''powerful people do not conspire against the public interest'' is just silly.

You know it, I know it, stop wriggling. You overplayed it, badly.


----------



## editor (Nov 7, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> And that, amigos, is what we call an admission of defeat.
> 
> My work here is done.  For now...


LOL. Even when you've been caught with your pants down, you're still desperately trying to troll away. It's all a bit pathetic now, really.

Still, at least it's an improvement on the usual snidey personal digs and ad hominems you've recently sullied your character with here. They were proof indeed of the fact you'd lost the argument a long time ago.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Nov 7, 2009)

editor said:


> Still trolling away, I see. How very, very dull.
> 
> BK: I wouldn't bother with him, myself.




It is too silly for words. It did deserve pointing out though, as a massive elephant trap Phil fell into all by himself. But now I have to go and buy some thermal socks so my feet don't freeze tonight at the fireworks and I am off and out of this silly thread.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 7, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> Phil, trying to claim that everyone ( which is most people) who doesn't buy conspiracy theories acts that way because they ''think ''rulers are basically benign and truthful'' and ''powerful people do not conspire against the public interest'' is just silly.



Which is why I didn't claim any such thing.

Once again (and then I really will go away for a bit): if you accept that we are ruled by corrupt and self-interested people, then surely you _must_ accept that conspiracies exist.  

Therefore to dismiss "CT-ers" or "truthers" _en masse_ is just silly.  And there are plenty of people here who do exactly that (I guess I'm now forbidden to name them but you know who I mean).

A case-by-case basis is the only way to approach these things, as Taffboy has said.


----------



## editor (Nov 7, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> A case-by-case basis is the only way to approach these things, as Taffboy has said.


And that's just about how everyone judges them here, no matter how much you try to suggest otherwise. As well you know.

Anyway, this is piss poor stuff, even by your standards, so I'm off to look at something more interesting.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 7, 2009)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I believe you once (still have for all I know) had a little webpage telling the world what you believe when it comes to the internet....


You mean the one where he describes his approach as "<snip - oi>"?


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 7, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Which is why I didn't claim any such thing.
> 
> Once again (and then I really will go away for a bit): if you accept that we are ruled by corrupt and self-interested people, then surely you _must_ accept that conspiracies exist.
> 
> ...




very true.

Lizards ? Er no.
The establishment bumping someone off who was making a fool of the Royals and campaigning against land mines? Probably.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2009)

you gullible fucker


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 8, 2009)

Anyone whose knee-jerk assumption is conspiracy, or to trust what the mainstream says, is silly.

There is too much black/white presented on both sides of this arguement.

The classic one from the anti-conspiracists is their cod-psychological analysis that conspiracies give explanations to stuff that is hard to accept.

There is just as much psychological motive for rejecting all CTs out of hand and there's a sort of smug aloofness among some anti-CTers that reminds me of the fundementalist atheism of the 4th former.

CTs should be judged on a case by case basis, difficult and confusing work.

Yes the internet has brought a lot of this on: that doesnt make it good, bad, true or false. The auto-conspiracist narrative is daft, about as daft as the mainstream bilge we've been fed for generations.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 8, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> there's a sort of smug aloofness among some anti-CTers that reminds me of the fundementalist atheism of the 4th former.



Yes indeed.  In fact the conspiracy denialists and the fundamentalist atheists tend to be the very same individuals.  

Their attitudes are best explained by psychologists rather than philosophers or political scientists.


----------



## editor (Nov 8, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> CTs should be judged on a case by case basis, difficult and confusing work.


And who here isn't doing just that, please?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 8, 2009)

I haven't looked in on this thread forever but are we still really on this? "Anyone who disagrees with me must be a reflexive conspiracy-denier"? "You're only saying this because you believe what the government says"?

I'd hoped for a bit better from urban to be honest. Not, of course, stuff that wasn't bullshit, but ideally stuff that wasn't the same old bullshit.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 8, 2009)

editor said:


> And who here isn't doing just that, please?



Nobody comes out and says "there are never any conspiracies."  

But there are plenty of people who, in practice, will deny the existence of just about any conspiracy--to the extent that it soon becomes clear that they are predisposed to irrational skepticism on the subject.

I've already given the examples of recent arguments I've had here with people who deny that the Mafia killed JFK, and that the CIA sold cocaine to fund the Contras.  

It might be an exaggeration to call these conspiracies established facts, but most historians would agree that they're true.  I've not only seen them denied here, I've seen them _derided_ as loony-tunes, nutbobbins etc.  To me, that's pathological denialism.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 8, 2009)

"plenty of people"

"some people say..."


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 8, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> "plenty of people"
> 
> "some people say..."



OK, let's not make any grandiose claims here.  Can we agree that a _respectable body of informed opinion_ holds that the Mafia killed JFK, and that the CIA sold cocaine to fund the Contras?

Yes?

Now, it's one thing to argue against those positions.  But I've seen people on here _laugh_ at them, call them absurd, assert that anyone who believes in them is insane etc.

Such people, in my view, are pathological conspiracy denialists.  They are psychologically incapable of believing in conspiracies.  They are just as crazy as those who think 9/11 was instigated by Martians.


----------



## Paul Marsh (Nov 8, 2009)

I'm not so sure about conspiraloons being in the ascendency. 

Yes they do suddenly have a cash budget for advertising - witness the full page Reinvestigate 911 advert in the Independent two saturdays back, or the advertising for the forthcoming Bristol jamboree in Private Eye and elsewhere. 

However it is worth noting that Reinvestigate 911's Parliament meeting on 2 November only had 1 MP and 1 Peer turn up:

http://paulstott.typepad.com/911cultwatch/2009/11/sympathy-for-the-devil.html

I'm guessing the MP was Michael Meacher. Any ideas who the peer would have been? 

Also the replacement organisation for the UK and Ireland 9/11 Truth movement - Make Wars History- has had a very slow start, whilst conspiraloon offshoots such as the July 7 Truth Campaign remain small and isloated (Although I note worrying signs of support in parts of the Muslim community)

All in all, we have no reason to drop our guard, but I certainly don't see any signs the buggers are in the ascendency.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 8, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> OK, let's not make any grandiose claims here.  Can we agree that a _respectable body of informed opinion_ holds that the Mafia killed JFK, and that the CIA sold cocaine to fund the Contras?
> 
> Yes?
> 
> ...



And you know, you can extend that diagnosis to everyone who disagrees with you for more than a few posts, as well as not having to bother with anyone in question. Which is very convenient. I'd send them to the gulags tbh.


----------



## editor (Nov 8, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Nobody comes out and says "there are never any conspiracies."
> 
> But there are plenty of people who, in practice, will deny the existence of just about any conspiracy--to the extent that it soon becomes clear that they are predisposed to irrational skepticism on the subject.


Could you name some of the 'plentiful' people here who are purportedly suffering from this curious "irrational skepticism" and are, "pathological conspiracy denialists" and support that claim with some documented examples?

Whether one person disagrees with your particular opinion about JFK's death or not is frankly irrelevant to your broader (and wilder) claims.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 8, 2009)

Paul Marsh said:


> However it is worth noting that Reinvestigate 911's Parliament meeting on 2 November only had 1 MP and 1 Peer turn up:



Thanks for posting that, it cheered me up no end.


----------



## toblerone3 (Nov 8, 2009)

Paul Marsh said:


> I'm not so sure about conspiraloons being in the ascendency.
> 
> Yes they do suddenly have a cash budget for advertising - witness the full page Reinvestigate 911 advert in the Independent two saturdays back, or the advertising for the forthcoming Bristol jamboree in Private Eye and elsewhere.
> 
> ...



Somebody who is actually addressing the original subject of the thread. 

I agree with you Paul Marsh underneath all the froth and gossip, conspiracy theories in general are making little headway.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 8, 2009)

I'd like to point out that not getting the reference to "some people say..." is a bit of an issue too.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 8, 2009)

Paul Marsh said:


> I'm not so sure about conspiraloons being in the ascendency.
> 
> Yes they do suddenly have a cash budget for advertising - witness the full page Reinvestigate 911 advert in the Independent two saturdays back, or the advertising for the forthcoming Bristol jamboree in Private Eye and elsewhere.
> 
> ...



That organization you link to above--"9/11 Cultwatch"--is an excellent example of pathological conspiracy denialism.

They mention the advert that Reinvestigate 9/11 put in the Independent, before scoffing: 

"Not surprising the Independent ran it - They printed this article (riddled with inaccuracies) by Robert Fisk over two years ago http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-even-i-question-the-truth-about-911-462904.html"

Now, once you begin to suggest that someone like Robert Fisk is a loonytubes nuttbobbin for saying "Even I Question The Truth About 9/11," it seems to me that you are on very shaky ground indeed.  It is at this stage that the conspiracy denialists and the conspiracy theorists begin to look like two sides of the same dialectical coin.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 8, 2009)

editor said:


> Whether one person disagrees with your particular opinion about JFK's death or not is frankly irrelevant to your broader (and wilder) claims.



I don't think I'm making any broader or wilder claims.  I'm certainly not claiming that 9/11 was anything other than a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists.

I'm saying that there are conspiracy denialists who are deluded and driven by a psychological predisposition, just as there are conspiracy theorists in the same category.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 8, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> That organization you link to above--"9/11 Cultwatch"--is an excellent example of pathological conspiracy denialism.
> 
> They mention the advert that Reinvestigate 9/11 put in the Independent, before scoffing:
> 
> ...



What a totally ridiculous claim to make, how does that 'organisation' become 'an excellent example of pathological conspiracy denialism', because one poster has left a comment which refers to an article by Robert Fisk, when the very next post points out 'The advert slipped Fisk's name in, even though his endorsement for the 'truth' movement is hardly deafening'?

That's like suggesting urban75 is a conspiraloon site, because a couple of idiots post ballshit here.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 8, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> What a totally ridiculous claim to make, how does that 'organisation' become 'an excellent example of pathological conspiracy denialism', because one poster has left a comment which refers to an article by Robert Fisk, when the very next post points out 'The advert slipped Fisk's name in, even though his endorsement for the 'truth' movement is hardly deafening'?



That's not the only reason.  The whole site is obsessive, hysterical, swivel-eyed.  A perfect mirror in fact of the pro-conspiracy sites it claims to be opposing.

Are you familiar with dialectical logic at all?  The way a thesis calls an antithesis into being, the way ostensible opposites interpenetrate and determine each other?  This is dialectics in practice.


----------



## RaverDrew (Nov 8, 2009)

The skeptics do themselves no favours by always using such aggressive language and coming across like frothing psychopaths.  I suspect many of them were the type of kids who were bullied pretty badly at school, and need an easy target to unleash all that pent up anger on.


----------



## editor (Nov 8, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I'm saying that there are conspiracy denialists who are deluded and driven by a psychological predisposition, just as there are conspiracy theorists in the same category.


So you keep insisting, yet you singularly fail to name any of the 'plentiful' 'conspiracy denialists' here or provide any actual evidence.

All you've done is name two posters who just happen to disagree with your personal opinion on an individual topic.


----------



## editor (Nov 8, 2009)

RaverDrew said:


> The skeptics do themselves no favours by always using such aggressive language and coming across like frothing psychopaths.  I suspect many of them were the type of kids who were bullied pretty badly at school, and need an easy target to unleash all that pent up anger on.


As ad hominems go, that's second to none. Great job.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 8, 2009)

editor said:


> So you keep insisting, yet you singularly fail to name any of the 'plentiful' 'conspiracy denialists' here or provide any actual evidence.
> 
> All you've done is name two posters who just happen to disagree with your personal opinion on an individual topic.



This site is a good example of what I'm talking about:

http://paulstott.typepad.com/911cultwatch/2009/11/for-vaccination-obsessives.html


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 8, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> That's not the only reason.  The whole site is obsessive, hysterical, swivel-eyed.  A perfect mirror in fact of the pro-conspiracy sites it claims to be opposing.
> 
> Are you familiar with dialectical logic at all?  The way a thesis calls an antithesis into being, the way ostensible opposites interpenetrate and determine each other?  This is dialectics in practice.



I see your point there, but up until now you have defined 'conspiracy denialists' as people that deny any possible conspiracy, and there's no evidence to suggest this site does that, so how does it become an example of 'pathological conspiracy denialism.'

Or have you changed your definition now? 

Also, there's nothing I can see there suggesting that Robert Fisk is a loonytubes nuttbobbin as you claimed.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 8, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> This site is a good example of what I'm talking about:
> 
> http://paulstott.typepad.com/911cultwatch/2009/11/for-vaccination-obsessives.html



Other sites aren't relevant.

BTW I know that you're avoiding my comments, and I know why. I'm not interested enough to chase it for the moment, mind, but might at any opportunity. Just so you know.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Nov 8, 2009)

How about rather than attacking people who don't believe the conspiracy theories, you actually try to defend them, Phil  (and others)? Sell them, explain them, prove them.




























Oh, you can't.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 8, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> BTW I know that you're avoiding my comments, and I know why. I'm not interested enough to chase it for the moment, mind, but might at any opportunity. Just so you know.



I've just read back over your last few posts, and I honestly can't see what you're referring to here.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 8, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> How about rather than attacking people who don't believe the conspiracy theories, you actually try to defend them, Phil  (and others)? Sell them, explain them, prove them.



Which ones?  

I certainly don't believe in all conspiracy theories.  I believe in some of them.  

I don't believe 9/11 was an inside job, but I do believe that Robert Maxwell was murdered by the Mossad, for example.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 8, 2009)

I suppose that means "I have nothing more to say here."


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 8, 2009)

Paul Marsh said:


> However it is worth noting that Reinvestigate 911's Parliament meeting on 2 November only had 1 MP and 1 Peer turn up:
> 
> http://paulstott.typepad.com/911cultwatch/2009/11/sympathy-for-the-devil.html


Along with 'several aides and researchers'. Good to know that discussion of 9/11 is freer in the House of Commons than it is on urban75, at least.


----------



## Paul Marsh (Nov 8, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> That organization you link to above--"9/11 Cultwatch"--is an excellent example of pathological conspiracy denialism.
> 
> They mention the advert that Reinvestigate 9/11 put in the Independent, before scoffing:
> 
> ...



Phil - you are an idiot.

The 9/11 Cultwatch blog criticises the Reinvestigate 9/11 advert. 

A visitor to the blog, who is not a member of the 9/1 Cultwatch team, then adds the comment about Robert Fisk.

http://paulstott.typepad.com/911cul...d-smell-the-coffee-and-reinvestigate-911.html

If you cannot tell the difference between a blogs editorial content and the views of its visitors, what hope is there for the rest of your argument?


----------



## RaverDrew (Nov 8, 2009)

editor said:


> As ad hominems go, that's second to none. Great job.



Why thankyou sir


----------



## editor (Nov 8, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> This site is a good example of what I'm talking about:
> 
> http://paulstott.typepad.com/911cultwatch/2009/11/for-vaccination-obsessives.html


What gets written on that blog is totally irrelevant to your claims here. 

Once again: could you name some of the 'plentiful' people here who are purportedly suffering from this curious "irrational skepticism" and who are "pathological conspiracy denialists" and support that claim with some documented examples?

How much longer are you going to keep wriggling away here?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 9, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Which ones?
> 
> I certainly don't believe in all conspiracy theories.  I believe in some of them.
> 
> I don't believe 9/11 was an inside job, but I do believe that Robert Maxwell was murdered by the Mossad, for example.


what about god? do you believe god exists?


----------



## xes (Nov 9, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> How about rather than attacking people who don't believe the conspiracy theories, you actually try to defend them, Phil  (and others)? Sell them, explain them, prove them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And that's what makes them conspiracies, and not facts. Was that difficult?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 9, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> what about god? do you believe god exists?



I can prove it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 9, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I can prove it.


go on then.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 9, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I can prove it.



Oh hell no, not that shit again


----------



## xes (Nov 9, 2009)

IMO, the existance, or non existance, of any "god" like being, can only be proved to ones self, by ones self.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 9, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Which ones?
> 
> I certainly don't believe in all conspiracy theories.  I believe in some of them.
> 
> I don't believe 9/11 was an inside job, but I do believe that Robert Maxwell was murdered by the Mossad, for example.



another can of worms and yet again, more than likely although you wouldn't be able to get actual evidence to please Clapham Boy QC


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 9, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> another can of worms and yet again, more than likely although you wouldn't be able to get actual evidence to please Clapham Boy QC



I have an open mind on Maxwell, although his financial woe does tend to indicate that suicide was a real possibility. 

The big different in cases like Maxwell and Kelly is the lack of available witnesses and to a degree evidence, unlike in the Diana case.


----------



## 8den (Nov 9, 2009)

xes said:


> IMO, the existance, or non existance, of any "god" like being, can only be proved to ones self, by ones self.



Idiot thats not proof it's a belief.


----------



## xes (Nov 9, 2009)

8den said:


> Idiot thats not proof it's a belief.



their's no mistaking a mothers love.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 9, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> I have an open mind on Maxwell, although his financial woe does tend to indicate that suicide was a real possibility.
> 
> The big different in cases like Maxwell and Kelly is the lack of available witnesses and to a degree evidence, unlike in the Diana case.



in many libel cases the geezer suing (usually with a big pot of money behind him) wins due to the defendant not being able to supply proof, even though it's often someone as slimey as they come, and the accusations were very probably true


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 9, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I can prove it.



So, are you going to share your "proof" with us all again? 

Have you developed it any further from last time?  Some great new insight?

Or is it the same old pile of horseshit?


----------



## xes (Nov 9, 2009)

Open your heart bees, let the love in


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 9, 2009)

xes said:


> Open your heart bees, let the love in



ha ha they're all full of hate on here maaaan


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 9, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> in many libel cases the geezer suing (usually with a big pot of money behind him) wins due to the defendant not being able to supply proof, even though it's often someone as slimey as they come, and the accusations were very probably true



And your point is?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 9, 2009)

xes said:


> Open your heart bees, let the love in



Love I can deal with, but God can fuck the fuck off.


----------



## xes (Nov 9, 2009)

aah, but they are one and the same, maan.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Nov 9, 2009)

xes said:


> And that's what makes them conspiracies, and not facts. Was that difficult?



I fail to see the appeal in taking as fact  - or even theory - something that is someone else's evidence-free vague _hunch._

Why should I? Really, why would I bother?

There's enough facts out there to keep me busy and interested, without wasting time on some internet stranger's insupportable hypotheses. Which, when you humour them and take the time to examine it, tends to be based on the wildest, most opposite misreading of the freely available facts, with a big dollop of prejudice and paranoia and frequently cites sources that peddle ludicrous antisemitic woefully misrepresentative bollocks. And then charge people for DVDS containing more of the same.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 9, 2009)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> God can fuck the fuck off.



Why do you hate God?


----------



## editor (Nov 9, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Why do you hate God?


Zzzzz. I'm sure your fictional God won't mind.


----------



## xes (Nov 9, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> I fail to see the appeal in taking as fact  - or even theory - something that is someone else's evidence-free vague _hunch._
> 
> Why should I? Really, why would I bother?
> 
> There's enough facts out there to keep me busy and interested, without wasting time on some internet stranger's insupportable hypotheses. Which, when you humour them and take the time to examine it, tends to be based on the wildest, most opposite misreading of the freely available facts, with a big dollop of prejudice and paranoia and frequently cites sources that peddle ludicrous antisemitic woefully misrepresentative bollocks. And then charge people for DVDS containing more of the same.


 And that's right for you. What is right for me is wibble.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 9, 2009)

editor said:


> Zzzzz. I'm sure your fictional God won't mind.



Surely he would forgive.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 9, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> Surely he would forgive.



It is interesting that our conspiracy denialists are almost always atheist fundamentalists as well.  Relativist skepticism elevated to a moral absolute.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 9, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> It is interesting that our conspiracy denialists are almost always atheist fundamentalists as well.  Relativist skepticism elevated to a moral absolute.



On the flip side it's interesting that so many conspiraloons are religious, I guess if you are prepared the biggest fairy tale of all you are likely to believe them all.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 9, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> It is interesting that our conspiracy denialists are almost always atheist fundamentalists as well.  Relativist skepticism elevated to a moral absolute.



Whilst the conspiracy believers tend to think that they are God manifesting himself in human form. Like David Icke for example.


----------



## editor (Nov 9, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> It is interesting that our conspiracy denialists are almost always atheist fundamentalists as well.  Relativist skepticism elevated to a moral absolute.


Judging by your conduct here, you're some kind of question denialist, and you worship at the Church Of The Extended Wriggle.


----------



## 8den (Nov 9, 2009)

xes said:


> their's no mistaking a mothers love.



*There's* no mistaking a idiotic non sequitur.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 9, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Why do you hate God?



I don't*, it's his/her/its followers I can't stand 





*seeing as he/she/it doesn't exist


----------



## xes (Nov 9, 2009)

8den said:


> *Idiot, thats* not proof it's a belief.




I do love pedantic idiots


----------



## 8den (Nov 9, 2009)

xes said:


> I do love pedantic idiots



Started drinking yet?


----------



## xes (Nov 9, 2009)

Not today, (not this whole week) fucking skint


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 9, 2009)

dwyer said:
			
		

> It is interesting that our conspiracy denialists are almost always atheist fundamentalists as well. Relativist skepticism elevated to a moral absolute






			
				editor said:
			
		

> Judging by your conduct here, you're some kind of question denialist, and you worship at the Church Of The Extended Wriggle.



 

The phrase 'atheist fundamentalists' = yet more proof positive, if any were needed, that dwyer is still trolling away in this thread as if his internet life depended on it. 

Oh, it does


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 9, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:
			
		

> How about rather than attacking people who don't believe the conspiracy theories, you actually try to defend them, Phil  (and others)? Sell them, explain them, prove them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



  

As is pretty bloody obvious, dwyer's ONLY motive on this thread is to attack conspiracy sceptics. He has no genuine interest at all in arguing the merits/demerits of tthe actual theories, just to deflect/derail the discussion away from conspiracies, away from criticism of/scepticism about them, and towards his trolling insistence that it's the conspiracy sceptics (and only them) who are the barking ones.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 9, 2009)

A few pages ago, editor picked up on another of dwyer's direct attacks on me personally and read him the riot act. Which is fair enough in itself but his occasional anti-WoW stuff is IMO the very least of his offences.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 9, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> As is pretty bloody obvious, dwyer's ONLY motive on this thread is to attack conspiracy sceptics. He has no genuine interest at all in arguing the merits/demerits of tthe actual theories, just to deflect/derail the discussion away from conspiracies, away from criticism of/scepticism about them, and towards his trolling insistence that it's the conspiracy sceptics (and only them) who are the barking ones.



And there's certainly no evidence of mental imbalance among our conspiracy denialists is there?  

But of course William doesn't _really_ believe that conspiracy denialists are models of rational sanity.  How could he?  Evidence to the contrary stares out of his shaving mirror on a daily basis.


----------



## editor (Nov 9, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> And there's certainly no evidence of mental imbalance among our conspiracy denialists is there?


Ah, I see you're adding 'mental imbalance' to your growing list of ad hominems and general personal slurs.

For the fifth or sixth time: could you name some of the 'plentiful' people here who are purportedly suffering from this curious "irrational skepticism" and who are "pathological conspiracy denialists" and could you support these claims of yours with some documented examples?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 9, 2009)

editor said:


> Ah, I see you're adding 'mental imbalance' to your growing list of ad hominems and general personal slurs.
> 
> For the fifth or sixth time: could you name some of the 'plentiful' people here who are purportedly suffering from this curious "irrational skepticism" and who are "pathological conspiracy denialists" and could you support these claims of yours with some documented examples?



Well I perceive something of a contradiction here.

On the one hand, you criticize me for resorting to the _ad hominem._  On the other, you ask me to name the individuals I regard as pathological conspiracy denialists.

Well since you ask: William is a prime example of such a person.  He clearly has no idea about the substantive issues under debate--indeed one suspects that he has little idea about anything beyond the price of real ale.  Rather, his opposition to conspiracy theories fulfills a profound psychological imperative for him.  

I would be happy to expound upon the mental forces that have driven him to this position, but I feel I should pause at this stage to ensure that taking the debate in this direction will meet with your approval.

Should I continue?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 9, 2009)

Christ, you really are a pompous arse Dwyer


----------



## editor (Nov 9, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Well since you ask: William is a prime example of such a person.  He clearly has no idea about the substantive issues under debate--indeed one suspects that he has little idea about anything beyond the price of real ale.  Rather, his opposition to conspiracy theories fulfills a profound psychological imperative for him.


You have precisely *zero* evidence, expertise or right to suggest that WoW suffers from a 'mental imbalance' or that he possesses "irrational skepticism" and is a "pathological conspiracy denialist."

It's become glaringly apparent you're only interested in pursuing your deeply unpleasant campaign of bullying which, frankly, has long overstepped the mark of usual website banter and is now beginning to look like a worryingly obsessive topic for you. You've been repeatedly warned and banned over it in the past, yet still you continue.

Some observers may even conclude that perhaps you should be looking closer to home for examples of pathological behaviour. I'd just like it to stop. Now, please.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 9, 2009)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Christ, you really are a pompous arse Dwyer


but he can prove the existence of god


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 9, 2009)

I think the dwyer post quoted by editor is simply self confirmation from dwyer of my earlier point about his true motives in posting on this thread.

I'm far less bothered about his attacks on me personally though, than I am about his general approach to threads like this. Adopt a deliberately 'contrarian' 'position' that he has no genuine belief in, and only for maximum shit stirring -- and that goes far beyond his occasional attacks on me, the latter just come when I or others point out what he's up to.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 9, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> I have an open mind on Maxwell, although his financial woe does tend to indicate that suicide was a real possibility.
> 
> The big different in cases like Maxwell and Kelly is the lack of available witnesses and to a degree evidence, unlike in the Diana case.



There's plenty of evidence to suggest that there was a conspiracy surrounding Maxwell's death.  Not, I hasten to add, any kind of proof, but more than enough to allow a reasonable person to detect various fishy smells.

Why for example was he given a state funeral?  

And what did Yitzak Shamir mean when he observed, in his eulogy: "he has rendered greater services to the state of Israel than I can say today?"

I think I know what he meant.  Is this too far off topic or shall we pursue it further?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 9, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I think I know what he meant.  Is this too far off topic or shall we pursue it further?



The world awaits your wisdom.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 9, 2009)

Not releated to the current spat, but returning to the OP.

IIRC the post seems to be dividing speakers at the conference into "less" and "more" acceptable ones, including Norman Baker in the latter category.

But anyone who knows Norman Baker's book knows that for all his conservative methodolgy he does go into some very shady areas like Project Coast bio-weapons project in South Africa and the huge amount of weird deaths among microbiologists. He also quotes the research of Michael Ruppert, the CIA whistleblower who established the role of the CIA and LAPD in selling crack on the west coast (IIRC it was to fund the contras). Ruppert is a very interesting guy on 911.

Likewise, Cynthia Mckinney is hardly a loon, and certainly a hero for her personal sacrifices for the people of Gaza. Her questions on 911 are pertinent, reserved and non-loon.

There are many areas like this where stuff can be proved (Gladio false-flags, Project Paperclip etc, fed reserve history etc.) and once something is fully documented it can be argued not to be a CT at all. 

CTers often draw on evidence more than speculation. Only fair to point this out.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 9, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> There's plenty of evidence to suggest that there was a conspiracy surrounding Maxwell's death.  Not, I hasten to add, any kind of proof, but more than enough to allow a reasonable person to detect various fishy smells.
> 
> Why for example was he given a state funeral?
> 
> ...



Which, is partly why I maintain an open mind, but he was also a fraudster that had got himself in the financial shit and about to be found out, so plenty enough reason for him to want a way out.

As far as services to Israel are concerned, this could easily have been to do with his connections to Czech leadership, which could have resulted in their decision to arm Israel for the War of Independence.  

We will never know.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 9, 2009)

here's the answer to the Maxwell riddle IMO: Fuck knows.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 9, 2009)

>>736

I dispute that last sentence taffboy, if the way CTs are posted about *here*, and on most of the more 'committed' CT websites,  is anything to go by anyway.

To my mind the greatest weakness of a lot of CTers is their extremely cavalier approach to evidence, and the way they so often draw so indiscriminately on very dubious websites/sources.

There must be a few more sensible? supporters of CTs around who despair at times at how often other CTers shoot themselves in the foot, and damage the credibility of their case so much, by relying on such self evidently crazy websites ...


----------



## 8den (Nov 9, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> here's the answer to the Maxwell riddle IMO: Fuck knows.



Exactly, theres no evidence Maxwell was killed, or committed suicide. No witnesses, no forensics, or anything.


----------



## editor (Nov 9, 2009)

8den said:


> Exactly, theres no evidence Maxwell was killed, or committed suicide. No witnesses, no forensics, or anything.


Yes. But Dwyer just _knows_, and that's all the evidence he needs.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 9, 2009)

8den said:


> Exactly, theres no evidence Maxwell was killed, or committed suicide. No witnesses, no forensics, or anything.



Indeed, leaving sensible people to have an open mind and CTs to_ knowing _he was murdered.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 9, 2009)

editor said:


> Yes. But Dwyer just _knows_, and that's all the evidence he needs.


perhaps he did it, if he's so certain


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 9, 2009)

8den said:


> Exactly, theres no evidence Maxwell was killed, or committed suicide. No witnesses, no forensics, or anything.



You mean you think he's _still alive?_

Now that really _is_ barking.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 9, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> There's plenty of evidence to suggest that there was a conspiracy surrounding Maxwell's death.  Not, I hasten to add, any kind of proof, but more than enough to allow a reasonable person to detect various fishy smells.
> 
> Why for example was he given a state funeral?


Because he'd acted as a facilitator in the UK and France for Israeli businessmen for at least 4 decades, amongst other things.


> And what did Yitzak Shamir mean when he observed, in his eulogy: "he has rendered greater services to the state of Israel than I can say today?"
> 
> I think I know what he meant.  Is this too far off topic or shall we pursue it further?


What do *you* believe that Shamir meant?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 9, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> Which, is partly why I maintain an open mind, but he was also a fraudster that had got himself in the financial shit and about to be found out, so plenty enough reason for him to want a way out.


That and his health was poor. 


> As far as services to Israel are concerned, this could easily have been to do with his connections to Czech leadership, which could have resulted in their decision to arm Israel for the War of Independence.
> 
> We will never know.


Not definitively, but plenty enough stuff has come to light over the last decade or so for us to know that he was an unofficial "fixer" for Israeli business, as well as using his media outlets to push the Israeli line (just as Mr. R. Desmond tries to nowadays).


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 9, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> What do *you* believe that Shamir meant?



I think Maxwell was a Mossad agent, and that he was working for the Zionists even before Israel was founded.  As Claphamboy suggested, I think he orchestrated the Czech arms deal that enabled them to win the war of independence, and that he'd been their most valuable single asset ever since.


----------



## editor (Nov 9, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I think Maxwell was a Mossad agent, and that he was working for the Zionists even before Israel was founded.


Any credible proof here or are just trotting out random thoughts?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 9, 2009)

editor said:


> Any credible proof here or are just trotting out random thoughts?



Neither.

Actually this seems to me a good test case of who is a pathological conspiracy denialist.

Obviously, there will _never, ever_ be any proof that Maxwell was a Mossad agent.  Nature of the beast.

However, anyone who is knowledgeable about his biography, the history of Israel, Zionist ideology and the way secret services in general operate will have at least a strong suspicion that he was.

Anyone who finds this idea inherently improbable is, in my view, psychologically predisposed to irrational skepticism with regard to conspiracies.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 10, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> >>736
> 
> I dispute that last sentence taffboy, if the way CTs are posted about *here*, and on most of the more 'committed' CT websites,  is anything to go by anyway.
> 
> ...



This is an interesting and important point.

As someone who looks into CTs a lot and thinks aspects are plausible I would say some things bother me a bit, but the classic CT response would be to say there is a lot counter-intel pro out there 

Stuff like 911 Hologramers can be a bit of a pain, but few I can think of give it much cred. I really don't know what the fuck is going on with Shayler, and there is a lot of other weirdness out there.

And this is without even going near some of the Project Camelot and New Age type stuff.

One CT that does get my goat for 2 reasons is the idea that we are changing the climate is a scam.

The CT says that human caused climate change is a made up phenomena to tax and control us.

The truth is that it is a real phenomena used to tax and control us. A classic example of a half truth ending up worse in effect than a lie.

I dont trust the capitalist governments one fucking inch on ecology, that doesnt mean I'm going to close my eyes to some big ecology issues.

On the other hand, "CTers" can be relied upon to be very anti stuff like genetic engineering and Codex Alimentarius.

Speaking again to the header about "ascendancy" - FWIW I think it has some truth in it. The OP invites comparrison to the moderate rise in fascism - in terms of numbers I'd say that might be so, but the organisation and motivations are entirely different. CTers are certainly brighter than the average fascist supporter and are often very liberal.

Fascism and CTs both pupport to be anti-establishment, though the former pupport is a total lie.

The crash in establishment cred has fed them both. fascism is a growing problem but if push comes to shove many a CTer would be onside with revolutionary sentiment. Your average CTer in the UK strikes me as more left/liberal than those in the states who are, more than anything, constitutionalists or libertarians more than traditional "right wing". 

Even though we think of them as "right wing" these people claim, with some substance, to be taking on the kind of fascism we saw under Bush. Naomi Klein's "10 steps to a fascist america" video is excellent on this, and she aint no archetypal loon. They would also correctly point to Project Paperclip and the various evil doings of clan bush going back to at least the nazi period, along with the massive international terrorism (and other human rights abuses) of the CIA since WW2. 

It doesnt obviously help that fascists do use CT agendas to their own ends and have concocted quite a few down the years themselves, but in short a rise in fascism bothers me greatly, a rise in people rejecting the establishment narrative per se, and asking more questions about accepted versions of events, does not.


----------



## editor (Nov 10, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> However, anyone who is knowledgeable about his biography, the history of Israel, Zionist ideology and the way secret services in general operate will have at least a strong suspicion that he was.
> 
> Anyone who finds this idea inherently improbable is, in my view, psychologically predisposed to irrational skepticism with regard to conspiracies.


So anyone who doesn't nod their head in enthusiastic agreement with your evidence-free speculation can only be suffering from a condition which leaves them "psychologically predisposed to irrational skepticism"?

LOL. What a joker you are.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 10, 2009)

I read somewhere that Hitler was actually a woman. Now, there's absolutely no proof of this whatsoever, not a single shred of evidence, but anyone with a truly open, questioning, ungullible mind will at least give this idea some serious consideration in light of all the other lies and deceptions we are fed on a daily basis. That, for me, is the difference between the sheep and the enlightened gods of the future.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 10, 2009)

goldenecitrone said:


> I read somewhere that Hitler was actually a woman. Now, there's absolutely no proof of this whatsoever, not a single shred of evidence, but anyone with a truly open, questioning, ungullible mind will at least give this idea some serious consideration in light of all the other lies and deceptions we are fed on a daily basis. That, for me, is the difference between the sheep and the enlightened gods of the future.




Now is that really likely?? LIKELY is the word.

Anyway, moving on, making my way through the Richard Tomlinson book and he says there were plans to bump off Milosevic during the Serbian crisis, and they planned to off him in a tunnel, causing a crash by blinding him with a strong light! The plan was abandoned but...

Can anyone on here think of a similar scenario involving someone else?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 10, 2009)

editor said:


> So anyone who doesn't nod their head in enthusiastic agreement with your evidence-free speculation can only be suffering from a condition which leaves them "psychologically predisposed to irrational skepticism"?



It's not speculation at all.  Just read up a bit about Maxwell and you'll see what I mean.

He kept his connections very quiet while he was alive.  I remember people who didn't even know he was Israeli.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 10, 2009)

goldenecitrone said:


> I read somewhere that Hitler was actually a woman. Now, there's absolutely no proof of this whatsoever, not a single shred of evidence, but anyone with a truly open, questioning, ungullible mind will at least give this idea some serious consideration in light of all the other lies and deceptions we are fed on a daily basis. That, for me, is the difference between the sheep and the enlightened gods of the future.



An accurate analogy would be if Hitler was given a gala funeral by the National Organization of Women, at which Germaine Greer gave the eulogy, in which she said: "Hitler has rendered greater services to the cause of feminism than I can say here today."

Then I would indeed suspect that he was a woman, as would anyone.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 10, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> Now is that really likely?? LIKELY is the word.
> 
> Anyway, moving on, making my way through the Richard Tomlinson book and he says there were plans to bump off Milosevic during the Serbian crisis, and they planned to off him in a tunnel, causing a crash by blinding him with a strong light! The plan was abandoned but...
> 
> Can anyone on here think of a similar scenario involving someone else?



Tomlinson was writing his book PRIOR to Diana's death and changed the story so he could cash in on the crash and sell more copies to mugs like you. 

There was NO evidence and NO reliable witnesses to back-up the ‘bright-light’ fairy-tail, yet there was plenty of evidence and witnesses to the contrary – how many more fucking times does this need repeating before it sinks into your thick head? 



> It is the content of the memorandum that is in dispute.
> 
> Pre-1998: Richard Tomlinson’s recollection of the memorandum was of an
> assassination plan that had only one operational option – a drive-past ambush while Slobodan Milosevic was visiting Switzerland for peace talks. He documented this in the manuscripts for his book.
> ...



Operation Paget Report page 763



> *About the changes in his account before and after the crash, he explained that due to the passage of time and ‘my deeply felt anger towards MI6* it may be that I wrongly linked this capability to the Milosevic minute. When I* came out of prison I was strongly embittered towards MI6 and certainly wanted to cause them embarrassment and difficulty* and this may have contributed to my mixing of my knowledge of techniques with my eventual account.’



Operation Paget Report page 762


----------



## editor (Nov 10, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> It's not speculation at all.  Just read up a bit about Maxwell and you'll see what I mean.


You have ZERO hard evidence. Nothing. Not a scrap. Not a sausage. 

Yet in your bizarre world, anyone who doesn't agree with your proof-untroubled speculation is instantly dismissed as suffering from a mental condition which leaves them "psychologically predisposed to irrational skepticism."

If there's any irrationality going on here, it's all yours by the looks of things and you've pwned yourself like a total mug here.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 10, 2009)

So, the existnce of Operation Gladio and Israeli false flag operations and the like is a reason to believe whatever bonkers theory someone made up one day? It is exactly the opposite IMO, just because NATO, the Israeli government, the British government are full of shit it doesn't mean that you have to beleive some unsourced, uncredible rubbish you see on youtube and that might have been, for all you know, made up by the government they claim to despise


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 10, 2009)

editor said:


> You have ZERO hard evidence. Nothing. Not a scrap. Not a sausage.



Sure I do.  I've already mentioned the quote from Yitzhak Shamir at Maxwell's funeral.  What do you think that meant?  

And why, pray tell, was Maxwell given a state funeral anyway?  There's certainly nothing in his overt activities that would justify it.

There's plenty more too: the Czech arms deal business has been fairly well documented I believe.  Not that this proves he was a lifelong Mossad agent--anyone from his background in his position would likely have done the same in 1948.  But there's tons of other suggestive evidence as well.

Would it stand up in a court of law?  Of course not: that's why they call it a _secret_ service.  But in my view a rational person would have to give at least some credence to the idea.  Only an irrational person would dismiss it out of hand.  But then, there are plenty of irrational people around.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 10, 2009)

Just to pre-empt any howls of "no evidence," this is from Wiki.  

I shouldn't really have to do this--all this stuff is public domain.  There's tons more as well, Victor Ostrovsky's book for one.  But it seems that our conspiracy denialists haven't informed themselves about the ideas they are so suspiciously eager to dismiss.  Anyway:

"Shortly before Maxwell's death, a former Mossad officer named Ari Ben-Menashe had approached a number of news organizations in Britain and the United States with the allegation that Maxwell and the Daily Mirror's foreign editor, Nick Davies, were both long time agents for the Israel intelligence service, Mossad. Ben-Menashe also claimed that in 1986 Maxwell had tipped off the Israeli Embassy in London that Mordechai Vanunu had given information about Israel's nuclear capability to the Sunday Times, then to the Daily Mirror, (Vanunu was subsequently lured from London, where the Sunday Times had him in hiding, to Rome, whence he was kidnapped and returned to Israel, convicted of treason, and imprisoned for 18 years.)

No news organization would publish Ben-Menashe's story at first, because of Maxwell's famed litigiousness (through lawyers Maislish & Co.), but eventually New Yorker journalist Seymour Hersh repeated some of the allegations during a press conference in London held to publicize The Samson Option, Hersh's book about Israel's nuclear weapons. On 21 October 1991, two Members of Parliament, Labour MP George Galloway and Conservative MP Rupert Allason (who writes books on the world of espionage under the pseudonym Nigel West) agreed to raise the issue in the House of Commons (with the protection of Parliamentary Privilege which allows MPs to ask questions in Parliament without risk of being sued for defamation), which in turn meant that British newspapers were able to report what had been said without fear of being sued for libel. Nevertheless, writs were swiftly issued by Mirror Group Solicitors on instruction from Maxwell, who called the claims "ludicrous, a total invention". Maxwell then sacked Nick Davies, and just days later, was found dead.[13]

The close proximity of his death to these allegations, for which Ben-Menashe had offered no evidence, served to heighten interest in Maxwell's relationship with Israel, and the Daily Mirror has since published claims, again without evidence, that he was assassinated by Mossad after he attempted to blackmail them.[14]

Maxwell was given a funeral in Israel better befitting a head of state than a publisher, as described by author Gordon Thomas:

    On 10 November 1991, Maxwell’s funeral took place on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem, across from the Temple Mount. It had all the trappings of a state occasion, attended by the country’s government and opposition leaders. No fewer than six serving and former heads of the Israeli intelligence community listened as Prime Minister Shamir eulogized: "He has done more for Israel than can today be said" (Gideon's Spies: The Secret History of the Mossad, St. Martin's Press, 1999).[15]

A hint of Maxwell's service to the Israeli state was provided by Loftus and Aarons, who described Maxwell's contacts with Czech anti-Stalinist Communist leaders in 1948 as crucial to the Czech decision to arm Israel in their War of Independence that year. Czech military assistance was both unique and crucial for the fledgling state as it battled for its existence [16]"


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 10, 2009)

when I tried to explain my views about class etc to one of my firends he accused me of believing in a conspiracy theory - it can go too far the other way


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 10, 2009)

editor said:


> You have ZERO hard evidence. Nothing. Not a scrap. Not a sausage.



Oh dear.  You ought at least to Google before making such claims:

"The ties between Maxwell and the Mossad went back a long way. Elements within the Mossad had offered to finance Maxwell's first big business ventures, and in later years Maxwell received inside information on global matters from the Office. Maxwell was originally codenamed "the Little Czech," and the sobriquet stuck. Only a handful of people in the Israeli intelligence community knew who the Little Czech was, yet he provided an unending supply of slush money for the organization whenever it ran low." 

http://www.the7thfire.com/new_world_order/zionism/mossad/mossad_murder_of_robert_maxwell.htm


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Nov 10, 2009)

Is it just me or did Gordon Brown just say the recession was "designed"?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 10, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> when I tried to explain my views about class etc to one of my firends he accused me of believing in a conspiracy theory - it can go too far the other way



Indeed.

I well remember how Jazzz was endlessly derided by our resident conspiracy denialists when he pointed out that bankers control the economy.

Who are the real nutjobs here?


----------



## xes (Nov 10, 2009)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> Is it just me or did Gordon Brown just say the recession was "designed"?



lol, nice slip of the tounge Gordy  (where did you see this, was it on the news or something?)


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Nov 10, 2009)

press conference on bbc news right now


----------



## kyser_soze (Nov 10, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Indeed.
> 
> I well remember how Jazzz was endlessly derided by our resident conspiracy denialists when he pointed out that bankers control the economy.
> 
> Who are the real nutjobs here?



_No one_ 'controls' the economy.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 10, 2009)

editor said:


> You have ZERO hard evidence. Nothing. Not a scrap. Not a sausage.



Oh dear.

I think the real question is: why were you so _sure_ that there couldn't be any truth in what I said?  Why were you so quick to deny any possibility of a conspiracy--obviously before looking into the matter for yourself?

"In 1991, British media tycoon Robert Maxwell died in mysterious circumstances off his yacht in the Canary Islands. The official cause of death was drowning, but this intriguing, if somewhat overreaching, investigative work argues that Maxwell died at the hands of the spy agency he worked for, Israel's Mossad."

http://www.amazon.com/Robert-Maxwell-Israels-Superspy-Murder/dp/0786710780


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 10, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Sure I do.  I've already mentioned the quote from Yitzhak Shamir at Maxwell's funeral.  What do you think that meant?
> 
> And why, pray tell, was Maxwell given a state funeral anyway?  There's certainly nothing in his overt activities that would justify it.
> 
> ...



There’s also plenty of evidence to suggest that suicide* was the most likely reason for his death, yet you chose to totally ignore this and just believe he was murdered.

If anyone is being irrational it is you.

*ETA or poor health.


----------



## fogbat (Nov 10, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> when I tried to explain my views about class etc to one of my firends he accused me of believing in a conspiracy theory - it can go too far the other way



And that's a direct result of paranoids like Jazzz etc peddling their lunacy.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 10, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Who are the real nutjobs here?


The real nutjobs are those whose views are led by personal opinion rather than evidence - those for whom logic is a tool to _support _their position, rather than a form of reasoning that _leads _them to their position. Conspiraloons are more likely to fall into the former camp, since it generally takes an impassioned mind to forcefully advocate an atypical world-view.

Personally, my problem with conspiracy theories is that they generally utilise evidence selectively to support positions that run contrary to basic logic and reason. That doesn't mean that I blindly accept everything I'm told - it means that I question _everything_, whether that be the theories of conspiraloons or the propaganda of the state.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 10, 2009)

editor said:


> You have ZERO hard evidence. Nothing. Not a scrap. Not a sausage.



Oh dear.

It seems that the reviewers of yet _another_ book on the subject, _The Assassination of Robert Maxwell_ by Gordon Thomas and Martin Dillon, are all "conspiraloons" as well.

Again, since there quite clearly is an _awful lot_ of evidence to support what I say, the interesting question is why you were unable to even entertain the notion.  A psychological predisposition to conspiracy denialism perhaps?

“Relentlessly and graphically seeks to expose the dead tycoon’s descent into the world of crime in Eastern Europe, his intimate dealings with the Israeli Secret Service, Mossad, and his provision of computer know-how to some very questionable organisations… the case for murder is comprehensively made and places Maxwell at the centre of a very dark and dangerous world. There is a crusading thread through the book to bring Maxwell to account and hold him responsible”.
--Julian Cooper, The Times, UK


“Astonishing new evidence about his involvement in global crime and espionage. Mafia deals in Bulgaria. The plot to oust Gorbachev. America’s web of espionage scandal. The true, astonishing extend of Robert Maxwell’s web of corruption”.
--The Daily Mail


“Robert Maxwell was a Mossad spy. He asked them for £400 million. They refused and feared he would expose them. So three assassins killed him with a nerve agent”.
--The Daily Mirror


“This fascinating book, which takes the reader deep into the intricate and dangerous world of international espionage”.
--Elaine Margolis, San Francisco Chronicle


“This book traces the money trail of Maxwell better than any previous efforts”.
--Stephen Mc Mahon, Sunday Business Post


“A thought-provoking and compelling book”.
--David Pitt, Booklist, USA


“Explosive… fills in the gaps and provides the true explanation for his mysterious death”.
--Martin Shipton, Wales on Sunday


“A convincing case for the thoroughness and responsibility of the research. This is a big and ambitious book”.
--Michael Pakenham, Baltimore Sun


“An impressive array of documents, including FBI and autopsy reports”.
--Zeddy Lawrence, London Jewish News

http://www.martindillon.net/work4.htm


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 10, 2009)

Much as I hate to agree with Dwyer on anything, the Maxwell case is a curious one that at least warrants a closer look.

Suicide is still the most likely cause, but he certainly was mixed up in all manner of shady goings on, and compared to some of the CT shite out there murder isn't quite so far fetched.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 10, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> There’s also plenty of evidence to suggest that suicide* was the most likely reason for his death, yet you chose to totally ignore this and just believe he was murdered.



I don't "just believe" anything.

I've read quite a lot about the subject, and that is the conclusion I've come to.

It's a perfectly rational conclusion, and is in fact the opinion of most people who've thought seriously about it.

Once again, we must ask why our conspiracy denialists were so quick to dismiss the idea out of hand.  It doesn't exactly speak well of their views on other conspiracies either.


----------



## kyser_soze (Nov 10, 2009)

I have to say I'm of an open mind re: Maxwell. When I first read about it, having been a Maxwell watcher from the Eye for some time, and given that it was when the pensions scandal broke, there's evidence that it could have been suicide (altho given his sociopathic personality I can't see Maxwell being so guilty over taking what he saw as 'his' money), but he was also over his head in dodgy shit with a variety of people, not just Mossad.

Not enough evidence for me to say 'Yes, he was definitely moidered', but I'd tend to lean in that direction.

Again tho, the difference is evidential - there's a paper trail to support ideas about Maxwell's assasination. There's no credible evidence in suport of, and lots against, Diana being assasinated rather than the victim of an accident that she could have survived by following basic safety procedures.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 10, 2009)

I think he was murdered as well and for fucks sake this is exactly what I mean, because of bonkers shit that the likes of Icke and Alex Jones put out perfectly plausible theories with evidence in support of them get tarred with the same brush, and it gets used as a smear for ALL things that are slightly opposed to the government's view


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 10, 2009)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Much as I hate to agree with Dwyer on anything, the Maxwell case is a curious one that at least warrants a closer look.



Hahahahaha.  Loonspud, nutbobbin, bonkersman.

I suppose Israel maintains a network of deep cover secret agents in powerful positions throughout the world, does it?  I suppose this explains how such a small country has survived the relentless attacks by its numerous opponents for the last 60 years does it?

Hahahahahaha.  Go and hang out with David Icke, you're both as mad as each other.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 10, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> I think he was murdered as well and for fucks sake this is exactly what I mean, because of bonkers shit that the likes of Icke and Alex Jones put out perfectly plausible theories with evidence in support of them get tarred with the same brush, and it gets used as a smear for ALL things that are slightly opposed to the government's view


Absolutely. Which leads me to suspect that conspiraloons are actually agents of the state, conducting false-flag operations to undermine the credibility of _real _conspiracy theories.


----------



## editor (Nov 10, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Oh dear.
> 
> It seems that the reviewers of yet _another_ book on the subject, _The Assassination of Robert Maxwell_ by Gordon Thomas and Martin Dillon, are all "conspiraloons" as well.


Don't try and put words in my mouth to cover up your own idiotic nonsense on this thread, please.

I don't doubt that there is a question mark over his death, but to dismiss anyone who isn't absolutely convinced of a conspiracy as suffering from a mental condition which leaves them_ "psychologically predisposed to irrational skepticism,"_ is ridiculous.

I'm going to keep repeating those stupid words until perhaps you realise just how moronic your statement is. 

In the absence of any evidence, it's important to keep an open mind, but to label anyone who doesn't agree with your particular spin on events as being _mentally unwell_ is insulting, and a good reminder of how you try to bully and ridicule anyone who doesn't fall in line with your opinions. 

You've made a right arse of yourself on this thread, no matter how much you bluster away or try to insult other posters, or try and slur them with mental illness. It's quite disgraceful conduct, really.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 10, 2009)

Beanburger said:


> Absolutely. Which leads me to suspect that conspiraloons are actually agents of the state, conducting false-flag operations to undermine the credibility of _real _conspiracy theories.



Joking aside that really ins't far from the truth, a lot of these people are funded by far right christian republicans like Pat Robertson or "end times" nutters with plenty of cash and political influence to spare


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 10, 2009)

the views/theories they are undermining are hardly "conspiracy theories" as well


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 10, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> Joking aside that really ins't far from the truth, a lot of these people are funded by far right christian republicans like Pat Robertson or "end times" nutters with plenty of cash and political influence to spare


Plus they also have their own financial interests colouring their views. It's telling just how many conspiracy theory advocates have books published. I doubt they're doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 10, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> the views/theories they are undermining are hardly "conspiracy theories" as well


Sorry, not sure I follow you?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 10, 2009)

editor said:


> In the absence of any evidence, it's important to keep an open mind



But that's my point: there _is_ evidence, loads of it.

Now, it is true that there is no _proof._  But it seems to me that to demand proof in such a case really is irrational skepticism.

And I do think that some people are predisposed to irrational skepticism with regard to conspiracy theories.  Some people don't _want_ to believe in them--just as, to be fair, some people _do_ want to believe in them.

I think we see both types of person on threads like this one.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 10, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> And I do think that some people are predisposed to irrational skepticism with regard to conspiracy theories.  Some people don't _want_ to believe in them--just as, to be fair, some people _do_ want to believe in them.
> 
> I think we see both types of person on threads like this one.


I agree. And that's why internet discussions are usually fruitless, since opinions tend to become quickly entrenched at polarised ends of the spectrum. 

I find conspiraloons idiotic and annoying, but then I also find the "gosh, we'd never have invaded Iraq for _oil_!!!" brigade equally idiotic and annoying.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 10, 2009)

Beanburger said:


> Sorry, not sure I follow you?



I mean stuff like marxism, or even things like why we went to war in iraq, imperialism, etc, and the like; I tried to expalin my views about the structure of society to a friend and he just said this just sounds like a conspiracy theory, when everything i said was actually based on facts which are easily verifiable


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 10, 2009)

I am losing count now, most posters like me seem to have an open mind on Maxwell, froggy ‘thinks’ he was murdered, dwyer ‘believes’ he was murdered – has anyone actually dismissed the chance of murder out of hand?


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 10, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> I mean stuff like marxism, or even things like why we went to war in iraq, imperialism, etc, and the like; I tried to expalin my views about the structure of society to a friend and he just said this just sounds like a conspiracy theory, when everything i said was actually based on facts which are easily verifiable


Ah right, gotcha. I agree. I mean technically, they could be labelled as conspiracy theories I suppose, but the term has come to mean something more. It's usually applied to theories that are rooted in the irrational.


----------



## kyser_soze (Nov 10, 2009)

The problem with Marxism is that unless it's explained really well it _does_ sound like a conspiracy theory. The difference being that unlike conspiracy theories where it's all about 'them' having 'control' the point in Marxism is that all the 'players' do what they do unconsciously, as part of their everyday life and existance, rather than existing as some kind of super-group IYSWIM.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 10, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> I am losing count now, most posters like me seem to have an open mind on Maxwell, froggy ‘thinks’ he was murdered, dwyer ‘believes’ he was murdered – has anyone actually dismissed the chance of murder out of hand?


I don't know enough about it to hold a view. Always best to keep your mouth shut if you don't know what you're talking about


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 10, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Once again, we must ask why our conspiracy denialists were so quick to dismiss the idea out of hand.  It doesn't exactly speak well of their views on other conspiracies either.



I've just quickly scanned the last few pages and I can't see that anyone has dismissed the idea completely; can you point me to the posts where this has happened?


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 10, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> The problem with Marxism is that unless it's explained really well it _does_ sound like a conspiracy theory. The difference being that unlike conspiracy theories where it's all about 'them' having 'control' the point in Marxism is that all the 'players' do what they do unconsciously, as part of their everyday life and existance, rather than existing as some kind of super-group IYSWIM.



yeah, fair enough i guess.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 10, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> But that's my point: there _is_ evidence, loads of it.



For the Maxwell case, I agree.  He was up to his neck in fishy business.




> Now, it is true that there is no _proof._  But it seems to me that to demand proof in such a case really is irrational skepticism.



The problem is that so many CTers present their bonkers theories as "truth", with zero credible evidence to back them up, at which point demanding proof is perfectly rational and correct.


----------



## editor (Nov 10, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> But that's my point: there _is_ evidence, loads of it.
> 
> Now, it is true that there is no _proof._  But it seems to me that to demand proof in such a case really is irrational skepticism.


And there you go again: "believe what I believe or I'll deride you for being mentally unwell."

Quite disgusting behaviour.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 10, 2009)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> For the Maxwell case, I agree.  *He was up to his neck in fishy business.*



Especially after he went overboard.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 10, 2009)

editor said:


> And there you go again: "believe what I believe or I'll deride you for being mentally unwell."



"Irrational skepticism" wasn't a mental illness the last time I looked.

But I suppose you have a point.  After all, no-one here ever suggests that those who believe in conspiracy theories are mentally unwell.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 10, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> Especially after he went overboard.



Was waiting for someone to say that


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 10, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> But I suppose you have a point.  After all, no-one here ever suggests that those who believe in conspiracy theories are mentally unwell.


Very true. They only suggest that those who cling to conspiracy theories rabidly in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary are mentally unwell.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 10, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> "Irrational skepticism" wasn't a mental illness the last time I looked.



But, 'pathological' is and you have been throwing that around all over the place. 



phildwyer said:


> But I suppose you have a point.  After all, no-one here ever suggests that those who believe in conspiracy theories are mentally unwell.



What Beanburger said.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 10, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I think Maxwell was a Mossad agent, and that he was working for the Zionists even before Israel was founded.  As Claphamboy suggested, I think he orchestrated the Czech arms deal that enabled them to win the war of independence, and that he'd been their most valuable single asset ever since.



I don't believe Maxwell was a "Mossad agent", insofar as I don't believe he was employed by the state. What he *was*, was someone who could get things done, but who was a "cut-out", someone who could be used for stuff that the state of Israel couldn't involve themselves in directly. It wasn't as if he didn't have previous intelligence experience, after all. Like most whores, though, he had more than one client.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 10, 2009)

editor said:


> You have ZERO hard evidence. Nothing. Not a scrap. Not a sausage.


There's no hard evidence that Maxwell was a "Mossad agent", but it's certainly true that Maxwell was an intelligence conduit to both Mossad and Shin Beth, and that he was more than happy to use his contacts in furtherance of the state of Israel's goals, for which there *is* evidence.
Maxwell was, if anything though, an "independent agent". he was happy to pass stuff to whichever party was most likely to benefit him, and he did enough "favours" for Israel, and for many of the "Warsaw Pact" countries to get very favourable business agreements with them, hence his almost single-handed capture of publishing rights from a couple of the countries.


----------



## Meltingpot (Nov 10, 2009)

*Robert Maxwell*



editor said:


> Any credible proof here or are just trotting out random thoughts?



Well, the fact he was given a full state funeral in Israel after he died would seem to point in this direction. They don't do that for just any diaspora Jew.

Here's an extract from his wiki;

"Maxwell was given a funeral in Israel better befitting a head of state than a publisher, as described by author Gordon Thomas:

    On 10 November 1991, Maxwell’s funeral took place on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem, across from the Temple Mount. It had all the trappings of a state occasion, attended by the country’s government and opposition leaders. No fewer than six serving and former heads of the Israeli intelligence community listened as Prime Minister Shamir eulogized: "He has done more for Israel than can today be said" (Gideon's Spies: The Secret History of the Mossad, St. Martin's Press, 1999).[15]

A hint of Maxwell's service to the Israeli state was provided by Loftus and Aarons, who described Maxwell's contacts with Czech anti-Stalinist Communist leaders in 1948 as crucial to the Czech decision to arm Israel in their War of Independence that year. Czech military assistance was both unique and crucial for the fledgling state as it battled for its existence."


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 10, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> And I do think that some people are predisposed to irrational skepticism with regard to conspiracy theories.  Some people don't _want_ to believe in them--just as, to be fair, some people _do_ want to believe in them.
> 
> *I think we see both types of person on threads like this one.*



That being the case it shouldn't be too difficult for you to point us to the ‘conspiracy denialists’ posts in question. 

Basically Phil you started off banging on about of a group of ‘conspiracy denialists’ on urban, who you defined as those that refuse to believe in any possible conspiracy, no matter how much evidence suggests there could be in a particular case. 

You were asked to point out the "pathological conspiracy denialists" on here and provide some actual evidence, you attempted a diversion by pointing to another site as being an example of  ‘conspiracy denialists’, despite the fact it didn’t fit your definition and had nothing to do with urban anyway.

More recently you brought up the Maxwell case as another diversion, and you seem to be trying to imply this has proved your case with posts like this:



phildwyer said:


> Hahahahaha.  Loonspud, nutbobbin, bonkersman.
> 
> I suppose Israel maintains a network of deep cover secret agents in powerful positions throughout the world, does it?  I suppose this explains how such a small country has survived the relentless attacks by its numerous opponents for the last 60 years does it?
> 
> Hahahahahaha.  Go and hang out with David Icke, you're both as mad as each other.



Which is a bit childish to say the least, because no one seems to deny any of that nor disagree that murder was possible, so this has failed to prove your case of ‘conspiracy denialists’ on urban.

So, where are these “pathological conspiracy denialists" and examples of “irrational scepticism” that you keep banging on about, apart from in your head?

Isn’t it time to stop wriggling, prove your claim or drop it?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 10, 2009)

If I remember correctly in 'the enemy within' seamus milne states that Maxwell openly  boasted about working for british intelligence. 

He wasn't a 'secret agent' like james bond, but its entriely credible that he was a 'intelligence asset' for mossad, MI5 and the CIA - someone with contacts who could 'fix' things - and Maxwell would have enjoyed the role as it helped cement his own sense of self importance. 
One cant conclude from that that he was offed by mossad - but its certainly a plausible theory. One can say the same about the death of David Kelly.   But certainly not about Princess Di. 

Conspircay theoirsts seem to think that running around shouting 'que bono?' is argument enough.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 10, 2009)

Kaka Tim said:


> If I remember correctly in 'the enemy within' seamus milne states that Maxwell openly  boasted about working for british intelligence.


Yep.
Then again, he worked for military intelligence during the war, and they're not over-fond of letting assets go, so for maxwell to have been at the very least a conduit for them would be perfectly reasonable.


> He wasn't a 'secret agent' like james bond, but its entriely credible that he was a 'intelligence asset' for mossad, MI5 and the CIA - someone with contacts who could 'fix' things - and Maxwell would have enjoyed the role as it helped cement his own sense of self importance.


There's little doubt he was good at it, too.


> One cant conclude from that that he was offed by mossad - but its certainly a plausible theory. One can say the same about the death of David Kelly.   But certainly not about Princess Di.
> 
> Conspircay theoirsts seem to think that running around shouting 'que bono?' is argument enough.


It's plausible, although I've always leant toward the "natural causes" argument, solely because the old cunt had massive hypertension which was very badly treated given his fondness for getting pissed.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 10, 2009)

dwyer said:
			
		

> Who are the real nutjobs here?





Beanburger said:


> The real nutjobs are those whose views are led by personal opinion rather than evidence - those for whom logic is a tool to _support _their position, rather than a form of reasoning that _leads _them to their position. Conspiraloons are more likely to fall into the former camp, since it generally takes an impassioned mind to forcefully advocate an atypical world-view.
> 
> Personally, my problem with conspiracy theories is that they generally utilise evidence selectively to support positions that run contrary to basic logic and reason. That doesn't mean that I blindly accept everything I'm told - it means that I question _everything_, whether that be the theories of conspiraloons or the propaganda of the state.



Completely agree with this from BB -- multi-directional scepticism is definitely the way forward.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 10, 2009)

frogwoman said:
			
		

> I think he was murdered as well and for fucks sake this is exactly what I mean, because of bonkers shit that the likes of Icke and Alex Jones put out perfectly plausible theories with evidence in support of them get tarred with the same brush, and it gets used as a smear for ALL things that are slightly opposed to the government's view





Beanburger said:


> Absolutely. Which leads me to suspect that conspiraloons are actually agents of the state, conducting false-flag operations to undermine the credibility of _real _conspiracy theories.



Heart of the matter. So many CTers undermine genuine and credible investigation, using proper principles of historical, evidence based research into government/establishment wrongnesses.

I did *pisstakingly* suggest (ages ago) that the only CT I believe in is that CTers are CIA or MI5 agents, something that on further thought isn't _completely_ bonkers. OK, mostly, but the  way people like Icke and Jones actually help coverups by making their 'exposes' of them look so mad, doesn't help the 'credibility' of conspiricism in any way.

BTW taffboy earlier up addressed my point from yesterday about CTers undermining their own credibility quite interestingly and thought provokingly I thought. I don't agree with a lot of what he posts but fair do's on being balanced in that post anyway


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 10, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> Completely agree with this from BB.


Plant.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 10, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> Heart of the matter. So many CTers undermine genuine and credible investigation, using proper principles of historical, evidence based research into government/establishment wrongnesses.
> 
> I did *pisstakingly* suggest (ages ago) that the only CT I believe in is that CTers are CIA or MI5 agents, something that on further thought isn't _completely_ bonkers. OK, mostly, but the  way people like Icke and Jones actually help coverups by making their 'exposes' of them look so mad, doesn't help the 'credibility' of conspiricism in any way.
> 
> BTW taffboy earlier up addressed my point from yesterday about CTers undermining their own credibility quite interestingly and thought provokingly I thought. I don't agree with a lot of what he posts but fair do's on being balanced in that post anyway



yep  

People might say the above as a joke but I think from my own research and reading around the subject (or simply by looking at the "about us" and following the fucking links ffs) there is a lot more truth to it than anyone thinks.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 10, 2009)

dwyer said:
			
		

> And I do think that some people are predisposed to irrational skepticism with regard to conspiracy theories. Some people don't want to believe in them--just as, to be fair, some people do want to believe in them.
> 
> I think we see both types of person on threads like this one.





Beanburger said:


> I agree. And that's why internet discussions are usually fruitless, since opinions tend to become quickly entrenched at polarised ends of the spectrum.
> 
> *I find conspiraloons idiotic and annoying, but then I also find the "gosh, we'd never have invaded Iraq for oil!!!" brigade equally idiotic and annoying*.



BB I think you're (inadvertantly?) backing up dwer's misdefinitions of and smears about conspiracy-sceptics when you make the bolded point.

People who ridicule the Iraq for Oil hypothesis are not conspiracy-sceptics, they're plain over eager acceptors of an establishment line. Contrary to dwyer's smears and lies that conspiracy sceptics are gullible drinkers in of establishment propaganda, I strongly doubt that you'd find many active conspiracy-sceptics on here who'd substantially disagree (except over particular details maybe?) with the I for O hypothesis.

Being all conspiratorial about '9/11' is most often a different position entirely. 

Like you said before, it's perfectly possible, indeed common,  to be sceptical of both CTs and governments. 

Dwyer's efforts to paint conspiracy sceptics as mindless estabishment-line-regurgitating shill-sheeple  is as much part of his deliberately adopted trolling on the subject as is his smear that they (the sceptics) are mentally unhinged


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 10, 2009)

Beanburger said:


> Plant.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 10, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> BB I think you're (inadvertantly?) backing up dwer's misdefinitions of and smears about conspiracy-sceptics when you make the bolded point.


I'm not sure how we're defining "conspiracy sceptics". I'm a _conspiraloon _sceptic. Is that the same thing?


----------



## editor (Nov 10, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> Which is a bit childish to say the least, because no one seems to deny any of that nor disagree that murder was possible, so this has failed to prove your case of ‘conspiracy denialists’ on urban.
> 
> So, where are these “pathological conspiracy denialists" and examples of “irrational scepticism” that you keep banging on about, apart from in your head?
> 
> Isn’t it time to stop wriggling, prove your claim or drop it?


Absolutely.

It's time dwyer either named names or apologised for his offensive behaviour and his unpleasant habit of throwing around disgraceful insults about mental health.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 10, 2009)

editor said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> It's time dwyer either named names or apologised for his offensive behaviour and his unpleasant habit of throwing around disgraceful insults about mental health.



Last time I named a name you became even angrier.  

It's the same name I'd name again.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 10, 2009)

It's better to play the ball than the man. Not naming names can be a part of that. Bringing up "mental imbalance" can be tricky, but the title itself contains the word "loon" which is synonymous with a degree of mental imbalance even if it is in "".

People offend each other all the time on urban, and use inappropriate terms in doing so. Cant confess to have followed every post but is there a special reason why PD should be singled out?


----------



## editor (Nov 10, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Last time I named a name you became even angrier.
> 
> It's the same name I'd name again.


You claimed there were "plentiful" people suffering from mental illness, yet you've only come up with just _one_ name - and that's the same person you've subjected to a deeply unpleasant campaign of bullying for months on end - and  someone who clearly shows no sign of being a "pathological conspiracy denialist."

Face it dwyer: you've made yourself look an absolute cunt here, throwing around playground taunts of mental illness just because people don't agree with you and wriggling like a slithery snake in a vat of oil every time you get pulled up on your idiotic insults.

It's really not been your finest hour.


----------



## editor (Nov 10, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> People offend each other all the time on urban, and use inappropriate terms in doing so. Cant confess to have followed every post but is there a special reason why PD should be singled out?


Because it forms the central tenet of his argument, and he has peppered this thread with such accusations.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 10, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> I think he was murdered as well and for fucks sake this is exactly what I mean, because of bonkers shit that the likes of Icke and Alex Jones put out perfectly plausible theories with evidence in support of them get tarred with the same brush, and it gets used as a smear for ALL things that are slightly opposed to the government's view



everyone should just cut and paste that comment each time an establishment whore pops up...


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 10, 2009)

editor said:


> Face it dwyer: you've made yourself look an absolute cunt here, throwing around playground taunts of mental illness just because people don't agree with you



O rly?



editor said:


> There's never enough evidence to satisfy lunatic conspiracy nuts



If I had a penny for every time our conspiracy denialists had called their opponents mentally ill, I'd be Robert Maxwell.


----------



## editor (Nov 10, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> If I had a penny for every time our conspiracy denialists had called their opponents mentally ill, I'd be Robert Maxwell.


No you wouldn't, but what's another lie from our resident wriggler, eh?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 10, 2009)

editor said:


> Because it forms the central tenet of his argument, and he has peppered this thread with such accusations.



I wont defend concerted and needless attacks on individuals that you cite PD as guilty of. However, some degree of "mental inbalance" is often levelled at anyone who questions official versions of events beyond a certain point.

I've been called all sorts of such inappropriate names down the years and I am far from a knee-jerk CTer.

As I said before, a central tenet of the anti CT case is a cod psychology analysis that CTers NEED to believe CTs because they CANT HANDLE reality.

It is a vapid argument, not least because the opposite could just as well stand up - that anti CTers NEED to reject them ASAP because they CANT HANDLE the implications if at least some of them had substance. 

So, these accusations fly around and it aint helpful, but it would be a mistake to think it was one sided.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 10, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> Tomlinson was writing his book PRIOR to Diana's death and changed the story so he could cash in on the crash and sell more copies to mugs like you.
> 
> There was NO evidence and NO reliable witnesses to back-up the ‘bright-light’ fairy-tail, yet there was plenty of evidence and witnesses to the contrary – how many more fucking times does this need repeating before it sinks into your thick head?
> 
> ...



Tomlinson made up the bit about the plan to bump off Milosevic, to fit in with the same thing happening to Diana? NOW who's the theorist!!!

How do you know the witness was NOT RELIABLE - you know him personally?


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 10, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> If I had a penny for every time our conspiracy denialists had called their opponents mentally ill, I'd be Robert Maxwell.



But, there are no 'conspiracy denialists' here, as now proved by your inability to name anyone or supply any supporting evidence.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 10, 2009)

editor said:


> No you wouldn't



Actually you're right.  I'd be Rupert Murdoch:



editor said:


> As for Ickey-bollocks and swine flu, only a terminal nutbobbin in fruitloop undies gives a flying noggin what that fucknut says about anything.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 10, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> Tomlinson made up the bit about the plan to bump off Milosevic, to fit in with the same thing happening to Diana? NOW who's the theorist!!!



The evidence is there in both the changes to the manuscripts of his book pre and post the death of Diana, which he didn't deny to the inquiry and in his statement "I came out of prison I was strongly embittered towards MI6 and certainly wanted to cause them embarrassment and difficulty."  



trevhagl said:


> How do you know the witness was NOT RELIABLE - you know him personally?



How many more fucking times do I need to post this, which you keep ignoring? 



> The detail of eyewitness testimony was thoroughly reviewed and Operation Paget officers succeeded in uncovering two new witnesses. *The police found that only one eyewitness at the scene of the crash, François Levistre, made a clear, specific reference to seeing a bright flash.* He claimed to have seen it in his rear-view mirror and recounted other elements of what he saw in considerable detail while he was negotiating the difficult bend out of the tunnel, a task which would have required his full attention on the road in front of him. *Crucially, however, his testimony was directly contradicted by his then-wife, who sat in the passenger seat next to him. *Television documentaries produced by Channel 4 in 2004 and the BBC in 2006 both raised t*he issue of Levistre's prior criminal record for offences involving dishonesty.*
> 
> In any event, *the detailed crash reconstruction revealed that the chain of events that led to the car unavoidably colliding with the pillar started well before it was at the mouth of the tunnel where the flash is alleged to have been discharged.* Furthermore, *a strobe light of the type that was alleged to have been used is so powerful that a flash emitted from it would have been bright enough to illuminate a very wide area.* It would have likely blinded not only Henri Paul, but also the driver of the white Fiat Uno, the pursuing paparazzi and witnesses standing at the road side. The Operation Paget report concluded the alleged flash did not happen.[


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 10, 2009)

Beanburger said:


> I'm not sure how we're defining "conspiracy sceptics". I'm a _conspiraloon _sceptic. Is that the same thing?



In effect .... 

I just tend to use conspiracy sceptic, or conspiracy theory sceptic, because it's a bit politer. Or anti conspiracist.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 10, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> As I said before, a central tenet of the anti CT case is a cod psychology analysis that CTers NEED to believe CTs because they CANT HANDLE reality.


Says who?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 10, 2009)

Oh dear Ed. I bet that's just one example.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 10, 2009)

frogwoman said:
			
		

> I think he was murdered as well and for fucks sake this is exactly what I mean, because of bonkers shit that the likes of Icke and Alex Jones put out perfectly plausible theories with evidence in support of them get tarred with the same brush, and it gets used as a smear for ALL things that are slightly opposed to the government's view





trevhagl said:


> everyone should just cut and paste that comment each time an establishment whore pops up...



Maybe you'd be better off taking on froggy's central point that so many conspiracy theories are crazy (and discredit the others), than labelling sceptics of CTs as 'establishment whores' 

Just a suggestion like


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 10, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> The evidence is there in both the changes to the manuscripts of his book pre and post the death of Diana, which he didn't deny to the inquiry and in his statement "I came out of prison I was strongly embittered towards MI6 and certainly wanted to cause them embarrassment and difficulty."
> 
> 
> 
> How many more fucking times do I need to post this, which you keep ignoring?




the picture of the tunnel in other thread shows it is well lit. i don't think a flashlight would be visible outside, but we could argue forever. You think the establishment would never do anything wrong, i beg to differ.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 10, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> Maybe you'd be better off taking on froggy's central point that so many conspiracy theories are crazy (and discredit the others), than labelling sceptics of CTs as 'establushment whores'
> 
> Just a suggestion like



I only label people that if they spend hours going out of their way to try to prove the establishment had nothing to do with suspicious deaths. I am not saying lizards are gonna control the earth.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 10, 2009)

Beanburger said:


> Says who?



Google "conspiracy theory psychology". It's a pretty standard case.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 10, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> the picture of the tunnel in other thread shows it is well lit. i don't think a flashlight would be visible outside, but we could argue forever.



TBF, it's what all the experts think, what the reliable witnesses saw and what the other evidence supports that matters here, not what you think based on reading a book of fiction. 



trevhagl said:


> You think the establishment would never do anything wrong, i beg to differ.



No, I don't, you fucking stupid, lying, ignorance little fuckwit.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 10, 2009)

dwyer said:
			
		

> If I had a penny for every time our conspiracy denialists had called their opponents mentally ill, I'd be Robert Maxwell.





claphamboy said:


> But, there are no *'conspiracy denialists'*here, as now proved by your inability to name anyone or supply any supporting evidence.



It's a completely made up term on dwyer's part.

Part of his ongoing troll-effort to smear conspiracy-sceptics as as evidence defying and rationality-avoiding as global warming denialists** 

**(or AIDS denialists   )

While rarely criticising**, and never citing, the out and out irrationality of so many conspiracy theories.

**Except (very occasionally) in a token 'false equivalence'/'just as bad' fashion, to attack his *real* targets


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 10, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> It's a completely made up term on dwyer's part.
> 
> Part of his ongoing troll-effort to smear conspiracy-sceptics as as evidence defying and rationality-avoiding as global warming denialists**
> 
> ...


Thought as much.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 10, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> I only label people that if *they spend hours *going out of their way to try to prove the establishment had nothing to do with suspicious deaths. I am not saying lizards are gonna control the earth.



What is this now, the fourth or fifth time you have posted this bollocks claim?

Look, if it takes you more than a few seconds to google something and a few minutes to use the 'Ctrl+F' function on a web page or PDF to find something, that is evidence of you being a simpleton, not that others spend 'hours' doing it.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 10, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I wont defend concerted and needless attacks on individuals that you cite PD as guilty of. However, some degree of "mental inbalance" is often levelled at anyone who questions official versions of events beyond a certain point.
> 
> I've been called all sorts of such inappropriate names down the years and I am far from a knee-jerk CTer.
> 
> ...



I very rarely use the term 'conspiraloon' any more, haven't done for ages (I prefer 'conspiracist'). And I can't remember the last time I accused a CTer on here of being bonkers _in person_. But I do think it's worth remembering that suggesting an actual *theory* is, or looks, crazy or bonkers or irrational, is not necessarily the same as saying the person advancing it is off their trolley.

(Mind you I do think Icke has plenty of 'connection with reality' issues  ).

My point being that I agree suggestions of pathological problems, obsessiveness,  etc along with their hints of borderline or actual mental illness, as applied to _people_, are hardly helpful in these discussions. But in this particular present thread, such accusations have come not so much against CTers but predominantly from the other direction, from one particular poster as part of his current 'campaign'.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 10, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> What is this now, the fourth or fifth time you have posted this bollocks claim?
> 
> Look, if it takes you more than a few seconds to google something and a few minutes to use the 'Ctrl+F' function on a web page or PDF to find something, that is evidence of you being a simpleton, not that others spend 'hours' doing it.



it's your life boy!! Your duty to Queen and Country !!


----------



## editor (Nov 10, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Actually you're right.  I'd be Rupert Murdoch:


Sorry, are you posting that context-stripped quote of mine to suggest that Icke's claim that swine flu really was a conspiracy to 'cull' the population is actually _true?_

Or is this just another example of your tedious habit of switching topics as you continue to wriggle and flounder about, making a fresh arse of yourself at every turn?


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 10, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> This message is unreadable due to static levels because *trevhagl *is just why too far out in the twatosphere.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 10, 2009)

Editor - on Ickes "swine flu" claims: I have no idea what to believe but if you can forward us certain details as to the genesis of H1N1 (not swine flu) it would probably be helpful in dispelling them. Likewise it will aid the anti CT case if you or anyone else can disprove the wanton distribution of contaminatied vaccines by Baxter and the documented harmful implications of many vaccines per se.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 10, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> it will aid the anti CT case if you or anyone else can disprove the wanton distribution of contaminatied vaccines by Baxter and the documented harmful implications of many vaccines per se.



There was no "wanton contamination of vaccines by Baxter". 

The contaminated virus material was produced exclusively for laboratory analytical and research purposes, it was not actually vaccine for human use. 

Even Jazzz managed to post a link to a reliable document confirming this, although admittedly I think he did it by accident.


----------



## treelover (Nov 10, 2009)

Oh dear, i have just recieved an email from the remnants of the London Social Forum, seems like many of them are now buying into the 'loose change' conspiracy paradigm, etc. even citing ex UKIP M.P's!

Is this what has happened to the Anti-Globalisation movement?


----------



## editor (Nov 10, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Editor - on Ickes "swine flu" claims: I have no idea what to believe but if you can forward us certain details as to the genesis of H1N1 (not swine flu) it would probably be helpful in dispelling them. .


Don't try and get clever, sunshine. The links from the OP in that thread _explicitly_ claimed that swine flu was manufactured as a ruse to 'cull' the human population. I've no interest in wasting a second of my time discussing that flight of fact-free fancy or any of the painful wriggling and dwyer-like topic shifting that followed.

I have to say that an inability to stay on topic and discuss issues related to their claims seem to be a hallmark of some of the more enthusiastic 'believers' here. It's very frustrating. Why can't they answer direct questions directly related to their own claims?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 10, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> There was no "wanton contamination of vaccines by Baxter".
> 
> The contaminated virus material was produced exclusively for laboratory analytical and research purposes, it was not actually vaccine for human use.
> 
> Even Jazzz managed to post a link to a reliable document confirming this, although admittedly I think he did it by accident.



Sorry, after posting I ETA "distribution". They did distribute it did they not?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 10, 2009)

editor said:


> Don't try and get clever, sunshine. The links from the OP in that thread _explicitly_ claimed that swine flu was manufactured as a ruse to 'cull' the human population. I've no interest in wasting a second of my time discussing that flight of fact-free fancy or any of the painful wriggling and dwyer-like topic shifting that followed.
> 
> I have to say that an inability to stay on topic and discuss issues related to their claims seem to be a hallmark of some of the more enthusiastic 'believers' here. It's very frustrating. Why can't they answer direct questions directly related to their own claims?



Well it seems an improvement that you havent slurred my mental wellness and those who suffer imparement generally while slagging off other people who do likewise.

 I'm not trying to get clever, I am presenting a way you could help discredit the "cull" idea. Once we know where H1N1 came from and how there will be a lot of riddles solved.

Personally, I have spoken to exactly the topics in hand and will continue to. I've found this thread to be pretty constructive aside from some typical diversions. Clearly others do too because it has many many posts.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 10, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Sorry, after posting I ETA "distribution". They did distribute it did they not?



Only to labs for the purpose of testing, it was never intended for human use.

It was fully investigated by the authorities in the countries concerned and by the various E.U. regulatory authorities, it was a cock-up that shouldn’t have happened, procedures have been tightened. 

The Czech Republic is even looking at changes in law because the Czech lab that first discovered the problem failed to report it to their authorities only to Baxter, who in turn reported themselves to the Austrian authorities – hardly the actions of a company attempting a ‘cover-up’ or conspiracy.


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 10, 2009)

Reading editor getting all sensitive about mild suggestions of mental instability from the other side of the debate is like, well, it doesn't just take the biscuit - it goes through the whole packet dunking them in your tea!


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 10, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> Reading editor getting all sensitive about mild suggestions of mental instability from the other side of the debate is like, well, it doesn't just take the biscuit - it goes through the whole packet dunking them in your tea!



Whoosh – point missed completely.


----------



## editor (Nov 10, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I'm not trying to get clever, I am presenting a way you could help discredit the "cull" idea. Once we know where H1N1 came from and how there will be a lot of riddles solved.


Why should I waste my time 'discrediting' something that has zero credibility in the first place? 

It's a pointless exercise because - as that thread proved conclusively - those who give credence to the idiotic ramblings of the 'son of God' Icke and his lizardy antics are incapable of answering straight questions or staying on topic.


----------



## editor (Nov 10, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> Reading editor getting all sensitive about mild suggestions of mental instability from the other side of the debate is like, well, it doesn't just take the biscuit - it goes through the whole packet dunking them in your tea!


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 10, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> Whoosh – point missed completely.


I'm sure you can work it out


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 10, 2009)

editor said:


> ...


You're forgiven, you know.

Of course, I'm glad that terms like 'conspiraloon' and 'nutbobbins' will be off your lexicon in future.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 10, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> I'm sure you can work it out



Shame you can't.


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 10, 2009)

oh look, you even put them in the tags!


----------



## editor (Nov 10, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> Of course, I'm glad that terms like 'conspiraloon' and 'nutbobbins' will be off your lexicon in future.


Except most of your beliefs are provably nutbobbins: like the time you claimed a talking terrier on a website knew the 'troof'; the murdered Soham girls were _literally_ catapulted out an US army base as part of a trans-Atlantic 9/11 conspiracy, the people of Long Island suffered mass amnesia and sci-fi planes from the future were buzzing around the skies of Manhattan (no doubt taking care to avoid the uninvented holographic craft, uninvented robolanders and cunningly disguised commercial aircraft with hidden pods full of bombs crashing into the invisibly installed invisible explosives in WTC).

I've lost count of the amount of people you've accused of being directly involved in mass murder. It's quite sick.


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 10, 2009)

_"There is no crime, absolutely none, that cannot be condoned when "our" side commits it. Even if one does not deny that the crime has happened, even if one knows that it is exactly the same crime as one has condemned in some other case, even if one admits in an intellectual sense that it is unjustified -- still one cannot feel that it is wrong. Loyalty is involved, and so pity ceases to function."_

*George Orwell*


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 10, 2009)

editor said:


> I've lost count of the amount of people you've accused of being directly involved in mass murder. It's quite sick.


oh editor this contrived outrage of yours is ridiculous. I have named hardly anyone, and suggest that 9/11 was carried out by less than a hundred people.


----------



## editor (Nov 10, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> oh editor this contrived outrage of yours is ridiculous. I have named hardly anyone, and suggest that 9/11 was carried out by less than a hundred people.


That's just a lie, plain and simple, and if I could be arsed (trust me, I can't), I could compile a list that would have to involve tens thousands of people to cover all the planning, technology, science and execution of the endless barking 'theories' you've posted up here.

Even your platoon of Insta-Mike Yarwoods who - according to you - perfectly faked the desperate and personal conversations of passengers ringing their loved ones from the 9/11 planes - would take a mini army to organise.

Phone taps would have to be installed, surveillance teams set up, voice training coaches hired, immaculate impersonators found with engineers from the airline and phone company brought in to reroute the calls.

And with so many passengers on board, they'd have to have a veritable army of  impersonators on call - and if that wasn't enough, they still had enough resources to perfectly fake the voice and personal conversation of a guy _who wasn't even due on the plane that day!_

I don't suppose you have any notion of how insulting your claim is that the husbands and wives were too fucking stupid and thick to work out that their desperate last conversations with their loved ones were in fact being conducted by the Lenny Henry Battalion.

Like I said, it's sick.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 11, 2009)

editor said:


> Why should I waste my time 'discrediting' something that has zero credibility in the first place?
> 
> It's a pointless exercise because - as that thread proved conclusively - those who give credence to the idiotic ramblings of the 'son of God' Icke and his lizardy antics are incapable of answering straight questions or staying on topic.



Discerning the origins of H1N1 is far from pointless surely?

Some of Ickes ideas are indeed very far out and I wouldnt seriously try and defend even the ones I find interesting. 

However, the supposed good intentions of big pharma are a reasonable thing to be skeptical about. Likewise, it is weird that unqualified people in call centres are pronouncing people as having "swine flu" and skeptical of a meeja and "leaders" that constantly talk about "swine flu" when H1N1 is NOT swine flu. It is a weird composite of different flus. I dont know how it came about, nor does anyone else seem to.

However, the existance of Project Coast in the 80s is well documented fact, support from the US is fact. Perhaps after that they gave up on bio-weapon after that. Perhaps they gave up on propagandising after stalin and hitler gave it a bad name. And perhaps I will be buying Tower Bridge tomorrow.


CTers may add 2 and 2 to equal 5, or they may be trying to work out the answer to a sum no one knows (as with the Maxwell case discussed up thread)

I doubt very much it is a cull effort btw. Icke also says vaccines could be used to inject people with incredibly tiny microchips. This is actually more plausible.


----------



## editor (Nov 11, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Discerning the origins of H1N1 is far from pointless surely?


I'd say it's a pretty pointless mission if you're focusing your research on the uninformed, hysterical utterances of a self-publicising, lizard-obsessed, DVD-shifting nutbobbin who has precisely *zero* qualifications, expertise or scientific credibility in any of the related areas, and a similar total absence of supporting evidence too.

As has been repeatedly stated by many, publicity-seeking idiots pedalling barmy theories grasped out of thin air don't uncover the truth: _they usually get in the way of it._


----------



## cesare (Nov 11, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> oh editor this contrived outrage of yours is ridiculous. I have named hardly anyone, and suggest that 9/11 was carried out by less than a hundred people.



He's blowing a gasket in his engagement with what you say  

I can see why you'd prefer to wind him up over that.


----------



## A Dashing Blade (Nov 11, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> . . .  I've found this thread to be pretty constructive aside from some typical diversions.* Clearly others do too because it has many many posts.*


That is a truely delusional statement.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 11, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> Reading editor getting all sensitive about mild suggestions of mental instability from the other side of the debate is like, well, it doesn't just take the biscuit - it goes through the whole packet dunking them in your tea!



It appropriates all biscuit factories in the name of the state, turns them into halibut farms, and institutes the death penalty for anyone even thinking about biscuits.


----------



## London_Calling (Nov 11, 2009)

It is a bit Rich Tea, tbf.

A slam _dunk_, even


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 11, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Discerning the origins of H1N1 is far from pointless surely?
> 
> Some of Ickes ideas are indeed very far out and I wouldnt seriously try and defend even the ones I find interesting.
> 
> ...



FFS - this has already been done, there's over 4700 posts on the David Icke on 'Swine Flu'  thread, why start it up again here?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 11, 2009)

treelover said:


> Oh dear, i have just recieved an email from the remnants of the London Social Forum, seems like many of them are now buying into the 'loose change' conspiracy paradigm, etc. even citing ex UKIP M.P's!
> 
> Is this what has happened to the Anti-Globalisation movement?



...and not by accident either.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 11, 2009)

where do people on here stand on AIDS? Was it green monkeys or the CIA that spread it?


----------



## fogbat (Nov 11, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> where do people on here stand on AIDS? Was it green monkeys or the CIA that spread it?



AIDS is caused by vitamin deficiencies. HIV doesn't exist.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 11, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> where do people on here stand on AIDS?



I'm glad you brought that up.

For myself, I have no doubt that it is a natural phenomenon, rather than a man-made one.  I don't find any evidence that it was deliberately engineered by any group of people.

What I am equally sure of, however, is that the link between HIV and AIDS has been deliberately exaggerated in the service of some very dubious private agendas.

Just to be clear: I do not deny that HIV can and does cause AIDS.  But it does not _always_ cause AIDS, and the frequency with which it causes AIDS has been greatly exaggerated.  Furthermore, other factors can also cause AIDS, such as IV drug-abuse and malnutrition.

I have proved--yes, _proved_--this on other threads, so maybe this isn't the place to go into it in any great detail.  Still, it is perhaps relevant as yet another instance where our conspiracy denialists often allow themselves to be blinded by their ideological predisposition.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 11, 2009)

fogbat said:


> AIDS is caused by vitamin deficiencies. HIV doesn't exist.



You are hardly helping the cause of truth with this kind of ill-informed nonsense.  HIV most certainly _does_ exist, and anyone who denies it needs their head examined.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 11, 2009)

i think it's either some kind of laboratory fuck up or the CIA manufacturing it and somehow introducing it into 'undesirables'


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 11, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> i think it's either some kind of laboratory fuck up or the CIA manufacturing it and somehow introducing it into 'undesirables'



On what grounds do you think that?  Because I call it nonsense of the first water.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 11, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> i think it's either some kind of laboratory fuck up or the CIA manufacturing it and somehow introducing it into 'undesirables'





Well considering scientists have only very recently been able to make viruses, i.e. within the last 10 years, and HIV was found in a blood sample dating back to the 50s, perhaps you can explain how the CIA could have developed it, oh wise one.

* time travel as a theory on this is disallowed.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 11, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> On what grounds do you think that?  Because I call it nonsense of the first water.




i'm not a scientist but it's more plausable than green monkeys spreading it. gays and intravenus drug users are the main ones dying from it (and the odd promiscuous hetero) all of which would suit the right wing republicans down to the ground.

Mind you i can't really be bothered to read thru the hundreds of books on the subject.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 11, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> i'm not a scientist but it's more plausable than green monkeys spreading it.



Yeah, fuck the molecular biologists that tracked the origin after decades of painstaking work and all that analysing the genetic code stuff, far better to form a view based on sweet FA.



trevhagl said:


> gays and intravenus drug users are the main ones dying from it (and the odd promiscuous hetero) all of which would suit the right wing republicans down to the ground.



Yeah, let's ignore all those babies born with it, all those people that got it by blood transfusion in the early days – oh, wait it must have been a plot by the Jehovah Witnesses. 



trevhagl said:


> Mind you i can't really be bothered to read thru the hundreds of books on the subject.



Translation - "I am an ignorance twat and happy to stay that way."


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 11, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> i'm not a scientist but it's more plausable than green monkeys spreading it. gays and intravenus drug users are the main ones dying from it (and the odd promiscuous hetero) all of which would suit the right wing republicans down to the ground.



If anyone really wanted to carry out a population cull--which they don't--there are far easier ways of doing it.  A fake vaccine for example (not that I believe that either).  

I do believe that hard drugs were and are being introduced to the ghettos of the USA in a conscious attempt to damage the social fabric.  I think the heroin epidemic of the 60s was the CIA's retort to the civil rights movement: "see how many civil rights you want after this."  But that's not the same as a population cull.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 11, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Editor - on Ickes "swine flu" claims: I have no idea what to believe but if you can forward us certain details as to the genesis of H1N1 (not swine flu) it would probably be helpful in dispelling them.


And while you're at it, if you could prove that life can be manufactured in a lab, then that would help dispel any lingering suspicions that the world was created in six days and nights by a bearded old bloke sitting on a cloud. 

Seriously, what the fuck? The burden of proof falls upon the _proponent_ of a theory. Especially when it's as ridiculous as the "cull" theory. Fuck's sake, if H1N1 is the best stab TPTB can take at wiping us all out, they need to go back to the fucking lab.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 11, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> But that's not the same as a population cull.


And excuse me if I'm missing something here, but doesn't capitalism kinda _depend _on growing populations in order to increase GDP? Last time I checked, Scotland was actually encouraging immigration for this very reason. Why would you cull the source of your income?


----------



## kyser_soze (Nov 11, 2009)

Downhill thread goes further downhill.


----------



## 8den (Nov 11, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> i'm not a scientist



N really?


----------



## editor (Nov 11, 2009)

Beanburger said:


> Seriously, what the fuck? The burden of proof falls upon the _proponent_ of a theory. Especially when it's as ridiculous as the "cull" theory..


Exactly. And if people repeatedly post up wild, lunatic theories sourced from barking UFO-naut sites supported by zero credible research, zero credible science and zero credible evidence then they have every right to be classified as a conspiraloon.  It's just about the dictionary definition of the word. 

However, accusing posters of being mentally ill just because they don't subscribe to dwyer's _personal_ set of evidence-free beliefs is way off the mark.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 11, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> Yeah, fuck the molecular biologists that tracked the origin after decades of painstaking work and all that analysing the genetic code stuff, far better to form a view based on sweet FA.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



maybe ya knew someone that fucked a green monkey?


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 11, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> maybe ya knew someone that fucked a green monkey?



Christ, you're a moron. 

How about the fair more logical theory about eating monkeys as "bushmeat"?


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 11, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> Christ, you're a moron.
> 
> How about the fair more logical theory about eating monkeys as "bushmeat"?



oh right, maybe you're right then, unlikely for you lot to do poorly with propaganda


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 11, 2009)

An acquaintance of my mum's said that AIDS came from monkeys and came about because in Africa the women get so horny when their husbands are away that "they just find a monkey and have sex with that"


----------



## fogbat (Nov 11, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> An acquaintance of my mum's said that AIDS came from monkeys and came about because in Africa the women get so horny when their husbands are away that "they just find a monkey and have sex with that"



Closing time at London Zoo. You've still not pulled...

We've all been there


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 11, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> An acquaintance of my mum's said that AIDS came from monkeys and came about because in Africa the women get so horny when their husbands are away that "they just find a monkey and have sex with that"



You think thats bad? my uncle once came up with the idea of genetically enginering aN AIDS- sicle cell hybrid


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 11, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> An acquaintance of my mum's said that AIDS came from monkeys and came about because in Africa the women get so horny when their husbands are away that "they just find a monkey and have sex with that"




ha ha, like i said above, a rare case of propaganda fail - i had heard of green monkeys but never actually HOW it was supposed to be spread until now, and had very bleak mental images of the very desperate!


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 11, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> An acquaintance of my mum's said that AIDS came from monkeys and came about because in Africa the women get so horny when their husbands are away that "they just find a monkey and have sex with that"



This acquaintance, it's not trev's mum/dad by any chance?


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 11, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> This acquaintance, it's not trev's mum/dad by any chance?




it would have to be via a medium


----------



## Paul Marsh (Nov 11, 2009)

Beanburger said:


> Seriously, what the fuck? The burden of proof falls upon the _proponent_ of a theory.



Which is precisely what most 'truth' activists ignore. 

Their standard position is that the US/UK/Israeli governments have to prove -_to them_- that they did not carry out 9/11, 7/7 or whatever. They therefore can keep going back to the issue ad infinitum, as most governments usually have no such desire to waste their time. 

If you listen to some of the more rational 'truth' activists (such as Ian Henshall) they rather cleverly set for others the burden of proof required upon the Crown, but for themselves only the burden of proving reasonable doubt. 

Its a lot easier game when you set those type of rules...............


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 11, 2009)

i guess if the security services were ACCOUNTABLE maybe people would have more faith in em (I mean people outside Urban, as most of these on this thread DO have faith)


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 11, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> i guess if the security services were ACCOUNTABLE maybe people would have more faith in em (I mean people outside Urban, as most of these on this thread DO have faith)


That in itself is a disingenuous assertion. Just because someone doesn't believe that the security services conspired to demolish the twin towers, it doesn't mean that they _have faith_ in the security services. It's this kind of logic that makes conspiraloonacy look so ridiculous. "You're either with us, or _you're one of them_" (and funnily enough, I've actually been told exactly that in the past )


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 11, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> i guess if the security services were ACCOUNTABLE maybe people would have more faith in em (I mean people outside Urban, as most of these on this thread DO have faith)



Do you realise that with every post you make on this thread you come across as even more ridiculous?


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 11, 2009)

Beanburger said:


> That in itself is a disingenuous assertion. Just because someone doesn't believe that the security services conspired to demolish the twin towers, it doesn't mean that they _have faith_ in the security services. It's this kind of logic that makes conspiraloonacy look so ridiculous. "You're either with us, or _you're one of them_" (and funnily enough, I've actually been told exactly that in the past )



wasn't specifically on about the twin towers, i have no idea if anything dodgy was involved there. I was just saying there needs to be accountability where foul play is suspected (i wasn't actually thinking of the US/CIA who are a law unto themselves anyway)


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 11, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> wasn't specifically on about the twin towers, i have no idea if anything dodgy was involved there. I was just saying there needs to be accountability where foul play is suspected (i wasn't actually thinking of the US/CIA who are a law unto themselves anyway)



Jusr re-read Beanburger's post replacing 'demolish the twin towers' with 'kill Diana' and the point remains valued.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 11, 2009)

Beanburger said:
			
		

> Seriously, what the fuck? The burden of proof falls upon the proponent of a theory.





Paul Marsh said:


> Which is precisely what most 'truth' activists ignore.
> 
> Their standard position is that the US/UK/Israeli governments have to prove -_to them_- that they did not carry out 9/11, 7/7 or whatever. They therefore can keep going back to the issue ad infinitum, as most governments usually have no such desire to waste their time.
> 
> ...



Bolded bit : or, if their claims are wilder, only the burden of _raising_ doubt -- of any kind.

Spot on to both posts, anyway.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 11, 2009)

trevhagl said:
			
		

> i guess if the security services were ACCOUNTABLE maybe people would have more faith in em (I mean people outside Urban, as most of these on this thread DO have faith)





Beanburger said:


> That in itself is a disingenuous assertion. Just because someone doesn't believe that the security services conspired to demolish the twin towers, it doesn't mean that they _have faith_ in the security services. *It's this kind of logic that makes conspiraloonacy look so ridiculous. "You're either with us, or you're one of them"* (and funnily enough, I've actually been told exactly that in the past )



Got to agree with Beanburger here trev.

How many times in this thread has it been repeated that just because you have lots of doubts about conspiracy theories, doesn't make you 'have faith' in the authorities! 

Saying this just makes you look illogical, to be honest.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 11, 2009)

Jazzz said:
			
		

> Reading editor getting all sensitive about mild suggestions of mental instability from the other side of the debate is like, well, it doesn't just take the biscuit - it goes through the whole packet dunking them in your tea!



As somebody said earlier, you're missing the point. Completely. Editor's comments were addressed at dwyer specifically.

Suggest you go back and reread dwyer's contributions to this thread (including the personal attacks on me and others but also much more importantly the general intent and tone). Read them in the round as an overall contribution.

If you've got even half an ounce of perceptiveness you'll stop thinking he's been posting 'from the other side of the debate' (ie yours).

For his real motives, here's one possible view  -- one you'd do yourself a favour not to ignore, because nothing he's posting is giving *your* 'side of the debate' any genuine help at all.

On the other hand, if you'd rather take the *mischiefmaking of a complete and proven troll *** as supportive to your position, that's up to you I guess.

ETA ** As if any further proof of the bit I've bolded were needed, see bin (just seen that binned thread  x 1000 )


----------



## Paul Marsh (Nov 11, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> Bolded bit : or, if their claims are wilder, only the burden of _raising_ doubt -- of any kind.
> 
> Spot on to both posts, anyway.




A further tactic is not to make specific claims themselves (that way they would be shot down) but instead to state "critics of the 9/11 Commission state....." or "sceptics comment that........" 

This creates the image of an emerging movement or gathering storm, often out of very little. 

The Reinvestigate 9/11 advert in the Independent is a classic of its type for this:

http://www.reinvestigate911.org/pages/advertisementfinal.pdf

Note for example the line:

"Speculation is now rife, not least in Pakistan and Afghanistan, that 9/11 was
not just the result of gross incompetence but some sort of an inside job."

No names, no quotes, no organisations or publications cited. 

If a student submitted that in an essay, they would be lucky to get a third, yet this is the approach taken by people who expect MPs and cabinet ministers to listen to them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 11, 2009)

on the way home from work passed some wanky hippy shit centre in hackney with '911: the greatest lie ever packaged' on the wall.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 11, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> on the way home from work passed *some wanky hippy shit centre in hackney* with '911: the greatest lie ever packaged' on the wall.



Where's that then? Some squatted 'social centre' or something?


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 11, 2009)

treelover said:
			
		

> Oh dear, i have just recieved an email from the remnants of the London Social Forum, seems like many of them are now buying into the 'loose change' conspiracy paradigm, etc. even citing ex UKIP M.P's!
> 
> Is this what has happened to the Anti-Globalisation movement?





butchersapron said:


> ...and not by accident either.



More on this aspect, please ...

Something that may? tie in with this : Shane Collins, sometime Green and anti-globalisation activist, seems in more recent times to have turned into a 9/11 troofer type ....

I liked Shane personally when I knew him prior to 2006 (not seen him since), but I think he's headed in a completely bizarre direction ... perhaps he's not alone in this by any means.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 11, 2009)

Paul Marsh said:


> Note for example the line:
> 
> "Speculation is now rife, not least in Pakistan and Afghanistan, that 9/11 was
> not just the result of gross incompetence but some sort of an inside job."
> ...



Spot on, this loose habit of vague, generalised doubt raising aka 'asking essential questions'   is very common among a lot of CTer types  .

Take note, CTers : slack research methods and even slacker sourcing = 21% at most, and a *PROJECT FAIL* !


----------



## Paul Marsh (Nov 11, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> Something that may? tie in with this : Shane Collins, sometime Green and anti-globalisation activist, seems in more recent times to have turned into a 9/11 troofer type ....
> 
> I liked Shane personally when I knew him prior to 2006 (not seen him since), but I think he's headed in a completely bizarre direction ... perhaps he's not alone in this by any means.




Collins has long been listed as one of the players in 'truth' circles:

http://paulstott.typepad.com/photos/the_players/index.html

he was certainly quite active in the UK and Ireland 9/11 Truth Movement, until the plug was pulled on that particular game. 

He seems to have been quiet on the issue recently.


----------



## editor (Nov 11, 2009)

I know Shane very well and he's never come across a full blown 'Troofer,' although he seems to have been drawn into some of their cobblers. 

As I told him last time I saw him, it's a sure sure vote loser for the Green Party. Most normal people don't give a flying fuck about 9/11 holographic yarns from 2001 - they're more interested in discussing a green future.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 11, 2009)

editor said:


> I know Shane very well and he's never come across a full blown 'Troofer,' although he seems to have been drawn into some of their cobblers.
> 
> As I told him last time I saw him, it's a sure sure vote loser for the Green Party. Most normal people don't give a flying fuck about 9/11 holographic yarns from 2001 - they're more interested in discussing a green future.



Is it the same Shane who does a lot on dope-related issues?

911 is certainly not a vote winner in this country, but US Greens and the candidate for president last year make a fairly big thing of it.

Thus, a few years ago a motion came before conference (Swansea IIRC) to call for a re-opening of the investigation. It was narrowly defeated. Vote winner or not, I think that was the wrong decision. The amount of dis-satisfaction among even commission members plus the fact that Zelicow is known to have been on the blower to the White House every evening somewhat backs me up.


----------



## Paul Marsh (Nov 12, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Is it the same Shane who does a lot on dope-related issues?
> 
> Thus, a few years ago a motion came before conference (Swansea IIRC) to call for a re-opening of the investigation. It was narrowly defeated. Vote winner or not, I think that was the wrong decision. The amount of dis-satisfaction among even commission members plus the fact that Zelicow is known to have been on the blower to the White House every evening somewhat backs me up.



It is the same Shane Collins, he proposed the motion to the Swansea conference (which in the end was not voted upon) Whether it was subsequently I'm not sure.

Darren Johnson wisely put up an amendment to Collins proposal, as it is obvious that whatever the grounds for a further enquiry, this is an absolute iceberg for the Greens. 

A report on the Swansea Green party conference and 9/11 truth is here.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 12, 2009)

Thanks for the link Paul.

From which:

"Conspiracy theories and anti-semitism do not tend to go down well on the doorsteps for any electoral party."

This is horseshit though. The "anti-semite" charge is an utter straw man and as offensive as any of the spurious charges 911CW (whose stuff I have read btw) cites the "truth movement as guilty of.

As for conspiracy theories not going down well on the doorstep, there's  conspiracy theories put around by the establishment press about asylum claimants, migrants and Islam that seem to have been pretty useful to fascists and taken as read by the larger 2 parties at least. 

As I saw it, the original Swansea motion was just a matter of backing up a sister party, not a huge issue. However, if it's an iceberg the USGP don't seem to think so.


----------



## 8den (Nov 12, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Thanks for the link Paul.
> 
> From which:
> 
> ...



Oh fuck right off. I've linked time and time again to how many of the conspiracyloonery claims come from organisations like the AFP with a racist agenda. 

Piss off you worthless little cunt.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 12, 2009)

If you edit away 8den's abuse (  ) he does have something of a point, you can't just dismiss the anti semitic links charge. There've been a *proven* number of CT-ist websites (such as whale.to) carrying links to Holocaust revisionist material. More sensible CTers would be better off disassociating themselves from such sources/sites rather than just dismissing the suggestion as a smear. We've done Icke's coded/borderline antisemitism to death on here as well.


----------



## editor (Nov 12, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> This is horseshit though. The "anti-semite" charge is an utter straw man and as offensive as any of the spurious charges 911CW (whose stuff I have read btw) cites the "truth movement as guilty of..


No it's not. The Troof movement is littered with anti-Semite scumbags. Are you really trying to deny that?



8den said:


> Oh fuck right off. I've linked time and time again to how many of the conspiracyloonery claims come from organisations like the AFP with a racist agenda.
> 
> Piss off you worthless little cunt.


Tone it down, please.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 12, 2009)

8den said:


> Oh fuck right off. I've linked time and time again to how many of the conspiracyloonery claims come from organisations like the AFP with a racist agenda.
> 
> Piss off you worthless little cunt.



Some racists espouse agenda X

Therefore all proponents of agenda X are racists or playing into racist hands.

And Polar bears live in the arctic cirlce. Eskimos live in the arctic, therefore eskimos are polar bears.

The BNP opposed the Iraq war btw, are you going to condemn the MILLION RACISTS who marched on Feb 15 2003?

Will it make my point more worthy if I swear a lot?

Fuckity fuck fuck shit cunt wank.

Will this do?

Funny how one side of this debate is accused of frothing lunacy, but it's clear in this case where the froth and faulty logic is comming from.


----------



## Paul Marsh (Nov 12, 2009)

Oddly enough one of the 9/11 truth activists I met at Swansea was Justin Walker from North Yorkshire. He was an old Green Party member (a former candidate) who had returned to push the issue of 9/11 truth. 

When the story about truth activist Nick Kollerstrom and his holocaust denial broke, (which I know was all over this site, amongst others) who was one of his staunchest defenders?

Justin Walker. 

The Green Party need to avoid such people like the plague. And believe me, the 'truth' movement has plenty of them.


----------



## editor (Nov 12, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Funny how one side of this debate is accused of frothing lunacy, but it's clear in this case where the froth and faulty logic is comming from.


Yours by all account, seeing as Paul March has just ripped your pitiful argument into tiny pieces.


taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Fuckity fuck fuck shit cunt wank.


Oh, and no more of this either please.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 12, 2009)

Paul Marsh said:


> Oddly enough one of the 9/11 truth activists I met at Swansea was Justin Walker from North Yorkshire. He was an old Green Party member (a former candidate) who had returned to push the issue of 9/11 truth.
> 
> When the story about truth activist Nick Kollerstrom and his holocaust denial broke, (which I know was all over this site, amongst others) who was one of his staunchest defenders?
> 
> ...



Spot on .... 

Derail risk alert : Any direct link on Justin Walker being a Kollerstrom defender?


----------



## kyser_soze (Nov 12, 2009)

Paul Marsh said:


> Oddly enough one of the 9/11 truth activists I met at Swansea was Justin Walker from North Yorkshire. He was an old Green Party member (a former candidate) who had returned to push the issue of 9/11 truth.
> 
> When the story about truth activist Nick Kollerstrom and his holocaust denial broke, (which I know was all over this site, amongst others) who was one of his staunchest defenders?
> 
> ...



Plenty of unpleasantness bubbling under the fluffy image of the green movement tho - everything from those who espouse 'Ark' theories to back-to-the-forest types.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 12, 2009)

All political parties attract eccentrics, GPEW is no different. This is not to downgrade nasty scumbags to mere "eccentric" - they happen to be nasty scumbag eccentrics.

 Of course it is best to be wary of such people. I'm more concerned that Optimum Population Trust had a stand in Blackpool. Green Left put together and distributed counter-propaganda and with others are making (probably successful) efforts to ensure this doesnt happen again.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 12, 2009)

editor said:


> Yours by all account, seeing as Paul March has just ripped your pitiful argument into tiny pieces.
> Oh, and no more of this either please.



I dont see that Paul has or hasnt "ripped an arguement to tiny pieces". We are having a fairly balanced discussion, something another poster seems entirely incapable of. At least your approach to both me and him/her is balanced.


----------



## editor (Nov 12, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> All political parties attract eccentric, GPEW is no different. Of course it is best to be wary of such people.


Oh, that makes it alright then, even when they're high up in the organisation.  


Why are you excusing this shit?


----------



## Paul Marsh (Nov 12, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> Spot on ....
> 
> Derail risk alert : Any direct link on Justin Walker being a Kollerstrom defender?



Posting (in a rather restrained manner, as Justin below)

http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=14562&sid=a2f9421cd101d3f9da41c7a3f14524f7


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 12, 2009)

editor said:


> Oh, that makes it alright then, even when they're high up in the organisation.
> 
> 
> Why are you excusing this shit?



Which ones are high up? (if you're reffering to someone who ran for Parliament you'll find it's very easy to do for a small party)

Of course I'm not excusing it. Not in any way. But I've been around the block a few times and know that tories, labour, LD, Greens, UKIP and others all attract people with weird and sometimes offensive views. Not an excuse, just an observation.

Some far rights are attracted to Green politics, it's pretty bloody small though.

The far-right play up green politics too (the fascists once cited "Small is Beautiful" as a big influence - doesnt mean it's a bad book).

This is all complicated, nuanced stuff like the whole (largely) fruitful debate on this thread.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 12, 2009)

Cheers for that link Paul.

Sooner you than me for the task of monitoring 9/11 discussion sites and the like though. Quite apart from Justin's post, the general wildness and  barminess of the content of posts all over that site (I've dipped my toe in before) would be a severe trial to the patience of *anyone* who isn't a fully paid up '9/11-troof' obsessive.

Conspiracists in general, 9/11 troofers in particular, with the way they talk and post all over their sites, do a pretty effective job of alienating *anyone* who's not predisposed to believe them.

That's why the word 'cult' is right on the button, and that's why the Greens shouldn't have *anything* to do with the 9/11 crowd if they (the Greens) are halfway sensible. Shane's always been perfectly sensible and sane on most other stuff, I speculate? that he's despaired at times at the sheer counterproductiveness of some of his fellow 9/11-ers ... at least I hope he has!


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 12, 2009)

"the Greens shouldn't have anything to do with the 9/11 crowd if they (the Greens) are halfway sensible"

As I said, the GP candidate for US president (2008) has raised many questions on 911, and it didnt seem to damage her credibility too much. ETA: She was of course a speaker at the conference mentioned in the OP.

I understand the need fully to be careful but I also understand the need to not be frightened off some issues just because some activists on those issues hold "out there" or offensive views.

Another case in point - the anti-Federal Reserve movement in the US is stuffed with right wingers (even though their Jeffersonian remedy is a NATIONALISED bank, also on the lines of GPEW policy drawn up by a Green-Left member).

Does this mean the Fed is good? We are back to eskimos being polar bears again.

If the left do not have a solid and well espoused critique and response to the banking heist we run the risk of being out manouvered by the right. This is pretty much happening already.


----------



## kyser_soze (Nov 12, 2009)

> As I said, the GP candidate for US president (2008) has raised many questions on 911, and it didnt seem to damage her credibility too much.



Yes, because as a candidacy it already had stack of credibility, didn't it?

The thing is, as is usual for CTers like yourself, and despite claiming you want 'nuanced' conversation, you are implying that anyone who questions CTs about 9/11 _also thinks that the current narrative is complete and finished_. This is rubbish - I don't think the USG was involved in 9/11, but I also know for damn sure that there's a lot we don't know about how the US - with the largest intel network in the _world_ - managed to miss it (which I've explained any number of times IMO came down to office politics and conflicting intelligence ideologies leading to a bad risk assessment being made).

I'd also suggest that, no matter how many inquiries, no matter how many classfied documents were revealed etc, that unless the end result was 'Yes the USG was up to it's necks in it, it was all a PNAC plot to invade Afghanistan and Iraq', you won't be satisfied because you _already know the truth_ - any conclusion reached, no matter the extent and quality of the evidence presented, would have to confirm what you already 'know', and anything that didn't conform to this would be rejected as untruth. Same goes for swine flu and the rest of it.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 12, 2009)

*KZ*

_as a candidacy it already had stack of credibility, didn't it?_

The US is one place where non duopoly parties have even worse chance than here. High status "successful" "3rd party" campaigns are pretty rare. I think she stands good comparrison to Nader as a credible candidate for USGP.

_you are implying that anyone who questions CTs about 9/11 also thinks that the current narrative is complete and finished._

You certainly THINK I'm implying it and I would be wary of the dangers of implying it. I certainly try not to and I dont think I have here. Anyone who knows anything about US government history knows they are the most prolific and varied backers of terror and tyranny since world war 2 at least. So any "CT" is already building on that knowledge and in many cases drawing from the detail of it (Paperclip, Gladio, Tonkin, Iran Contra, Backing OBL etc. etc.)

_you won't be satisfied because you already know the truth - any conclusion reached, no matter the extent and quality of the evidence presented, would have to confirm what you already 'know', and anything that didn't conform to this would be rejected as untruth_.

This again is typical cod pschology and supposition. besides which, I dont know the truth.


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 12, 2009)

editor said:


> That's just a lie, plain and simple, and if I could be arsed (trust me, I can't), I could compile a list that would have to involve tens thousands of people to cover all the planning, technology, science and execution of the endless barking 'theories' you've posted up here.



Really editor

that would be YOUR list, not mine. The mendacity is all yours, as is the blatant hypocrisy already exposed. But you 've never been someone to hold up your hands and go 'it's a fair cop guv', ain'tch'a? 

I can't be bothered to address your nonsense about the phone calls on 9/11 (which are, I'm sorry to say, absolutely not hard evidence for anything)


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 12, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> But you 've never been someone to hold up your hands and go 'it's a fair cop guv', ain'tch'a?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 13, 2009)

Get with the whakery of this "loon". Perhaps some self appointed urbanites can swear about him to aid credibility of their case. Very effective ploy that one.


----------



## elbows (Nov 13, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Get with the whakery of this "loon". Perhaps some self appointed urbanites can swear about him to aid credibility of their case. Very effective ploy that one.




Thats a cold war speech that appeals to the press to help defeat the Soviets by being relatively open. The stuff at the start about secret societies is an attempt to highlight the US tradition of disliking secrecy, to demonstrate that such a mistrust of secrecy is part of the American way, a way that will help defeat the Soviets. Its propaganda, which is not to say its completely untrue, for the best propaganda is often truth.

I dont think you will find many people who deny that secret socieites have existed in the past and continue to exist today. What you will find is a large amount of skepticism about how much power such societies possess in the modern age. Personally I feel the reality is likely rather complex, when people come togethr in the open or in secret they gain some power, but the world aint no comic book.


----------



## Paul Marsh (Nov 13, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> Cheers for that link Paul.
> 
> Sooner you than me for the task of monitoring 9/11 discussion sites and the like though. Quite apart from Justin's post, the general wildness and  barminess of the content of posts all over that site (I've dipped my toe in before) would be a severe trial to the patience of *anyone* who isn't a fully paid up '9/11-troof' obsessive.
> 
> ...



There are times when I wonder what the hell I'm doing battling through all this nonsense. Ultimately though, and I and others do it, because this shit, when uncontrolled is dangerous. 

Firstly because we have to criticise Blair, Bush, Brown etc for what they have done, not for what they have not.

Secondly because we cannot allow radical, progressive political currents to be taken over by ideas that will further isolate us, take us even further from the mass of the people, and make us look even more stupid (Something the left is good enough at doing anyway)

Thirdly because the far-right use the conspiracy mind set as a trojan horse. Five minutes on the David Icke forum, and the succession of racist and anti-semitic ideas presented, is enough to see the dangers inherent.

Fourthly, we have a specific task here in the UK to rebut 7/7 conspiracy theories, which are potentially hugely damaging for our community relations. I would not dream, as a white English person, of saying there is no such thing as racism, that different racial and religious groups are not attacked in the UK - they plainly are.
What 'truth' activists have not grasped is how disastrous it is when we see British Muslims like Dr Mohammed Nassem of Birmingham Central mosque standing up and saying no Brits were involved in 7/7, and distributing DVD's saying Israel did it etc etc How long until we see that footage used on a BNP election broadcast? 

Its an on-going struggle, but threads like this are worthwhile. If not, 'truth' activism goes unanswered.....


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 13, 2009)

getting near the end of Richard Tomlinson's book, blimey they don't like people writing books do they? They turned his house over, turned his parents house over, turned his employers place over, and even sent the Australian old bill in to arrest his prospective publisher.

They jailed him for 2 years, stopped him getting bail despite him putting his & parents house up as surety, and sent him to Cat A along with murderers etc!

Clapham Boy will be along in a minute to say all that's perfectly reasonable (or made up)


----------



## kyser_soze (Nov 13, 2009)

> you won't be satisfied because you already know the truth - any conclusion reached, no matter the extent and quality of the evidence presented, would have to confirm what you already 'know', and anything that didn't conform to this would be rejected as untruth.
> 
> This again is typical cod pschology and supposition. besides which, I dont know the truth.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Then you need to look at your prose style and think about how you phrase things.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 13, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> getting near the end of Richard Tomlinson's book, blimey they don't like people writing books do they? They turned his house over, turned his parents house over, turned his employers place over, and even sent the Australian old bill in to arrest his prospective publisher.
> 
> They jailed him for 2 years, stopped him getting bail despite him putting his & parents house up as surety, and sent him to Cat A along with murderers etc!
> 
> Clapham Boy will be along in a minute to say all that's perfectly reasonable (or made up)



What's this got to do with this thread? 

BTW, he was only sentenced to 1 year and was released after 5-6 months.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 13, 2009)

Paul Marsh said:


> There are times when I wonder what the hell I'm doing battling through all this nonsense. Ultimately though, and I and others do it, because this shit, when uncontrolled is dangerous.
> 
> Firstly because we have to criticise Blair, Bush, Brown etc for what they have done, not for what they have not.
> 
> ...



Excellent post, cheers ...


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 13, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> What's this got to do with this thread?
> 
> BTW, he was only sentenced to 1 year and was released after 5-6 months.



I was thinking that it ties in with your love for the establishment


----------



## 8den (Nov 13, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> *KZ*
> 
> _as a candidacy it already had stack of credibility, didn't it?_
> 
> The US is one place where non duopoly parties have even worse chance than here. High status "successful" "3rd party" campaigns are pretty rare. I think she stands good comparrison to Nader as a credible candidate for USGP.



I'm glad you put "3rd party" in commas there. Suggesting the green party candidate would get more than a single percentage of the overall vote is nonsense. You'd be more likely to smell a fart in a hurricane.

Her 9/11 nuttery should be seen as a yardstick for the true level of support her claims have. 0.12%? And yet truthers claim they have something 35% support. Idiots.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 13, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> I was thinking that it ties in with your love for the establishment



I don't have any love for the establishment, you thick twat. 

Isn’t it about time you got over this ridiculous idea that anyone that doesn’t agree with your inane crazy rumblings is automatically an establishment supporter?

FFS get a grip man.


----------



## 8den (Nov 13, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> I was thinking that it ties in with your love for the establishment



Don't you get tried retreading the same old tired cliched accusations against those who disagree with you?


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 13, 2009)

trevhagl said:
			
		

> I was thinking that it ties in with your love for the establishment



 



claphamboy said:


> I don't have any love for the establishment, you thick twat.
> 
> Isn’t it about time you got over this ridiculous idea that anyone that doesn’t agree with your inane crazy rumblings is automatically an establishment supporter?
> 
> FFS get a grip man.






			
				8den said:
			
		

> Don't you get tired retreading the same old tired cliched accusations against those who disagree with you?



Seconded. Sort it out trev -- you're not really as thick as that sort of post suggests.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 13, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> getting near the end of Richard Tomlinson's book, blimey they don't like people writing books do they? They turned his house over, turned his parents house over, turned his employers place over, and even sent the Australian old bill in to arrest his prospective publisher.
> 
> They jailed him for 2 years, stopped him getting bail despite him putting his & parents house up as surety, and sent him to Cat A along with murderers etc!
> 
> Clapham Boy will be along in a minute to say all that's perfectly reasonable (or made up)



Tomlinson freely admits to signing the OSA in his autobiography, doesn't he?
He signed a contract saying that he'd keep his work secret, and he broke that contract. It's not like he was naive about the possibility of being nicked and imprisoned, Trev, and people who breach the OSA know what they're in for, if they've bothered to read the Act.


----------



## Paul Marsh (Nov 13, 2009)

Ditto David Shayler. 

The "I joined the security services and they are not very progressive, do nasty things and I want to tell the world about it" line hardly deserves too much sympathy in my book.........

What do they expect?


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 13, 2009)

Paul Marsh said:


> Ditto David Shayler.
> 
> The "I joined the security services and they are not very progressive, do nasty things and I want to tell the world about it" line hardly deserves too much sympathy in my book.........
> 
> What do they expect?



Lots of publicity, so they can sell more books.


----------



## 8den (Nov 13, 2009)

Paul Marsh said:


> Ditto David Shayler.
> 
> The "I joined the security services and they are not very progressive, do nasty things and I want to tell the world about it" line hardly deserves too much sympathy in my book.........
> 
> What do they expect?



Isn't he calling himself Diane now? Or something...


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 13, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Tomlinson freely admits to signing the OSA in his autobiography, doesn't he?
> He signed a contract saying that he'd keep his work secret, and he broke that contract. It's not like he was naive about the possibility of being nicked and imprisoned, Trev, and people who breach the OSA know what they're in for, if they've bothered to read the Act.



they came to an agreement with him too, and broke it. They also refused to let him go to an employment tribunal, something no other employer could get away with


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 13, 2009)

8den said:


> Isn't he calling himself Diane now? Or something...



might have to!! Once ya upset em you gotta go to great lengths i bet!


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 13, 2009)

8den said:


> Don't you get tried retreading the same old tired cliched accusations against those who disagree with you?




well i mustn't cos i'm always on here aren't i!!

ha ha.


----------



## 8den (Nov 13, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> well i mustn't cos i'm always on here aren't i!!
> 
> ha ha.



And As Bearla Please?


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 13, 2009)

8den said:


> Isn't he calling himself Diane now? Or something...



He's also claiming to be the son of God too. 



trevhagl said:


> might have to!! Once ya upset em you gotta go to great lengths i bet!



He's a fucking fruitloon, make no mistake.


----------



## Paul Marsh (Nov 13, 2009)

8den said:


> Isn't he calling himself Diane now? Or something...



David Shayler is now Delores. 

His legs are fabulous by the way.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Nov 13, 2009)

His top needs a wash, however.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Nov 13, 2009)

He has now got some better wigs


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 13, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> He has now got some better wigs



From that link;



> And no, I haven’t had a breakdown



No?



> As the Christ, I’m the begotten of Jesus the Father and Gaia, the divine mother and goddess of love and sexuality. She does not incarnate into this world. I’m therefore the closest you will get to an incarnation of Gaia also known as the Magdalene.







> People forget that God has a sense of humour – making his chosen one a tranny must be the biggest joke of all time.







> [my ex-girlfriend Annie ] I’ve seen very little of her and not at all this year so she really is in no position to judge my mental state.



We are, you're a total fucking loon.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 13, 2009)

8den said:


> I'm glad you put "3rd party" in commas there. Suggesting the green party candidate would get more than a single percentage of the overall vote is nonsense. You'd be more likely to smell a fart in a hurricane.
> 
> Her 9/11 nuttery should be seen as a yardstick for the true level of support her claims have. 0.12%? And yet truthers claim they have something 35% support. Idiots.



I put "3rd party" that way because Constitutionalists and Libertarians could make an equal claim and it is how non Dumbo/Repugs are reffered to.

The fact that 3rd candidates invariably score very badly is not a reflection on the credibility of their case but on the highly corrupt duopoly cartel nature of the US system and how their voting works. I have no idea whether you think corruption and lack of choice is a good thing, but sneering at credible small parties just because they are small plays into the hands of the status quo.

Oh, have you managed to figure out that microwave weapons actually exist yet?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 13, 2009)

Shayler is said to have "lost it" after a highly psychotic drugs episode. Just like Icke. Funny old world.


----------



## ymu (Nov 13, 2009)

Paul Marsh said:


> David Shayler is now Delores.
> 
> His legs are fabulous by the way.


Dolores. And he's been using that name and cross-dressing for years. Not a sex change, not a name change - just a load of bigoted tabloid nonsense.

He's a very strange man, don't get me wrong, but it's a bit bollocks to have a go at him for being a cross-dresser when there's plenty of legitimate lines of attack.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 13, 2009)

ymu said:


> Dolores. And he's been using that name and cross-dressing for years. Not a sex change, not a name change - just a load of bigoted tabloid nonsense.
> 
> He's a very strange man, don't get me wrong, but it's a bit bollocks to have a go at him for being a cross-dresser when there's plenty of legitimate lines of attack.



get over yourself, no-ones had a go at him for being a cross dresser

and his legs arent bad


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 13, 2009)

ymu said:


> Dolores. And he's been using that name and cross-dressing for years. Not a sex change, not a name change - just a load of bigoted tabloid nonsense.
> 
> He's a very strange man, don't get me wrong, but it's a bit bollocks to have a go at him for being a cross-dresser when there's plenty of legitimate lines of attack.



Has anyone had a go at him for being a cross-dresser?


----------



## chazegee (Nov 13, 2009)

ymu said:


> Dolores. And he's been using that name and cross-dressing for years. Not a sex change, not a name change - just a load of bigoted tabloid nonsense.
> 
> He's a very strange man, don't get me wrong, but it's a bit bollocks to have a go at him for being a cross-dresser when there's plenty of legitimate lines of attack.



Stella Rimmington was on the radio recently saying that being a spy drives you crazy.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 13, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> More on this aspect, please ...
> 
> Something that may? tie in with this : Shane Collins, sometime Green and anti-globalisation activist, seems in more recent times to have turned into a 9/11 troofer type ....
> 
> I liked Shane personally when I knew him prior to 2006 (not seen him since), but I think he's headed in a completely bizarre direction ... perhaps he's not alone in this by any means.



lol, that bastard Collins ended up a troofer, i didnt know that

incidentally Shane is from the aristocratic Collins dynasty, named by fritz springmeier at the hidden 13th family of the illuminati who's job it is to infiltrate and control progressive and left wing movements


----------



## 8den (Nov 13, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I put "3rd party" that way because Constitutionalists and Libertarians could make an equal claim and it is how non Dumbo/Repugs are reffered to.
> 
> The fact that 3rd candidates invariably score very badly is not a reflection on the credibility of their case but on the highly corrupt duopoly cartel nature of the US system and how their voting works. I have no idea whether you think corruption and lack of choice is a good thing, but sneering at credible small parties just because they are small plays into the hands of the status quo.



It's a nice like you need to clarify things in order to justify this nonense. 


> Oh, have you managed to figure out that microwave weapons actually exist yet?



Oh bless, has anyone got them working yet? No, shut the fuck up then.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 13, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Oh, have you managed to figure out that microwave weapons actually exist yet?



Let's have a look at some then, I'm sure you must have links a plenty


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 13, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Shayler is said to have "lost it" after a highly psychotic drugs episode. Just like Icke. Funny old world.



Meaning?


----------



## editor (Nov 13, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> I can't be bothered to address your nonsense about the phone calls on 9/11 (which are, I'm sorry to say, absolutely not hard evidence for anything)


Apart from the last, desperate, deeply intimate conversations which the bereaved hold on to and deeply offensive cunts like you try to tell them that they were in fact talking to a fucking team of CIA Mike Yarwoods.

Jeremy Glick's widow writes to her young daughter:


> As the days rolled by after September 11th, I told myself that I’d done the hardest thing already: I’d said goodbye to your father, my soulmate, the only man I’ve ever loved.
> 
> I’ll tell you more about our last telephone conversation later because its meaning will change once you know the whole story. But I can tell you that when your father called from Flight 93 and told me it had been commandeered by some “bad men,” we knew exactly how to speak to each other, and we kept our heads — except for when he said, “I don’t think I’m going to get out of this.” He started sobbing so quietly that only I, who knew him so well, would have known he was crying. It made me feel terribly helpless because, except for the night you were born, I’d never heard your father cry.
> 
> ...


Do you still think the calls were faked, Jazzz?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 13, 2009)

8den said:


> It's a nice like you need to clarify things in order to justify this nonense.
> 
> 
> Oh bless, has anyone got them working yet? No, shut the fuck up then.



Please dont answer your own questions pre-emptively. especially if you answering them wrongly. The petulant swearing makes you look even more daft. But the article doesnt have swear words in it, so you might not find it too credible.

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

From which (cited)

"A fully operational and mounted system was demonstrated on January 24, 2007, at Moody Air Force Base, Georgia, United States. A Reuters correspondent who volunteered to be shot with the beam during the demonstration described it as "similar to a blast from a very hot oven – too painful to bear without diving for cover"

beesonthewhatnow

The above was found very quickly, so there's no need to goad others. You could try looking into things yourself. Try "New scientist microwave weapons" for starters. Are the NS a bunch of loonbuckets too?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 13, 2009)

editor said:


> Do you still think the calls were faked, Jazzz?



I wouldn't hold your breath before getting a straight answer to this question.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 13, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Please dont answer your own questions pre-emptively. especially if you answering them wrongly. The petulant swearing makes you look even more daft. But the article doesnt have swear words in it, so you might not find it too credible.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System



Yeah man, that'll bring down planes/control peoples minds/insert nanobots/whateverbarmyshitetheycomeupwithnext no worries.


----------



## editor (Nov 13, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> The above was found very quickly, so there's no need to goad others. You could try looking into things yourself. Try "New scientist microwave weapons" for starters. Are the NS a bunch of loonbuckets too?


And your compelling evidence for an infinitely more advanced and more powerful system of this type being successful - and invisibly - deployed getting on for a decade ago is....?

Why do you think it's never been seen since if it was so powerful and effective?


----------



## 8den (Nov 13, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Please dont answer your own questions pre-emptively. especially if you answering them wrongly. The petulant swearing makes you look even more daft. But the article doesnt have swear words in it, so you might not find it too credible.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System
> 
> ...



And what has been pointed out to you, worthless fucking cunt. Is that THEY DON'T COCKING WORK. If you've got keys or coins in your pocket it becomes a much more serious issue YOU PATHETIC FUCKING WANKER. 

NOW. FUCK. THE SHIT OFF. Taffy you're an idiot working above your pay grade.


----------



## 8den (Nov 13, 2009)

> View Post
> Do you still think the calls were faked, Jazzz?



Dozens of people made phonecalls, some of whom gave incredibly personal details (like safe combinations) some of whom made calls to the phoneline of their airlines' call center (really Jazzz you're accusing someone who works in a call centre of being part of conspiracy?) some of the passengers got on the plane at the last minute. 

You're a fucking dick. An obnoxious dick.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 13, 2009)

Sorry, did I miss something, how did we get onto microwave weapons? 

taffboy, surely you don't think they were used to bring down the twin towers?


----------



## 8den (Nov 13, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> Sorry, did I miss something, how did we get onto microwave weapons?
> 
> taffboy, surely you don't think they were used to bring down the twin towers?



Taffy is thinking about a thread he imagines he "won". Hey taffy shall I link to the 9/11 thread you claimed you were about to get back to me on? Two years ago?


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 13, 2009)

editor said:


> Do you still think the calls were faked, Jazzz?



We've been over the calls countless times, and I have little intention of doing so again. Indeed, may I remind you, this is your board policy.

What is most notable, however, is that when it comes to giving the hard evidence for the official story of 9/11, it's the phone calls that always get mentioned, although they are little more than hearsay. They are most emphatically *not hard evidence*. They are all kinds of ways that deception could occur with them.

Another point which I will make, however, is that phone calls from flight 93 (which were the vast majority) can prove absolutely nothing about the flights which are alleged to have done the damage.


----------



## Mooncat (Nov 13, 2009)

Meanwhile the Awareness of Lubrication Controversy keeps growing:



> For years, the conventional wisdom had been taken for granted: putting oil into your car will protect it from the effects of friction and maybe even increase its lifespan.
> 
> But now, in this era of ever-increasing consumer awareness, more and more drivers are questioning the value and the safety of this practice.



http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=154688


----------



## 8den (Nov 13, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> We've been over the calls countless times, and I have little intention of doing so again. Indeed, may I remind you, this is your board policy.
> 
> What is most notable, however, is that when it comes to giving the hard evidence for the official story of 9/11, it's the phone calls that always get mentioned, although they are little more than hearsay. They are most emphatically *not hard evidence*. They are all kinds of ways that deception could occur with them.
> 
> Another point which I will make, however, is that phone calls from flight 93 (which were the vast majority) can prove absolutely nothing about the flights which are alleged to have done the damage.



You're a disgusting excuse for a human being devaluing the last moments of people who sacrificed themselves bravely.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 13, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> They are most emphatically *not hard evidence*. They are all kinds of ways that deception could occur with them.



not hard evidence in the way the footage of the planes hitting the towers was or the taped confessions probably

but slightly more than circumstantial, being the only records that exist of direct witnesses to the hijack

you ever been to court jazzz


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 13, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> We've been over the calls countless times, and I have little intention of doing so again. Indeed, may I remind you, this is your board policy.
> 
> What is most notable, however, is that when it comes to giving the hard evidence for the official story of 9/11, it's the phone calls that always get mentioned, although they are little more than hearsay. They are most emphatically *not hard evidence*. They are all kinds of ways that deception could occur with them.
> 
> Another point which I will make, however, is that phone calls from flight 93 (which were the vast majority) can prove absolutely nothing about the flights which are alleged to have done the damage.


You twat


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 13, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> We've been over the calls countless times, and I have little intention of doing so again. Indeed, may I remind you, this is your board policy.
> 
> What is most notable, however, is that when it comes to giving the hard evidence for the official story of 9/11, it's the phone calls that always get mentioned, although they are little more than hearsay. They are most emphatically *not hard evidence*. They are all kinds of ways that deception could occur with them.
> 
> Another point which I will make, however, is that phone calls from flight 93 (which were the vast majority) can prove absolutely nothing about the flights which are alleged to have done the damage.



Jesus Fucking H Christ on a Fucking Bike, you are one hell of a twat.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 13, 2009)

Mooncat said:


> Meanwhile the Awareness of Lubrication Controversy keeps growing:
> 
> http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=154688


----------



## Mooncat (Nov 13, 2009)

claphamboy said:


>



I recognised quite a few characters from Urban on there


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 13, 2009)

Mooncat said:


> I recognised quite a few characters from Urban on there



Yep. 



> So what about the body of evidence that contradicts the Anti-Lubrication movement? Why would anybody listen to Bimbo Larue when experts with years of mechanical experience disagree with her?
> 
> Perhaps she says it best: "I'll always trust my driver's instinct over the so-called experts. I have Mr. Ford Focus back home - he's my years of mechanical experience."



I wonder who that could be.


----------



## Mooncat (Nov 14, 2009)

> "This one site on Google says that, like, 150 years ago, almost nobody lubricated the engines on their vehicles. And how many airbags misdeployed? None. Now we have airbags firing off left and right - after more vehicles got lubricated. Coincidence? I think not. Anybody who denies the effects of lubrication on RAD is either in denial or is willfully closed-minded to anything that doesn't fit their 'science.'"



and 



> However, most readers will easily identify McCallister as a mean old poo-poo scientist who never agrees with anything fun or interesting, and who only says boring technical stuff in interviews.



Struck me the most


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 14, 2009)

8den said:


> THEY DON'T COCKING WORK.



Oh, the Reuters guy must of been lying.

I'll translate that into language you understand.

The fucking reuters guy must have been cocking lying wank shiggity shit fuck.


----------



## 8den (Nov 14, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Oh, the Reuters guy must of been lying.
> 
> I'll translate that into language you understand.
> 
> The fucking reuters guy must have been cocking lying wank shiggity shit fuck.



Oh Noes



> The device is an extension of its controversial Active Denial System, which uses microwaves to heat the surface of the skin, creating a painful sensation without burning that strongly motivates the target to flee. The ADS was unveiled in 2001, but it has not been deployed owing to legal issues and safety fears.




You're lying, it's not ever walked off the testing ground. 

Oh does diddly lil taff need a huggy wuggy? 

Oh shall I link to the 911 thread you promised to get back to me on, but never did? Did you miss that bit? 

Now fuck off, cunt.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 14, 2009)

8den said:


> Oh Noes
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How can you fail to see that you have essentially destroyed your own argument already by using such vile abuse?

Neither Jazzz nor Taffboy ever use such language.  The fact that you, like the vast majority of your fellow conspiracy denialists, invariably curse, rant and rave in the most obscene terms throughout these discussions indicates to observers that you basically have no case to argue.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 14, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> You twat



More empty obscenity.

Most people here wish that the denialists could find a way to make their point without resorting to such tactics.  Since that wish is virtually never granted we are forced to draw our own conclusions regarding the validity of your case.


----------



## 8den (Nov 14, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> More empty obscenity.
> 
> Most people here wish that the denialists could find a way to make their point without resorting to such tactics.  Since that wish is virtually never granted we are forced to draw our own conclusions regarding the validity of your case.



Yawn..how's the blowjob to punch in the face ratio working out for you?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 14, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> Jesus Fucking H Christ on a Fucking Bike, you are one hell of a twat.



Again, anyone reading this will wonder why you are your fellow denialists find it impossible to discuss these issues without immediately breaking down into hysterical raging and cursing.  

If you have anything sensible to say, please do so with the same courtesy used by your opponents.  Otherwise I'm afraid that no-one here will take you seriously.


----------



## 8den (Nov 14, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> How can you fail to see that you have essentially destroyed your own argument already by using such vile abuse?
> 
> Neither Jazzz nor Taffboy ever use such language.  The fact that you, like the vast majority of your fellow conspiracy denialists, invariably curse, rant and rave in the most obscene terms throughout these discussions indicates to observers that you basically have no case to argue.



Boring Jazzz and Taffy link to vile liars frequently. Whats more offensive calling someone a cunt or pointing out they're linking to holocaust deniers? 

Oh and Phil you're an utter cunt. 

Oh did the mean man use a nasty word. 

You're a cunt phil. I use the word because it is apt and accurate. BTW I saw the link to your study. You're an empty vessel pretending to have an opinion on a serious matter. Which makes you a worthless cunt.


----------



## 8den (Nov 14, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Again, anyone reading this will wonder why you are your fellow denialists find it impossible to discuss these issues without immediately breaking down into hysterical raging and cursing.
> 
> If you have anything sensible to say, please do so with the same courtesy used by your opponents.  Otherwise I'm afraid that no-one here will take you seriously.




Xes, Jazzz and Trev are the only people who like you on this thread, that not a ringing endorsement. 

It's like a silent endorsement. 

It's like getting the cast of fecking one flew over the cuckoo nest as a cheerleading squad.


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 14, 2009)

smokedout said:


> not hard evidence in the way the footage of the planes hitting the towers was or the taped confessions probably
> 
> but slightly more than circumstantial, being the only records that exist of direct witnesses to the hijack
> 
> you ever been to court jazzz



taped confessions? You don't mean the 'fatty' bin laden video of the actor who looks nothing like him and is wearing a gold ring?


----------



## 8den (Nov 14, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> taped confessions? You don't mean the 'fatty' bin laden video of the actor who looks nothing like him and is wearing a gold ring?



Shall we have an endearing conversation about aspect ratio, and expose how once again you don't have a bogs notion what you are on about?


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 14, 2009)

8den said:


> Shall we have an endearing conversation about aspect ratio, and expose how once again you don't have a bogs notion what you are on about?


You may show me one key factor which positively affirms that this ridiculous video actually features Bin Laden and not a cheap impostor.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 14, 2009)

8den said:


> Xes, Jazzz and Trev are the only people who like you on this thread, that not a ringing endorsement.



You continue to present this as a popularity contest, as opposed to a logical discussion.

You continue to rage and storm, to swear and curse, thus revealing your utter impotence in rational debate.

You have, patently and manifestly, lost the argument.  

Perhaps you should now consider leaving this discourse to those who are capable of conducting themselves in a civilized fashion?


----------



## 8den (Nov 14, 2009)

> What is most notable, however, is that when it comes to giving the hard evidence for the official story of 9/11, it's the phone calls that always get mentioned, although they are little more than hearsay. They are most emphatically not hard evidence



You disgusting little dishonest piece of shit. 

No one proclaims the calls as "hard evidence" what they are evidence is the trauma, dignity, and spontaneous bravery of a few men, and women, who spent their last moments fighting and dying for their life. 

Hundreds of people, including volunteers from their county fire and paramedic departments rushed to the crash site of United 93. These were the people who came across the plane and it's passengers wreckage. 

You are incredibly ignorantly implying both the family members who took the calls, and these volunteers who were first to arrive are either lying, deceived   or idiots. 

You fucking wanker.


----------



## 8den (Nov 14, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> You continue to present this as a popularity contest, as opposed to a logical discussion.
> 
> You continue to rage and storm, to swear and curse, thus revealing your utter impotence in rational debate.
> 
> ...



How's the blow job to punch in face ratio going for you?


----------



## 8den (Nov 14, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> You may show me one key factor which positively affirms that this ridiculous video actually features Bin Laden and not a cheap impostor.



Yeah you fucking nutwing show me evidence the video is fake. 

Or explain why would the USA hire some "cheap imposter" for their video. 

Idiot.


----------



## editor (Nov 14, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> What is most notable, however, is that when it comes to giving the hard evidence for the official story of 9/11, it's the phone calls that always get mentioned, although they are little more than hearsay. They are most emphatically *not hard evidence*. They are all kinds of ways that deception could occur with them..


So let's get this straight.

You're saying that either Mrs Glick was lying to her daughter about the intimate long conversation she had with her husband, or that she was simply _too stupid_ to realise that she was in fact talking to some CIA impersonator and not her husband?

You're clearly refusing to accept her testimony, so it has to be one of the above. Which is it Jazzz? 

Oh, and how likely do you think it is that some government-hired imposter would be able to impersonate someone's husband so incredibly well that not once in the following eight years has that person ever expressed even the slightest doubt?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 14, 2009)

related more to the original OP: Conspiracy will meet mainstream soon with Jesse Ventura's new series (I think on what used to be Court TV)

People may want tol laugh that he was once a wrestler, but he was also a Navy Seal and State Governer (got in as an Independent which takes some doing).

I have no idea how good or bad the show will be, there will be the usual myopic crap on global warming, but I expect it to be generally a deal less conservative than the BBC Conspiracy Files.

Bit too showbizzy trailer:


----------



## Barking_Mad (Nov 14, 2009)

8den said:


> Boring Jazzz and Taffy link to vile liars frequently. Whats more offensive calling someone a cunt or pointing out they're linking to holocaust deniers?
> 
> Oh and Phil you're an utter cunt.
> 
> ...



Pointless, utterly pointless.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 14, 2009)

Barking_Mad said:


> Pointless, utterly pointless.



I must disagree.  8den's incessant stream of threats and abuse is far from pointless.  Its point is to distract our attention from the substantive facts of the matter, thus concealing the obvious truth that 8den has been comprehensively humiliated in this debate.

Whether or not his crude tactics can carry this point is of course a very different question.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 14, 2009)

phildwyer;9946453][QUOTE=claphamboy said:


> Jesus Fucking H Christ on a Fucking Bike, you are one hell of a twat.



Again, anyone reading this will wonder why you are your fellow denialists find it impossible to discuss these issues without immediately breaking down into hysterical raging and cursing.  

If you have anything sensible to say, please do so with the same courtesy used by your opponents.  Otherwise I'm afraid that no-one here will take you seriously.[/QUOTE]

  

There are no issues to discuss concerning Jazzz's latest post suggesting the phone calls from flight 93 were faked, well apart from if he's just a twat or a delusional twat.

If he posts anything sensible, he will get a sensible response, if he continues to post highly offensive nutbobbins bollocks he will get the response it demands.

As for anyone taking anyone seriously, that is a problem for Jazzz on this particular point, as you well know, because you don't even take him seriously, so you can drop the act.


----------



## editor (Nov 14, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Whether or not his crude tactics can carry this point is of course a very different question.


The bad language is over the top, but I can see why's he's angry though. 

What do you think about Jazzz's suggestion that the people who took the calls from the planes were either fooled by the CIA team of insta-impersonators or that the loved ones were just too stupid to realise they weren't talking to their partners?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 14, 2009)

editor said:


> What do you think about Jazzz's suggestion that the people who took the calls from the planes were either fooled by the CIA team of insta-impersonators or that the loved ones were just too stupid to realise they weren't talking to their partners?



Is that what Jazzz is claiming?

I certainly don't agree with it.  I'm certain that the towers were brought down by airplanes flown by Islamic extremists.  Just because I credit some conspiracy theories doesn't mean I believe in them all.  

However, having an infuriated idiot like 8den raving and cursing away all night long hardly helps the denialist case.  I wouldn't be surprised to learn that he's a deep-cover CT-er in fact.

I do suspect the US government had an idea that some kind of attack was imminent (which was basic common sense really), and that they didn't try particularly hard to prevent it, because they planned to exploit it for their own ends.  But I don't think they had any idea where or when it was going to happen, and I certainly don't think they were involved in planning or executing it.


----------



## Knotted (Nov 14, 2009)

I've thought about this for some time now. My problem with conspiracy theories is not so much whether they are right or wrong - I can maintain an open mind if need to. My problem is that they are so often techniques to devorse yourself from taking a difficult political stance.

911 is a perfect case. It excuses you from principled opposition to war. 911 conspiracy theories implicitly say that war is justified if the oppressed happen to carry out a horrific attack of their own. There is good political reason to assume that attacks are not inside jobs - it means you can communicate principled political points. That's why conspiracy theories suck.


----------



## Knotted (Nov 14, 2009)

I should probably add that the medical conspiracy theories are of a different character. They are just a more straightforward case of people being badly informed, poor public understanding of science, the tendency to generalise from bad personal experiences and rightwing paranoia - file under "woo".


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 14, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> More empty obscenity.
> 
> Most people here wish that the denialists could find a way to make their point without resorting to such tactics.  Since that wish is virtually never granted we are forced to draw our own conclusions regarding the validity of your case.



you twat


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 14, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I certainly don't agree with it.



Well it’s nice of you to admit that you don’t believe a word of the nutbobbins bollocks that Jazzz has posted over the last couple pages and I am sure you can see just how offensive it is too, which just begs the question as to why you made multiply posts defending the twat?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 14, 2009)

Knotted said:


> I should probably add that the medical conspiracy theories are of a different character. They are just a more straightforward case of people being badly informed, poor public understanding of science, the tendency to generalise from bad personal experiences and rightwing paranoia - file under "woo".



I've no idea why you'd say this.  There have been *many, many* medical conspiracies that are now universally accepted as fact, as you must know.

And most people who suspect that the "swine flu" vaccine is dangerous aren't claiming a conspiracy at all--merely that inadequate testing was carried out due to considerations of profit.  That's hardly inherently implausible even if you don't believe it.

The truth is that medical conspiracies are very easy to perpetrate, due to the blind, superstitious faith that most of the Western public places in "scientists."


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 14, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> Well it’s nice of you to admit that you don’t believe a word of the nutbobbins bollocks that Jazzz has posted over the last couple pages and I am sure you can see just how offensive it is too, which just begs the question as to why you made multiply posts defending the twat?



I don't find Jazzz's posts offensive in the slightest.

I defended him because he generally makes a lot more sense than those attacking him.  Just read over 8den's posts from last night.  They are either the squallings of a lunatic or the grizzlings of a drunkard: in all probability both.  I fail to see why such bizarre freaks should be permitted to pollute these boards unchallenged.


----------



## Knotted (Nov 14, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I've no idea why you'd say this.  There have been *many, many* medical conspiracies that are now universally accepted as fact, as you must know.
> 
> And most people who suspect that the "swine flu" vaccine is dangerous aren't claiming a conspiracy at all--merely that inadequate testing was carried out due to considerations of profit.  That's hardly inherently implausible even if you don't believe it.
> 
> The truth is that medical conspiracies are very easy to perpetrate, due to the blind, superstitious faith that most of the Western public places in "scientists."



This is plainly ludicrous. There is more chance that Hitler is alive and well and living on the moon than entire scientific and medical enterprises conspiring down to the very last man and woman to mislead the public.


----------



## 8den (Nov 14, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> related more to the original OP: Conspiracy will meet mainstream soon with Jesse Ventura's new series (I think on what used to be Court TV)
> 
> People may want tol laugh that he was once a wrestler, but he was also a Navy Seal and State Governer (got in as an Independent which takes some doing).
> 
> ...




Obnoxious blowhard has tv show. Repeats same tired worn out bullshit Dylan Avery and Alex Jones have been spouting. 

No one really fucking notices or cares.


----------



## 8den (Nov 14, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I don't find Jazzz's posts offensive in the slightest.
> 
> I defended him because he generally makes a lot more sense than those attacking him.  Just read over 8den's posts from last night.  They are either the squallings of a lunatic or the grizzlings of a drunkard: in all probability both.  I fail to see why such bizarre freaks should be permitted to pollute these boards unchallenged.



Oh Phil have you figured out that anti viral drugs aren't the same as a vaccine yet? 

The fact that such an elementary point eludes you betrays how no one should really pay attention to your rantings on any medical matter.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 14, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> you twat



So this is what passes for wit _chez_ Blagsta these days?  

May I suggest that you and 8den create your own little thread together, leaving the rest of us to continue our discussion in an adult fashion?

Next time, it won't be a suggestion.


----------



## Knotted (Nov 14, 2009)

To put it another way, Phil - the smaller the conspiracy, the more discipline that it can exact the higher the chance it will succeed undetected. Medical conspiracy theories are about conspiracies involving huge numbers of people who are trained to question and who have no party line. There are no medical conspiracies. Get used to the idea.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 14, 2009)

Knotted said:


> This is plainly ludicrous. There is more chance that Hitler is alive and well and living on the moon than entire scientific and medical enterprises conspiring down to the very last man and woman to mislead the public.



Indeed?

Does the name Tuskagee mean nothing to you?


----------



## Knotted (Nov 14, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Indeed?
> 
> Does the name Tuskagee mean nothing to you?



OK, fair enough. That wasn't the sort of conspiracy I was thinking of. I was talking about government policy as applied to the population rather than secret experiments. Anti-vaccine stuff, anti-psychiatry stuff etc.etc. You know the shtick.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 14, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I don't find Jazzz's posts offensive in the slightest.



You don't find, to quote 8den, Jazzz's attempts at 'devaluing the last moments of people who sacrificed themselves bravely' on flight 93, offensive?


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 14, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> So this is what passes for wit _chez_ Blagsta these days?
> 
> May I suggest that you and 8den create your own little thread together, leaving the rest of us to continue our discussion in an adult fashion?
> 
> Next time, it won't be a suggestion.



lol


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 14, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> You don't find, to quote 8den, Jazzz's attempts at 'devaluing the last moments of people who sacrificed themselves bravely' on flight 93, offensive?



No.  But I find 8den's cheap attempt to smear Jazzz as disrespectful to the dead extremely offensive.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 14, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> they came to an agreement with him too, and broke it. They also refused to let him go to an employment tribunal, something no other employer could get away with



You're missing a couple of points.

1) He signed a contract and broke it, knowing the consequences.

2) The security services, like the military, have internal disciplinary structures in _lieu_ of tribunals, and only refer minor non-sensitive cases. Tomlinson would also have been well aware of that.

I feel sorry for Tomlinson, but that doesn't change the fact that he knew what he was doing, and chose to do it.


----------



## 8den (Nov 14, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> No.  But I find 8den's cheap attempt to smear Jazzz as disrespectful to the dead extremely offensive.




And here is Jazzz called Ted Olson, husband of murdered Barabara Oslon a liar. 




			
				DrJazzz said:
			
		

> The Olsen call which I believe is a fib on the part of Ted Olsen



This thread is litered with Jazzz being a cunt about the people who made and received calls. 

Now fuck off Dwyer.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 14, 2009)

8den said:


> This thread is litered with Jazzz being a cunt about the people who made and received calls.



 What a delusional twat.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 14, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Please dont answer your own questions pre-emptively. especially if you answering them wrongly. The petulant swearing makes you look even more daft. But the article doesnt have swear words in it, so you might not find it too credible.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System
> 
> ...


You are aware that the ADS is an anti-personnel weapon, and that an anti-vehicle/plane weapon would need to be larger, require a lot more power and need to cover far greater distances than a crowd-control weapon, aren't you?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 14, 2009)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Yeah man, that'll bring down planes/control peoples minds/insert nanobots/whateverbarmyshitetheycomeupwithnext no worries.



A microwave weapon that could bring down a large passenger plane would need to be rather large, and need a host of ancillary plant to move and power it. Kind of hard to keep secret in the middle of New York or Washington DC, or even the wild farmland of Pennsylvania, for that matter.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 14, 2009)

8den said:


> How's the blow job to punch in face ratio going for you?



Let's just say that his favourite song at the moment is "two lovely black eyes".


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 14, 2009)

There's an 'in' joke going on here and I know nothing.


----------



## editor (Nov 14, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I don't find Jazzz's posts offensive in the slightest.


You don't find his fact-free accusation that Glick's widow is either lying to her daughter and the world, or that she was simply too stupid to work out she was talking to an imposter on 9/11?

Jazzz's pathetic attempts to extract conspiraloon mileage out a couple's last, desperate, intimate conversation are offensive in the extreme to any decent person.


----------



## kyser_soze (Nov 14, 2009)

from the aces Discovery Future Weapons show...

First field deployment not until 2010 at the earliest according to global security.

So while they exist, they aren't in use, are easily affected by the weather, and can be defended against with a dustbin lid.


----------



## editor (Nov 14, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> from the aces Discovery Future Weapons show...
> 
> First field deployment not until 2010 at the earliest according to global security.
> 
> So while they exist, they aren't in use, are easily affected by the weather, and can be defended against with a dustbin lid.


That's nitpicking.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 14, 2009)

editor said:


> You don't find his fact-free accusation that Glick's widow is either lying to her daughter and the world, or that she was simply too stupid to work out she was talking to an imposter on 9/11?
> 
> Jazzz's pathetic attempts to extract conspiraloon mileage out a couple's last, desperate, intimate conversation are offensive in the extreme to any decent person.



Well, we'll have to differ about what we find offensive.

But at least Jazzz doesn't _intend_ to be offensive, and at least he makes substantive arguments.

Unlike 8den.  I cite a random selection of his recent posts here.  Yes of course he was drunk--the level of obscenity and abuse grows progressively higher as the hour grows progressively smaller--but that's really no excuse.




8den said:


> You're a fucking dick. An obnoxious dick.





8den said:


> And what has been pointed out to you, worthless fucking cunt. Is that THEY DON'T COCKING WORK. If you've got keys or coins in your pocket it becomes a much more serious issue YOU PATHETIC FUCKING WANKER.
> 
> NOW. FUCK. THE SHIT OFF. Taffy you're an idiot working above your pay grade.






8den said:


> You disgusting little dishonest piece of shit.
> 
> No one proclaims the calls as "hard evidence" what they are evidence is the trauma, dignity, and spontaneous bravery of a few men, and women, who spent their last moments fighting and dying for their life.
> 
> ...





8den said:


> Oh bless, has anyone got them working yet? No, shut the fuck up then.





8den said:


> You're lying, it's not ever walked off the testing ground.
> 
> Oh does diddly lil taff need a huggy wuggy?
> 
> ...





8den said:


> Oh and Phil you're an utter cunt.
> 
> Oh did the mean man use a nasty word.
> 
> You're a cunt phil. I use the word because it is apt and accurate. BTW I saw the link to your study. You're an empty vessel pretending to have an opinion on a serious matter. Which makes you a worthless cunt.





8den said:


> You're a disgusting excuse for a human being devaluing the last moments of people who sacrificed themselves bravely.





8den said:


> Jazzz being a cunt about the people who made and received calls.
> 
> Now fuck off Dwyer.


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 14, 2009)

editor said:


> You don't find his fact-free accusation that Glick's widow is either lying to her daughter and the world, or that she was simply too stupid to work out she was talking to an imposter on 9/11?


That's funny, because my only observation on this thread so far about the flight 93 phone calls has been that they can prove absolutely nothing about the other three flights.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 14, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> But at least Jazzz doesn't _intend_ to be offensive, and at least *he makes substantive arguments.*



He does?

His suggestions that the flight 93 calls were faked has no basis in reality, they are totally delusional.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 14, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> He does?
> 
> His suggestions that the flight 93 calls were faked has no basis in reality, they are totally delusional.



That's still several steps up from 8den's drunken ravings.


----------



## 8den (Nov 14, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Well, we'll have to differ about what we find offensive.
> 
> But at least Jazzz doesn't _intend_ to be offensive, and at least he makes substantive arguments.
> 
> Unlike 8den.  I cite a random selection of his recent posts here.  Yes of course he was drunk--the level of obscenity and abuse grows progressively higher as the hour grows progressively smaller--but that's really no excuse.



Yes because calling a man a liar when he discusses his final moments with his wife, isn't offensive at all. Idiot.


----------



## editor (Nov 14, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> That's funny, because my only observation on this thread so far about the flight 93 phone calls has been that they can prove absolutely nothing about the other three flights.


Let's get this straight: are you _actually denying_ that you previously claimed that the calls could have been faked? And are you denying that you claimed Ted Olsen was lying about the call from his wife?


----------



## 8den (Nov 14, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> That's still several steps up from 8den's drunken ravings.



What stunted warped morality do you live with?


----------



## editor (Nov 14, 2009)

Two second search found this gem: 






			
				jazzz said:
			
		

> I would just like to point out briefly that all the calls editor is referring to come from Flight 93, the last of the four flights. So at best that's only evidence of the last flight being hijacked. And none of it is hard evidence! Of course we are expected to gloss over the thorny question of whether the calls were possible from cellphones at cruising altitude.
> 
> There were two calls from the other flights. Both of those are highly suspect. editor used to give the full emotive treatment of the Barbara Olsen call from flight 77, just like the ones above - but he no longer does so seeing as Ted Olsen happens to be a Bush Crony, on record as saying that "sometimes the public need to be given falsehoods" or similar, and was apparently having pronounced marital difficulties :eek
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=1676427&postcount=107


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 14, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> That's still several steps up from 8den's drunken ravings.



Delusional ravings -v- drunken ravings.

I think I would prefer being drunk myself, at least in the morning you wake-up sober.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 14, 2009)

8den said:


> Yes because calling a man a liar when he discusses his final moments with his wife, isn't offensive at all. Idiot.



Hang on, there's no swearing here.

Has someone commandeered 8den's computer, or is the sun not yet over the yard-arm?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 14, 2009)

editor said:


> And are you denying that you claimed Ted Olsen was lying about the call from his wife?



I don't say he was lying in this case, because I do not know.  But I do know that Ted Olson is a _genuine_ lunatic, and a fascist to boot.  I wouldn't trust a word he says about anything, ever.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 14, 2009)

editor said:


> And are you denying that you claimed Ted Olsen was lying about the call from his wife?



For those who may not be aware who Ted Olson is:

"While serving in the Reagan administration, Olson defended President Reagan during the Iran-Contra affair.... Olson gained notability by acting as attorney for convicted Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard while he was in private practice..... he defended a member of the press who had first leaked the Anita Hill story.... *Olson successfully represented presidential candidate George W. Bush in the Supreme Court case Bush v. Gore, which effectively determined the final result of the contested 2000 Presidential election.*"

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

Now I don't know about you, but this is not exactly a man whose word I trust.


----------



## editor (Nov 14, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Now I don't know about you, but this is not exactly a man whose word I trust.


So that somehow proves that maybe he lied about the phone call with his wife, thus opening the doors for Jazzz's _truly_ lunatic theories about missile-laden, remote control pretend passenger planes, along with the insane tosh about planes being swapped elsewhere and the passengers taken out and slaughtered etc etc?

No, it's a red herring of quite phenomenal proportions. There is *nothing* to suggest that Olsen isn't being truthful about that conversation.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Nov 14, 2009)

Can the mods not slap the troll on the wrist at least? It's patently obvious where and how he's shit stiring.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 14, 2009)

editor said:


> So that somehow proves that maybe he lied about the phone call with his wife, thus opening the doors for Jazzz's _truly_ lunatic theories about missile-laden, remote control pretend passenger planes, along with the insane tosh about planes being swapped elsewhere and the passengers taken out and slaughtered etc etc?



No.  It proves nothing about his account of that phone call.

It does however prove that Olson has a long record of lying to serve the ends of right-wing politicians in general and George Bush in particular.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Nov 14, 2009)

Only an infinite number of posts to go before Jazz is finally, once and far all, no more questions asked, wrong...


----------



## 8den (Nov 14, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> No.  It proves nothing about his account of that phone call.
> 
> It does however prove that Olson has a long record of lying to serve the ends of right-wing politicians in general and George Bush in particular.



Ah so you can gleefully accuse a person of being involved in Mass Murder, on the most baseless "evidence" but




			
				dwyer said:
			
		

> But at least Jazzz doesn't intend to be offensive,



thats not "intentionally" offensive. 

Tell you what dwyer you illinformed fact free worthless cunt excuse of flesh, I'll stop calling you a fucking cunt, the day you and Jazzz stop accusing people of things like mass murder based on whatever witlless ramblings that are born in that the tiny shrivelled warped diseased muscle that sits idle on that empty hole behind your eyes.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 14, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Neither Jazzz nor Taffboy ever use such language.


They don't need to. They're passive-aggressive. Which when you think about it, is a lot more offensive than a bit of swearing. At least when someone's calling you a cunt, they're being straight with you.


----------



## editor (Nov 14, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> No.  It proves nothing about his account of that phone call.
> 
> It does however prove that Olson has a long record of lying to serve the ends of right-wing politicians in general and George Bush in particular.


Still totally irrelevant to Jazzz's wild and completely evidence-free claims.


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 14, 2009)

editor said:


> There is *nothing* to suggest that Olsen isn't being truthful about that conversation.



hmm, I'm not so sure about that. If I may be permitted the C&P:



> *Olson’s Self-Contradictions*
> 
> Olson began this process of undermining by means of self-contradictions. He first told CNN, as we have seen, that his wife had “called him twice on a cell phone.” But he contradicted this claim on September 14, telling Hannity and Colmes that she had reached him by calling the Department of Justice collect. Therefore, she must have been using the “airplane phone,” he surmised, because “she somehow didn’t have access to her credit cards.”4 However, this version of Olson’s story, besides contradicting his first version, was even self-contradictory, because a credit card is needed to activate a passenger-seat phone.
> 
> ...



http://www.serendipity.li/wot/olson_report_of_phone_calls.htm


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 14, 2009)

Have you got a reputable source?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> hmm, I'm not so sure about that. If I may be permitted the C&P:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.serendipity.li/wot/olson_report_of_phone_calls.htm


i take it you have a second source to verify that.


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 14, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Have you got a reputable source?



The article, as you have no doubt discovered by now, is immaculately sourced.


----------



## editor (Nov 14, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> hmm, I'm not so sure about that. If I may be permitted the C&P:http://www.serendipity.li/wot/olson_report_of_phone_calls.htm


Really, so what do you think _really happened_ then, Jazzz?


----------



## 8den (Nov 14, 2009)

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:Olsoncallrecord1.png



> Lori Lynn Keyton, Secretary, Department of Justice (DOJ), Washington, D.C., telephone number (202) [redacted, date of birth [redacted] was contacted telephonically at her residence through the DOJ Command Center at (202) 514-5000. After being advised of the identity of the interviewing agent and the nature of the interview, Keyton provided the following information:
> 
> Keyton was working in Ted Olson's Office this morning. She is regularly called there to cover the telephones. At approximately 9:00am, she received a series of approximately six (6) to eight (8) collect telephone calls. Each of the calls was an automated collect call. There was a recording advising of the collect call and requesting she hold for an operator. A short time later another recording stated that all operators were busy, please hang up and try your call later.
> 
> ...



So Lori Keyton  is lying too?




> Theodore Olson, Solicitor General, United States of America, was interviewed at his residence, [redacted]. After being advised of the identity of the interviewing agents and the nature of the interview, Olson furnished the following information.
> 
> Barbara Olson, Theodore's wife, was a passenger on American Flight # 77, departing Dulles Airport at approximately 8:10am or 8:30am this morning, bound for LAX Airport in Los Angeles, California.
> 
> ...







			
				Jazzz said:
			
		

> A 9/11 researcher, knowing that AA Flight 77 was a Boeing 757, noticed that AA’s website indicated that its 757s do not have passenger-seat phones. After he wrote to ask if that had been the case on September 11, 2001, an AA customer service representative replied: “That is correct; we do not have phones on our Boeing 757. The passengers on flight 77 used their own personal cellular phones to make out calls during the terrorist attack.”8
> 
> In response to this revelation, defenders of the official story might reply that Ted Olson was evidently right the first time: she had used her cell phone. However, besides the fact that this scenario is rendered unlikely by the cell phone technology employed in 2001, it has also been contradicted by the FBI.


An utter lie. Other one that has been pointed out to that fucking scumbag Griffin, http://911blogger.com/node/8408#comment-139890


Impeccably sourced my fucking hole. Even the author of that claim admits it's bogus.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 14, 2009)

I've said before that I basically believe the official story with regard to 9/11.

But it has to be said that our denialists are making a huge error if they base their argument on the claims of a man like Olson, who has a long record of politically-motivated lying in support of the Bush agenda.

You guys should give this one to Jazzz and move on.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> The article, as you have no doubt discovered by now, is immaculately sourced.


with the source for the 0 seconds call, it goes back to another source which doesn't appear to support the claim.


----------



## 8den (Nov 14, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I've said before that I basically believe the official story with regard to 9/11.
> 
> But it has to be said that our denialists are making a huge error if they base their argument on the claims of a man like Olson, who has a long record of politically-motivated lying in support of the Bush agenda.
> 
> You guys should give this one to Jazzz and move on.



And the secretary who took the call? You're despicable.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2009)

8den said:


> And the secretary who took the call? You're despicable.


it's dwyer, so that shouldn't be news.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 14, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> But it has to be said that our denialists are making a huge error if they base their argument on the claims of a man like Olson, who has a long record of politically-motivated lying....


.... about his murdered wife?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 14, 2009)

Look, I'm a denialist myself on this subject.  I believe that Bush is telling the truth about 9/11.

But anyone who puts their faith in the claims of Ted Olson will rightly be laughed out of court.  He may well be telling the truth about this.  But he sure as hell doesn't usually tell the truth.  He's a pathological liar.

Seriously, the denialists have much sounder grounds for their case than this.  They should use them.


----------



## 8den (Nov 14, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Look, I'm a denialist myself on this subject.  I believe that Bush is telling the truth about 9/11.
> 
> But anyone who puts their faith in the claims of Ted Olson will rightly be laughed out of court.  He may well be telling the truth about this.  But he sure as hell doesn't usually tell the truth.  He's a pathological liar.
> 
> Seriously, the denialists have much sounder grounds for their case than this.  They should use them.



Dwyer, he's a former US Attorney General, people like that don't tend to get laughed out of court on the get go. Where's your basis that he's a "pathological liar". Or y'know covering up the murder of several thousand people. He's also attempted to overturn a ban on same sex marriage in California, that absolute bastard.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 14, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> But anyone who puts their faith in the claims of Ted Olson will rightly be laughed out of court.  He may well be telling the truth about this.  But he sure as hell doesn't usually tell the truth.  He's a pathological liar.


But you're talking about his murdered wife. You're suggesting that he can't be trusted to tell the truth about his wife. Who was murdered.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 14, 2009)

Beanburger said:


> They don't need to. They're passive-aggressive. Which when you think about it, is a lot more offensive than a bit of swearing. At least when someone's calling you a cunt, they're being straight with you.



Blimey, this is like a psycho-analyst seminar innit?

Got a breakdown analysis of 8dens high octane Cartman-esque sweariness?

Are you qualified to judge it as pathological?


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 14, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Blimey, this is like a psycho-analyst seminar innit?
> 
> Got a breakdown analysis of 8dens high octane Cartman-esque sweariness?
> 
> Are you qualified to judge it as pathological?


Not in the slightest. I was taking the piss.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 14, 2009)

Beanburger said:


> But you're talking about his murdered wife. You're suggesting that he can't be trusted to tell the truth about his wife. Who was murdered.



I wouldn't trust Ted Olson to tell me the time of day.  He is a completely unscrupulous character who would lie about anything.

But the point is that the denialist case does not depend on establishing the truth of his testimony.  Why our denialists continue to insist on this extremely weak element of their case mystifies me.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I wouldn't trust Ted Olson to tell me the time of day.  He is a completely unscrupulous character who would lie about anything.


yeh, you'd never lie about anything. i mean, you never lied when you said you could prove the existence of god, did you?


----------



## 8den (Nov 14, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Got a breakdown analysis of 8dens high octane Cartman-esque sweariness?



Lying assholes tend to inflame my tourettes.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Cartman-esque


suffixing words with -esque should be a banning offence.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 14, 2009)

8den said:


> Dwyer, he's a former US Attorney General, people like that don't tend to get laughed out of court on the get go. Where's your basis that he's a "pathological liar". Or y'know covering up the murder of several thousand people. He's also attempted to overturn a ban on same sex marriage in California, that absolute bastard.



You neglect to mention that gay rights groups have rejected his offer of assistance, on the excellent grounds that he is a known liar whose involvement would bring nothing but shame to their cause.

Why do I say he's a liar?  Oh you know, just little things like lying about Iran-Contra, lying to get George Bush's election fraud ratified by the Supreme Court, that sort of thing.  Nothing important like.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 14, 2009)

8den said:


> Lying assholes tend to inflame my tourettes.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 14, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I wouldn't trust Ted Olson to tell me the time of day.  He is a completely unscrupulous character who would lie about anything.


That's a big leap - insisting that someone you've never met would lie about the death of his wife. 



> But the point is that the denialist case does not depend on establishing the truth of his testimony.  Why our denialists continue to insist on this extremely weak element of their case mystifies me.


"Denialists"? What are "denialists" denying, exactly? Conspiraloonacy? Besides which, it's simply another crack in the conspiraloon case - hardly make or break stuff.


----------



## 8den (Nov 14, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> You neglect to mention that gay rights groups have rejected his offer of assistance, on the excellent grounds that he is a known liar whose involvement would bring nothing but shame to their cause.




Phil.




> Theodore B. Olson and David Boies, long identified as opposing forces for conservative and liberal groups, filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of two gay men and two gay women, arguing that a California constitutional amendment eliminating the right of gay couples to marry violates the U.S. constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process.
> 
> Olson said he hopes the case will wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.
> 
> ...



Oh yeah he's an also. 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/05/26/state/n161614D94.DTL




> Why do I say he's a liar?  Oh you know, just little things like lying about Iran-Contra, lying to get George Bush's election fraud ratified by the Supreme Court, that sort of thing.  Nothing important like.



Examples of his lies please. Specific lies. Don't wave me at Iran Contra, or Election fraud.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2009)

you want the lies  you can't handle the lies 

[/dwyer]


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 14, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> The article, as you have no doubt discovered by now, is immaculately sourced.



I asked if you had a reputable source?  I'll take it from your answer that you haven't.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> I asked if you had a reputable source?  I'll take it from your answer that you haven't.


it's JAZZZ 

surely you don't expect a reputable source from a jazzz post?


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 14, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> it's JAZZZ
> 
> surely you don't expect a reputable source from a jazzz post?



I don't, but it's worth a try.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> I don't, but it's worth a try.


i bet he doesn't even have a reputable sauce in his house


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 14, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> with the source for the 0 seconds call, it goes back to another source which doesn't appear to support the claim.


I just checked out that one for myself, and you can too, from the US government source:

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200054.html

Indeed it features this page on the flash presentation (and no others identified as for Barbara Olson).


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 14, 2009)

8den said:


> Lying assholes tend to inflame my tourettes.



You said I couldnt prove those weapons existed. They do. you moved the goalposts. let's leave it there.


----------



## 8den (Nov 14, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> You said I couldnt prove those weapons existed. They do. you moved the goalposts. let's leave it there.



And have they been used at a demo? No shut the fuck up then. 

BTW theres a 911 thread from a few years back, where you "promised" to get back to me, after I roundly demolished all your fact free claims about put options, and officials getting warnings not to fly. Funny how you don't keep going on about that one eh taffy? Now let it go you fucking fruitloop.


----------



## 8den (Nov 14, 2009)

> The article, as you have no doubt discovered by now, is immaculately sourced.



Except of course for all the stuff it gets flat out wrong. 

Care to respond to my post Dr Jazzz?


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 14, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> You continue to present this as a popularity contest, as opposed to a logical discussion.
> 
> You continue to rage and storm, to swear and curse, thus revealing your utter impotence in rational debate.
> 
> ...



wonder if Clapham Boy and 8den are related? They both seem to have the twat gene


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 14, 2009)

ding ding round 12


----------



## 8den (Nov 14, 2009)

Why don't you call everyone an establishment whore, taffy can get in a huff about microwave weapons, Jazzz can post more fact free bullshit, and then Dwyer can claim they're all right, complain about mean words, and threaten people.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 14, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> wonder if Clapham Boy and 8den are related? They both seem to have the twat gene











trevhagl said:


> ding ding round 12








* I am trying images as a means to communicate with trev, as he’s clearly too stupid to cope with text.


----------



## 8den (Nov 14, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> wonder if Clapham Boy and 8den are related? They both seem to have the twat gene



Actually we're both 33rd degree masons. But sshshhh, mums the word.


----------



## editor (Nov 14, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> Indeed it features this page on the flash presentation (and no others identified as for Barbara Olson).


That's just a load of random mock ups of zero use to anyone.





taffboy gwyrdd said:


> You said I couldnt prove those weapons existed. They do. you moved the goalposts. let's leave it there.


You have not proved that those weapons existed in 2001. Fail.


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 14, 2009)

8den said:


> Except of course for all the stuff it gets flat out wrong.
> 
> Care to respond to my post Dr Jazzz?


yes thank you 8den. David Ray Griffin's revised article is here.

Could Barbara Olson Have Made Those Calls?
An Analysis of New Evidence about Onboard Phones

Regardless of the question of whether flight 77 did have seat phones (it seems probable they did not after all) the facts remain that Olson changed his story, and that the FBI's report does not support any such call existing.


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 14, 2009)

editor said:


> That's just a load of random mock ups of zero use to anyone.


What do you think they were doing in the trial of Zacharias Moussaoui then?


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 14, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> yes thank you 8den. David Ray Griffin's revised article is here.
> 
> Could Barbara Olson Have Made Those Calls?
> An Analysis of New Evidence about Onboard Phones
> ...



I couldn't give a flying fuck about Olson tbh, I am more interested in the dozens of other calls that were made from those air-phones.


----------



## 8den (Nov 14, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> yes thank you 8den. David Ray Griffin's revised article is here.
> 
> Could Barbara Olson Have Made Those Calls?
> An Analysis of New Evidence about Onboard Phones
> ...



Because they went through his office dingbat. 

Ah the classic do over David Ray Griffin. So the article is impeccable, except in the way it's completely wrong.  



> Lori Lynn Keyton, Secretary, Department of Justice (DOJ), Washington, D.C., telephone number (202) [redacted, date of birth [redacted] was contacted telephonically at her residence through the DOJ Command Center at (202) 514-5000. After being advised of the identity of the interviewing agent and the nature of the interview, Keyton provided the following information:
> 
> Keyton was working in Ted Olson's Office this morning. She is regularly called there to cover the telephones. At approximately 9:00am, she received a series of approximately six (6) to eight (8) collect telephone calls. Each of the calls was an automated collect call. There was a recording advising of the collect call and requesting she hold for an operator. A short time later another recording stated that all operators were busy, please hang up and try your call later.
> 
> ...



Miss that bit did you Jazzz? Going to call Lori Keyton a liar?


----------



## editor (Nov 14, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> yes thank you 8den. David Ray Griffin's revised article is here.
> 
> Could Barbara Olson Have Made Those Calls?
> An Analysis of New Evidence about Onboard Phones.


Another impeccably unbiased, DVD-shifting source!

And for the umpteenth time: what do you think really happened with those calls, Jazzz?


----------



## Paul Marsh (Nov 15, 2009)

Beanburger said:


> But you're talking about his murdered wife. You're suggesting that he can't be trusted to tell the truth about his wife. Who was murdered.



Worse, for Olsen to be complicit in some sort of government fake phone calls scam on 9/11, Olsen would have to be willingly taking part in a cover up that involves the murder of his wife.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Nov 15, 2009)

Poor, poor people and their families, having their last desperate moments of utter horror picked over by internet obsessives for ever more.

Sickening. Stomach churning, in fact.


----------



## kyser_soze (Nov 15, 2009)

This is pretty unedifying shit on all sides people...


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 15, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> Poor, poor people and their families, having their last desperate moments of utter horror picked over by internet obsessives for ever more.
> 
> Sickening. Stomach churning, in fact.



Like these ones? 230+ survivors and family members question 9/11


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 15, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> Like these ones? 230+ survivors and family members question 9/11



And are any of them suggesting the phone calls were faked?


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 15, 2009)

A short selection of quotes from that page:

_"Do I believe six years after 9/11?  I don't know the truth.  I don't believe a word that they say.  I just don't believe  Everything they say is a cover up. ... No, definitely don't leave it alone.  I think that we should get documents to know the truth of what was really going on that we didn't know that we should know now."_
*Anthony Saltalamacchia* WTC survivor

_"Immediately after 9/11, I wanted to join the army to save my country!  After the 9/11 Commission’s obvious cover-up, I knew I had to join the "9/11 Truth" movement, in order to help save my country"_.
*Janette MacKinlay* WTC survivor

_"My story was never mentioned in the final [9/11 Commission] report and I felt like I was being put on trial in a court room," said Cacchioli. "I finally walked out. They were trying to twist my words and make the story fit only what they wanted to hear. All I wanted to do was tell the truth and when they wouldn't let me do that, I walked out.

It was a disgrace to everyone, the victims and the family members who lost loved ones. I don't agree with the 9/11 Commission. The whole experience was terrible."_
*Firefighter Lou Cacchioli* WTC Survivor

_"It’s hard for us to come to any other conclusion than that the 9/11 Commission was a political cover-up from the word go"_.
*Patty Casazza*, wife of John Casazza, WTC victim

_"We do not know the whole story about what happened on September 11th. Not at all."_
*Lori Van Auken* wife of Kenneth Van Auken WTC victim

_"The 9/11 Commission was derelict in its duties. What we needed from them was a thorough investigation into the events of September 11th. Inexcusably, five years later, we still do."_
*Mindy Kleinberg* wife of Allen Kleinberg, WTC victim

_"We want a full examination of all the evidence by a new 9/11 Commission, in a World Court setting.  The evidence warrants it.  The victims demand it."_
*Josef Princiotta* cousin of firefighter Vincent Princiotta, WTC victim

_"Once people realize that what the government told us is so far from the truth, then we're going to be liberated.  And we'll be able to then take further action and hopefully hold people accountable, finally, for the atrocity that took my uncle's life. ...

Really the only way that the families are going to find that justice is if we do work together. ... Take actions every day; flyers, DVD's. Keep them on hand.  I keep them with me at all times, so anyone I meet that is open to learning more about the inside job of 9/11, they'll be able to learn even more."_
*Manny Badillo* Nephew of Thomas J. Sgroi, WTC victim

etc


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 15, 2009)

*yawn*


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 15, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> A short selection of quotes from that page:
> etc



So, you couldn't find anything about faked phone calls, well done.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 15, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> from the aces Discovery Future Weapons show...
> 
> First field deployment not until 2010 at the earliest according to global security.
> 
> So while they exist, they aren't in use, are easily affected by the weather, and can be defended against with a dustbin lid.




Or, frighteningly, a tinfoil hat and coat!


----------



## kyser_soze (Nov 15, 2009)

Yet again, Jazz presents the false dichotomy of saying that there was a USG-backed conspiracy, CD etc etc is _the same thing_ as saying that the 9/11 commission didn't go far enough. It isn't. The commission didn't go far enough, but that doesn't mean that there was a controlled demolition of the towers or whatever bollocks passes for current discussion about 9/11.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 15, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> Like these ones? 230+ survivors and family members question 9/11


That's pretty fucking low. A conspiraloon website that hijacks the names of victims, and uses them out of context and without permission to further their own agenda. Disgusting. And upon closer examination, it seems that many of the names cited aren't even fundamentally questioning what happened. 

"I'm not saying that they're deliberately trying  to he deceive."

Obviously that doesn't prevent conspiraloons from misrepresenting grieving relatives of dead people.


----------



## editor (Nov 15, 2009)

Beanburger said:


> That's pretty fucking low. A conspiraloon website that hijacks the names of victims, and uses them out of context and without permission to further their own agenda. Disgusting. And upon closer examination, it seems that many of the names cited aren't even fundamentally questioning what happened.
> 
> "I'm not saying that they're deliberately trying  to he deceive."
> 
> Obviously that doesn't prevent conspiraloons from misrepresenting grieving relatives of dead people.


Yes. It's absolutely disgusting. Those fucking loons don't give a shit for the victims and never have.





Jazzz said:


> A short selection of quotes from that page:


So, not a single mention of holographic missiles, towers invisibly filled up with invisible explosives, faked phone calls or any of the other garbage you spew.


----------



## 8den (Nov 15, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> Like these ones? 230+ survivors and family members question 9/11



Lets look at the classy list. It's got Edna Cintron. Who died on 9/11. It's also got John O'Neil, head of WTC security, _who also died in the WTC_

So Jazzz care to explain how, if these people never got out of the towers, how exactly do they fucking "question 9/11". 

Thats just two examples of the lies on that site. Featuring proven liars your mate Willie Rodridgeuz.


----------



## Corax (Nov 15, 2009)

editor said:


> Yes. It's absolutely disgusting. Those fucking loons don't give a shit for the victims and never have.



This accusation is rolled out a lot, and it's a bit of a disingenous slur IMO.

That their actions could be offensive to the direct and indirect victims of 9/11 I wouldn't dispute for a second.  But I think that the majority of these people _genuinely_ believe the nonsense that they spout.  From their perspective, they do what they do precisely because they _do_ care about the victims.

I'm not even claiming that to be their primary motivation, but the claim that they '_don't give a shit for the victims_' doesn't ring true for me.


----------



## Corax (Nov 15, 2009)

8den said:


> Edna Cintron. Who died on 9/11. It's also got John O'Neil, head of WTC security, _who also died in the WTC_



_Allegedly..._


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 15, 2009)

Corax said:


> This accusation is rolled out a lot, and it's a bit of a disingenous slur IMO.
> 
> That their actions could be offensive to the direct and indirect victims of 9/11 I wouldn't dispute for a second.  But I think that the majority of these people _genuinely_ believe the nonsense that they spout.  From their perspective, they do what they do precisely because they _do_ care about the victims.
> 
> I'm not even claiming that to be their primary motivation, but the claim that they '_don't give a shit for the victims_' doesn't ring true for me.


Problem is, _thinking _you give a shit and _actually _giving a shit are two different things.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 15, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> Like these ones? 230+ survivors and family members question 9/11



dont you at least feel a tiny bit embarrassed


----------



## Corax (Nov 15, 2009)

Beanburger said:


> Problem is, _thinking _you give a shit and _actually _giving a shit are two different things.



How so?

You've essentially said that believing that you care about something and actually caring about something are different things.  I'm not sure that make any sense whatsoever.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 15, 2009)

Corax said:


> How so?
> 
> You've essentially said that believing that you care about something and actually caring about something are different things.  I'm not sure that make any sense whatsoever.


I can say "I really hear what you're saying". I can _believe _that I'm hearing what you say. I can articulate the sentiment with all sincerity. But if I act in a way that completely ignores what you're saying, showing no regard for your feelings, and putting my personal agenda before your interests, then I obviously haven't _really _heard what you're saying, and I'm too dumb to understand the gulf that separates cheap words and real intent.


----------



## Corax (Nov 15, 2009)

Beanburger said:


> I can say "I really hear what you're saying". I can _believe _that I'm hearing what you say. I can articulate the sentiment with all sincerity. But if I act in a way that completely ignores what you're saying, showing no regard for your feelings, and putting my personal agenda before your interests, then I obviously haven't _really _heard what you're saying, and I'm too dumb to understand the gulf that separates cheap words and real intent.



That's not the same thing at all.  You're talking about a transaction, the communication of information.  The point at hand concerns a sentiment, the experiencing of an emotion.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 15, 2009)

Corax said:


> That's not the same thing at all.


I disagree. Not gonna waste a whole Sunday arguing about it though.


----------



## 8den (Nov 15, 2009)

smokedout said:


> dont you at least feel a tiny bit embarrassed



Here's a link to debunking of this bullshit

here are some choice points



> Frank A.DeMartini:
> He sadly died on 9/11. How can he question the events of 9/11? His statement, that the
> twin towers were designed to withstand an impact of 707 are confirmed by Leslie E.
> Robertson, who says the towers were designed to withstand an impact of a slow moving
> ...



So thats three corpses in among your patriots at this count. All killed before they could get out of the towers. But nope they're listed as "patriots" questioning 911. 

This is a classy classy site you've found Jazzz.

Most of the eyewitness accounts, just talk about hearing explosions, this doesn't mean they're one of these patriots, they've had their statements lifted from the media, and coherence into this idiotic conspiracy non narrative. 

Explosions doesn't equal explosives fucknuts.


----------



## 8den (Nov 15, 2009)

Corax said:


> Thhat's not the same thing at all.  You're talking about a transaction, the communication of information.  The point at hand concerns a sentiment, the experiencing of an emotion.



And the sentiment is incredibly distasteful, theres a little cottage industry of feckless idiotless flogging DVDs turning up at Ground Zero, accusing people of serious crimes on non existent evidence. 

Ever seen the video from GZ in 2005? 2006? A few hundred black t-shirt clad idiots at most, shouting "9/11 was inside job". No firefighters or cops in their ranks though naturally.


----------



## Corax (Nov 15, 2009)

8den said:


> And the sentiment is incredibly distasteful, theres a little cottage industry of feckless idiotless flogging DVDs turning up at Ground Zero, accusing people of serious crimes on non existent evidence.



Yes on all counts.  But I believe that the opportunist wankers are a small minority feeding upon a gullible but genuine majority.


----------



## editor (Nov 15, 2009)

Corax said:


> I'm not even claiming that to be their primary motivation, but the claim that they '_don't give a shit for the victims_' doesn't ring true for me.


Badger Kitten may disagree with that. 

Most loons aren't really interested in justice per se, IMO. They're more interested in being _right_, and being part of an elite 'non-sheeple' group who have discovered The Troof which eludes regular stupid people like us.

If they cared for the victims, why would they constantly misrepresent them, and in some cases harangue them and accuse them being part of a murderous plot? Olsen lost his wife and gets called a liar directly involved in a plot that killed thousands of people.

I'm sure some troofers are doing it for the right reasons but the loudest majority are far more self-interested in their DVD-shifting, unscientific bullshit than showing any compassion for the victims and their families, who're they're happy to exploit whenever it suits their ends.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Nov 15, 2009)

Beanburger said:


> I disagree. Not gonna waste a whole Sunday arguing about it though.



FWIW you're wrong. Understanding a point does not mean you have to accept it as true, significant or even worthy of consideration.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 15, 2009)

Bob_the_lost said:


> FWIW you're wrong.


Oh well, if _you've_ said so, then I _must _be wrong. Thank you for sharing your wisdom with me.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Nov 15, 2009)

Beanburger said:


> Oh well, if _you've_ said so, then I _must _be wrong. Thank you for sharing your wisdom with me.


Glad to be of help.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 15, 2009)

Bob_the_lost said:


> Glad to be of help.


Still haven't explained why I'm wrong though.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Nov 15, 2009)

Beanburger said:


> Still haven't explained why I'm wrong though.


I have to everyone else. Maybe one day you might get it too.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 15, 2009)

Bob_the_lost said:


> I have to everyone else. Maybe one day you might get it too.


Keep sucking that lollipop.


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 15, 2009)

8den said:


> So thats three corpses in among your patriots at this count. All killed before they could get out of the towers. But nope they're listed as "patriots" questioning 911.



The fact remains that there are clearly numerous survivors and family members who are completely unsatisfied with the state of the official narrative and investigation.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 15, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> The fact remains that there are clearly numerous survivors and family members who are completely unsatistfied with the state of the official narrative and investigation.


Being "unsatistfied with the state of the official narrative and investigation" is not the same thing by a godly mile as a belief that the government flew those jets into the towers and then blew them up for good measure.


----------



## 8den (Nov 15, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> The fact remains that there are clearly numerous survivors and family members who are completely unsatisfied with the state of the official narrative and investigation.



And the fact remains that the amount of people is so small, and lack such credibility that patriots for 911 bullshit need to pad out their numbers with at least three dead people. 

Claiming someone who is dead would agree with your position is yet another in the ever growing list of fucking appalling behaviour of the "truth" movement.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 15, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> The fact remains that there are clearly numerous survivors and family members who are completely unsatisfied with the state of the official narrative and investigation.



The fact remains that that has fuck all to do with the reason why you posted the link, which was some sort of weird attempt to justify your lunatic suggestion of faked phone calls.

Looks like yet another own goal to me.


----------



## editor (Nov 15, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> The fact remains that there are clearly numerous survivors and family members who are completely unsatisfied with the state of the official narrative and investigation.


Being 'dissatisfied' with the investigation DOES NOT add up to support for your lunatic theories about faked calls, holographic planes, talking terriers, invisible explosives and the rest of the evidence free garbage you post up here - and it is supremely dishonest and disrespectful to try and suggest that it does.

Not one of those quotes supports your conspiracy claims about faked calls, so why did you post them here?


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 15, 2009)

editor said:


> Not one of those quotes supports your conspiracy claims about faked calls, so why did you post them here?


Distraction and diversion to avoid answering the actual question? Just a wild stab in the dark...


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 15, 2009)

editor said:


> Olsen lost his wife and gets called a liar directly involved in a plot that killed thousands of people.



Ahem, a bit of perspective might be in order here.

I basically accept the Bush/Cheney version of 9/11.  And of course I'm sorry when anyone loses a loved one--Olson remarried less than a year later, which is good news for him.  

But Ted Olson _is_ a liar and a scumbag.  And he _has_ been directly involved in plots that have killed _millions_ of people, not thousands.  No-one should forget that, or forgive him.


----------



## editor (Nov 15, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Ahem, a bit of perspective might be in order here.
> 
> I basically accept the Bush/Cheney version of 9/11.  And of course I'm sorry when anyone loses a loved one--Olson remarried less than a year later, which is good news for him.
> 
> But Ted Olson _is_ a liar and a scumbag.  And he _has_ been directly involved in plots that have killed _millions_ of people, not thousands.  No-one should forget that, or forgive him.


All of the above is totally irrelevant to Jazzz's claims, so I've no idea why you're posting it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 15, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> But Ted Olson _is_ a liar and a scumbag.


so, he's the same as you only more of a scumbag?


----------



## 8den (Nov 15, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> But Ted Olson _is_ a liar and a scumbag.  And he *has* been directly involved in plots that have killed *millions* of people, not thousands.  No-one should forget that, or forgive him.



GOT ANY EVIDENCE OF THIS? YOU WORTHLESS EXCUSE OF A FUCKING CUNT?


And spare me the, "oooh 8den is saying mean things" YOU'RE BASELESS ACCUSING SOMEONE OF MASS MURDER, you don't get any more obscene than that YOU FUCKING PRICKTARD ASSHOLE CUNT.

So show some evidence, OR SHUT THE FUCK UP.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 15, 2009)

it's wicked to mock the afflicted


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 15, 2009)

8den said:


> GOT ANY EVIDENCE OF THIS? YOU WORTHLESS EXCUSE OF A FUCKING CUNT?
> 
> 
> And spare me the, "oooh 8den is saying mean things" YOU'RE BASELESS ACCUSING SOMEONE OF MASS MURDER, you don't get any more obscene than that YOU FUCKING PRICKTARD ASSHOLE CUNT.
> ...



8den's bottle must be almost empty again.

You don't know who Ted Olson is, do you?


----------



## 8den (Nov 15, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> 8den's bottle must be almost empty again.



Oh change the record Phil. 



> You don't know who Ted Olson is, do you?



Yes, now please provide evidence that he



> he has been* directly* involved in *plots that have killed millions of people,* not thousands. No-one should forget that, or forgive him.



I'm waiting. Or fuck off.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 15, 2009)

Sorry, but I don't argue with drunks.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 15, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Sorry, but I don't argue with drunks.


you don't argue at all, you spout shit to all and sundry.


----------



## editor (Nov 15, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Sorry, but I don't argue with drunks.


I'm sober as a judge so could you tell me the plots he was directly involved with that killed millions of people, please.

Oh, and earlier on you deemed it pertinent to bring up the fact that Olsen remarried a year after his wife died. Why do you think that is relevant to the conspiracy argument, please?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 15, 2009)

editor said:


> Why do you think that is relevant to the conspiracy argument, please?


he knew 9/11 was coming and so was lining up a new wife?


----------



## kyser_soze (Nov 15, 2009)

Corax said:


> That's not the same thing at all.  You're talking about a transaction, the communication of information.  The point at hand concerns a sentiment, the experiencing of an emotion.



Depends on the motivation for saying it. It's possible to act concerned about someone's wellbeing while having a personal ulterior motive that leaves the concern evaporating the instant the ulterior goal is fulfilled.

Journalists are adept at this - professing to _really care_ about the person in front of them's problems with their primary motivating factor being the value of the story.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 15, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> he knew 9/11 was coming and so was lining up a new wife?


Perhaps he'd _insured _his original wife!


----------



## 8den (Nov 15, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Sorry, but I don't argue with drunks.



Wriggle, wriggle wriggle. 

Thats nice. Are you accusing me of being drunk? Based on? Is this the same quality of evidence you have against Olson directly planning mass murder?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 15, 2009)

editor said:


> I'm sober as a judge so could you tell me the plots he was directly involved with that killed millions of people, please.



Sure.  The plot to illegally fund the Contras, and the plot to illegally place George W. Bush in the White House.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 15, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Sure.  The plot to illegally fund the Contras, and the plot to illegally place George W. Bush in the White House.


which of those killed millions of people?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 15, 2009)

8den said:


> Are you accusing me of being drunk?



Well spotted.



8den said:


> Based on?



The incoherent and illiterate raging abuse you've been posting up here all night.

Now, if you take my advice you'll go to bed.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 15, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> which of those killed millions of people?



Both of them.


----------



## 8den (Nov 15, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Sure.  The plot to illegally fund the Contras, and the plot to illegally place George W. Bush in the White House.



Phil thats fucking pathetic. 

Remember you said 



> he has been *directly* involved in plots that have killed millions of people, not thousands. No-one should forget that, or forgive him.



He was Regan's lawyer during the Iran Contra hearings. How's that directly involved? 

And he was Dubya's lawyer in Gore V Bush. How is that direct involvement with the murder of anyone? It's like saying Irving Kanarek's was "directly" 
involved in the Manson murders.

This is fucking idiotic and insane.


----------



## 8den (Nov 15, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Well spotted.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh piss Phil, this is nothing less than shoddy ad hominems. You've been caught out on telling outrageous offensive lies and getting called on. 

I'd fuck off Dwyer and go to bed, if I were you.


----------



## editor (Nov 15, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Both of them.


Could you elaborate on his "direct involvement" with the deaths of these "millions" please, and detail the areas in which he took total control of the decision process in these matters?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 15, 2009)

8den said:


> He was Regan's lawyer during the Iran Contra hearings. How's that directly involved?



Can you _believe_ this guy?

Anyway, to those of you are are both sober and sane: I'm logging off in a minute.  I agree that Ted Olson's proven mendacity does not necessarily support the conspiracy theories about 9/11, so maybe it's not a proper subject for this thread.  I do however recommend that you read up about him--he's among the more despicable of the Bush crew, which is really saying something.  

Later all...


----------



## 8den (Nov 15, 2009)

editor said:


> Could you elaborate on his "direct involvement" with the deaths of these "millions" please, and detail the areas in which he took total control of the decision process in these matters?



Apparently Cheney took him aside on the steps of the supreme court in 2000 and told him 

"Right Oslon, you need to win this one for us, because after a terrorist attack next year, we're going to launch a couple of illegal wars on the back of it".

Ted rose up and looked Cheney in the eye and said "Okay boss, but only if I have direct logistical control over troops, and the civilian policy in the warzone".


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 15, 2009)

editor said:


> Could you elaborate on his "direct involvement" with the deaths of these "millions" please, and detail the areas in which he took total control of the decision process in these matters?



I didn't see this before I posted my last message.  

As you know, and as everyone can see, I didn't say he "took total control of the decision process" in funding the Contras or getting Bush into the White House.  He was however directly involved in both these plots, as I said.  No-one would dispute that, not even him.  _Especially_ not him.

Do you now want to argue that these plots did not result in the death of millions of people?


----------



## 8den (Nov 15, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Can you _believe_ this guy?
> 
> Anyway, to those of you are are both sober and sane: I'm logging off in a minute.  I agree that Ted Olson's proven mendacity does not necessarily support the conspiracy theories about 9/11, so maybe it's not a proper subject for this thread.  I do however recommend that you read up about him--he's among the more despicable of the Bush crew, which is really saying something.
> 
> Later all...



Yeah. I heard he actually personally led negotiations with Hezbollah, and learned to fly just so he could personally co ordinate the flights to the Contra.


----------



## 8den (Nov 15, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I didn't see this before I posted my last message.
> 
> As you know, and as everyone can see, I didn't say he "took total control of the decision process" in funding the Contras or getting Bush into the White House.  He was however directly involved in both these plots, as I said.  No-one would dispute that, not even him.  _Especially_ not him.
> 
> Do you now want to argue that these plots did not result in the death of millions of people?




WRIGGLE. 

Shall I remind you of what you said; and how you emphasised it;




			
				Phil Dwyer emphasis his said:
			
		

> he has been *directly* involved in *plots that have killed millions of people,* not thousands. No-one should forget that, or forgive him.



Shall we look at the meaning of the word "directly"? Yes kids lets



> .
> 1. In a direct line or manner; straight: The road runs directly north.
> 2. *Without anyone or anything intervening: directly responsible.*
> 3. Exactly or totally: directly opposite.
> ...



He was one of the hundreds of lawyers involved in Bush V Gore. That doesn't make him directly responsible for the war that happened two years later. 

He defended Regan during the Iran Contra hearings. That doesn't mean he organised sales of weapons to Iran. 

This is just laughable Phil. Laughable.


----------



## editor (Nov 15, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> As you know, and as everyone can see, I didn't say he "took total control of the decision process" in funding the Contras or getting Bush into the White House.  He was however directly involved in both these plots, as I said.  No-one would dispute that, not even him.  _Especially_ not him.


Piss weak stuff, Phil. You may as well be arguing that the tea maker, or the office supplies clerk were also equally culpable.

Why did you bring up Olsen's remarriage by the way?


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 15, 2009)

editor said:


> Being 'dissatisfied' with the investigation DOES NOT add up to support for your lunatic theories about faked calls, holographic planes, talking terriers, invisible explosives and the rest of the evidence free garbage you post up here - and it is supremely dishonest and disrespectful to try and suggest that it does.
> 
> Not one of those quotes supports your conspiracy claims about faked calls, so why did you post them here?


Well clearly many of them are considering that it may have been an inside job, so I guess they are not simply accepting the very soft evidence of phone calls as proving zip.

I mean look at yourself editor - you are _holding up the words of a Bush crony_ as being your best shining evidence that all was fine and dandy with 9/11. Do you not see the incredible coincidence, that such a crucial report just happened to come from someone so close to our famously idiotic president?

It's extraordinary!

And the argument that you and others put is not a logical one - because logic will dictate that reported phone calls are just not hard evidence at all - but simply an _emotional appeal_. "it's the last words of someone about to die, so the story must be true".

Now here's the question of REAL hard evidence concerning flight 77, quotes from the site earlier.


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 15, 2009)

*Major General Stubblebine*

A chap who has spoken out publicly this year.



> General Stubblebine: I am Major General Albert Stubblebine. I am retired Army Major-General. In my last assignment -- my last command -- I was responsible for all of the Army's strategic intelligence forces around the world. I had responsibility for the Signals Intelligence, Photo Intelligence, Counter Intelligence, Human Intelligence. They all belonged to me, in my last assignment. …
> 
> I was supposed to find out what the enemy was doing, before the enemy did it so that we could take action against the enemy. That's Intelligence, OK, before the fact. So, we always -- always -- rely not on a single piece of data, before we make a statement, but on multiple and the more pieces of data that you have that correlate, the better you know exactly what is going on. …
> 
> ...



*Major General Albert Stubblebine*, U.S. Army (ret) – Former Commanding General of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, 1981 - 1984.  Also commanded the U.S. Army’s Electronic Research and Development Command and the U.S. Army’s Intelligence School and Center. Former head of Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence. 32-year Army career. Member, Military Intelligence Hall of Fame. source


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 15, 2009)

This for me is perhaps the strongest objection to the official theory. Why did all the usual laws of aircraft accident investigation fail on 9/11? My bold



> "In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft -- and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. ...
> 
> The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, *yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft*. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view.
> 
> *Col. George Nelson, MBA, U.S. Air Force (ret)* – Former U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority.  Graduate, U.S. Air Force War College.  34-year Air Force career. Licensed commercial pilot.  Licensed airframe and powerplant mechanic.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 15, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> And the argument that you and others put is not a logical one - because logic will dictate that reported phone calls are just not hard evidence at all - but simply an _emotional appeal_.



The arguments that everyone else makes are not logical?

Now I know you are taking the fucking piss, nothing you have posted is fucking logical.

How do you sleep at night? I mean, with *them* coming to get you/me/everyone, how do you sleep?

You fucking delusional twat.


----------



## editor (Nov 16, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> This for me is perhaps the strongest objection to the official theory. Why did all the usual laws of aircraft accident investigation fail on 9/11? My bold


Funny how these people are almost always retired, isn't it? 

More importantly, if "all the usual laws of aircraft accident investigation" indeed failed so dramatically on 9/11, why aren't there _thousands_ of currently employed accident investigators all lining up to complain about such a bad job being done?

Why is that, do you think? Or are they all _in on it_ as well or being kept quiet by The Man?


----------



## 8den (Nov 16, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> A chap who has spoken out publicly this year.
> 
> 
> 
> *Major General Albert Stubblebine*, U.S. Army (ret) – Former Commanding General of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, 1981 - 1984.  Also commanded the U.S. Army’s Electronic Research and Development Command and the U.S. Army’s Intelligence School and Center. Former head of Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence. 32-year Army career. Member, Military Intelligence Hall of Fame. source



He retired 30 years ago, and is most infamous in the men who stare at goats, was big into psychic weapons bullshit.



> The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view.



I'm sorry is he fucking retarded. Can you name one air crash in the past fifty years, where the wreckage was put on public display? 

Would you like the list of agencies and emergency services that were in Shanksville, and at the Pentagon? 

Volunteer fire fighters from three counties rushed to both crash sites, and spend weeks there painfully going through the wreckage, finding body parts and working with crash investigators, and the FBI. 

Are all these hundreds of people in on the conspiracy you fucking loon?


----------



## editor (Nov 16, 2009)

Oh, I see that the pilot has gone on record saying that all the investigators were in on the plot too! He also thinks the planes were switched (and the passengers all sent off to be slaughtered presumably) and missile pods invisibly mounted on the fake planes were used to blow up the towers. 

Shame he hasn't got a scrap of evidence to back any of this insane shit up, but that's par for the course with these people.


> With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged...
> 
> I said to them, "At the present
> time, it matters very little, what the purpose of that large object is---
> ...


I can't be fucked to post up the source because I don't want to help promote these nutcases. Feel free to Google.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 16, 2009)

8den said:


> WRIGGLE.
> 
> Shall I remind you of what you said; and how you emphasised it;
> 
> ...





> He has been *directly involved*_ in_ *plots*


................


----------



## 8den (Nov 16, 2009)

editor said:


> Oh, I see that the pilot has gone on record saying that all the investigators were in on the plot too! He also thinks the planes were switched (and the passengers all sent off to be slaughtered presumably) and missile pods invisibly mounted on the fake planes were used to blow up the towers.
> 
> Shame he hasn't got a scrap of evidence to back any of this insane shit up, but that's par for the course with these people.
> I can't be fucked to post up the source because I don't want to help promote these nutcases. Feel free to Google.



I guess he's just ignoring the bit that it flew so low over at 8 lane highway at rush hour, that it clipped  lamposts, and something to ignore.


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 16, 2009)

editor said:


> Funny how these people are almost always retired, isn't it?
> 
> More importantly, if "all the usual laws of aircraft accident investigation" indeed failed so dramatically on 9/11, why aren't there _thousands_ of currently employed accident investigators all lining up to complain about such a bad job being done?
> 
> Why is that, do you think? Or are they all _in on it_ as well or being kept quiet by The Man?


I think you answer your own question. You must have an independent income to come out freely with this stuff. Otherwise you risk losing your job. That's why retired experts are featuring prominently. And also why they are worth paying attention to - they are speaking freely unmotived by employment pressures.


----------



## free spirit (Nov 16, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> I think you answer your own question. You must have an independent income to come out freely with this stuff. Otherwise you risk losing your job. That's why retired experts are featuring prominently. And also why they are worth paying attention to - they are speaking freely unmotived by employment pressures.


tbf as well, they're also much more likely to have the time and inclination to spend time voluntarily 'investigating' stuff, so it's not a massive surprise if retired experts get more involved in stuff like this.


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 16, 2009)

8den said:


> He retired 30 years ago, and is most infamous in the men who stare at goats, was big into psychic weapons bullshit.


I was wondering how long it would take for that to be mentioned.



> I'm sorry is he fucking retarded. Can you name one air crash in the past fifty years, where the wreckage was put on public display?



Nice twist. It's not about 'putting it on display'. Let's have a look at the most recent one, the crash of Air France flight 447 over the Atlantic.

Initially they found some debris. So what did they do?



> Brazilian Air Force Colonel Jorge Amaral said, "the plan now is to focus our efforts to collect the debris and try to identify if they belong or not to the Air France plane,"
> 
> “We can’t really say this is part of the airplane. *The command center needs to have at least one piece of the debris with a serial number to confirm that it belongs to the airplane*,” he added. source



and the first debris didn't match up. So they kept looking, and eventually got it, spread over a forty-mile area. And amaral says again



> Investigators planned to focus their efforts on finding serial numbers on some of the objects, Amaral said, to ensure that they came from the Air France plane. source



And when they did first match up a serial number, it was reported

It's not rocket science.

So where are the 9/11 serial numbers?


----------



## editor (Nov 16, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> I think you answer your own question. You must have an independent income to come out freely with this stuff. Otherwise you risk losing your job. That's why retired experts are featuring prominently. And also why they are worth paying attention to - they are speaking freely unmotived by employment pressures.


Get out of your fucking fantasy world and stop making up these ridiculous excuses.

If the cover up is as obvious as your long retired loon bloke alleges, then it would be blatantly obvious to tens of thousands of accident investigators in the US and around the world. 

So they'd *all* be guilty of wilfully holding back the truth about something that caused the deaths of thousands of their fellow countrymen because they're all too busy selfishly looking out for themselves, yes? Nice one, Jazzz. There's another bunch of people you're calling liars with ZERO evidence as usual.

Oh, and how does this one work for all the independent accident investigators? Who's keeping them all quiet? And how?

But just get this straight: if you knew that your employer was actively involved in a plot that killed thousands of your fellow citizens and humiliated your nation, would you meekly keep schtum for ever just in case you lost your job?


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 16, 2009)

So how many aviation professionals do you need exactly before you start wondering editor?


----------



## Yossarian (Nov 16, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> they they are worth paying attention to - they are speaking freely unmotived by employment pressures.



'Conspiraloons come up with elaborate theory explaining why they don't have jobs.'


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 16, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> I mean look at yourself editor - you are _holding up the words of a Bush crony_ as being your best shining evidence that all was fine and dandy with 9/11.



I've also cautioned our denialists against using Olson to support their case.  That case doesn't depend on him--which is just as well, for nothing he says can be believed.

He's something more than just a "Bush crony," btw.  His role has largely been to defend the lies of Reagan and Bush's nefarious plots in public.  He is the very _last_ person the denialists should be quoting.


----------



## kyser_soze (Nov 16, 2009)

Did anyone notice what the first link on the aviation experts website nav bar is?

Yes, you guessed it, a '7 Disc Special Pack' for $69.95 + shipping...


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 16, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> The arguments that everyone else makes are not logical?
> 
> Now I know you are taking the fucking piss, nothing you have posted is fucking logical.
> 
> ...




If you think the Bush administration and previous Republican set ups may just do underhanded things in other countries that makes you the same as David icke, apparently!


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 16, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> *If you think the Bush administration and previous Republican set ups may just do underhanded things in other countries* that makes you the same as David icke, apparently!



Not at all what claphamboy said.

I doubt many, or even any, conspiracy-theory-sceptics would disagree with the bit in your post that I've bolded, _as a general point_.

Accepting that Rumsfeld and Bush and Cheney etc were bad guys foreign policy wise (as I do, and no doubt claphamboy does too?) is *not at all the same* as taking seriously all these conspiracy theories surrounding '9/11' though.

A large number of which (to say the least) are self evidently made up crackpot fantasies on the far out fringes of rationality and credibility.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 16, 2009)

Jazzz said:
			
		

> they they are worth paying attention to - they are speaking freely unmotived by employment pressures.





Yossarian said:


> 'Conspiraloons come up with elaborate theory explaining why they don't have jobs.'


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 16, 2009)

Yossarian said:


> 'Conspiraloons come up with elaborate theory explaining why they don't have jobs.'



What, get meaningful employment and lose the chance to spend months and years on end scouring anti-semitic, nutjob conspiracy sites to try and make themselves feel important? Are you mad?


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 16, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> If you think the Bush administration and previous Republican set ups may just do underhanded things in other countries that makes you the same as David icke, apparently!





Oh, do fuck off and grow up you ignorant twat.


----------



## editor (Nov 16, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> So how many aviation professionals do you need exactly before you start wondering editor?


That long retured 'aviation expert' is accusing accident investigators of being complicit in a cover-up involving the murder of thousands - yet hasn't a scrap of proof to back that up. He also believes in invisible pods firing invisible missiles and that one of the flights were invisible switched and all the passengers murdered somewhere. rWithout a single scap of evidence to back _any_ of that up, I think we can safely file his opinions under "Ranting Conspiraloon."

As for that unverified list of 'aviation experts' it's just the usual random list of mainly retired persons, most of which have no skills or experience relevant to the claims being made and some of whom probably don't exist anyway. e.g. 

"Richard Chargin
Total Flight Time: 110 hours
SJSU, Atari Games, RJA"


----------



## editor (Nov 16, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I've also cautioned our denialists against using Olson to support their case.  That case doesn't depend on him--which is just as well, for nothing he says can be believed.


Who ar these "denialists" please and what credible evidence do you have that Olden lied about his wife's phone call?

So far you've just posted up a salvo of ridiculous slurs and evidence-free accusations that would land you in court if he could be arsed. Oh, and why did you mention his remarriage? Why is that relevant please?


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 16, 2009)

Major General Albert Stubblebine maybe retired from the U.S. Army, but he's the founder and director of 'Natural Solutions Foundation' - that campaigns against vaccines and prescription drugs, that have been so successful in extending life expectancy over the last few generations, on the basis that they are Weapons of Mass Destruction! 

You can visit the NSF site and make a donation, buy natural supplements, power foods, homeopathic crap or some Valley of the Moon Chemical Free Coffee! 

The Valley of the Moon Chemical Free Coffee is the World's First Friendly Food Certified Coffee, and who issues this certificate? Step forward Stubblebine's Natural Solutions Foundation.  

http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/

In fact, he's just the sort of delusional freak that Jazzz would get on well with.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 16, 2009)

editor said:


> Who ar these "denialists" please and what credible evidence do you have that Olden lied about his wife's phone call?



Conspiracy denialists are those who deny conspiracy theories.  For example I am myself a denialist with regard to 9/11, for I agree with most aspects of the Bush/Cheney version of events.  

I don't think that Olson lied about his wife's phone call.  I think he was telling the truth.  But it's really not a good idea to set too much store by his claim, for he has made his living lying on behalf of Reagan and Bush--and specifically by lying to cover up their various conspiracies.

The denialist case does not need him, and would be better off without him.


----------



## 8den (Nov 16, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> So how many aviation professionals do you need exactly before you start wondering editor?



How many pilots do you think take off and land in London airports in a day. And you think the few dozen of struck off, and guys with a few hours logged in a cessna is impressive?


----------



## editor (Nov 16, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I don't think that Olson lied about his wife's phone call.  I think he was telling the truth.


Then why embark on a cheap, sensationalist and frankly defamatory campaign of wild claims over his supposed 'direct involvement' in mass murder campaigns and then add tacky suggestive comments about his remarriage? How is that relevant?

Oh, and someone not believing in invisible missiles, holographic planes and CIA insta-Mike Yarwoods is not a "denialist." They're just _normal._


----------



## 8den (Nov 16, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> I was wondering how long it would take for that to be mentioned.



It's valid he's a nutcase. 




> Nice twist. It's not about 'putting it on display'. Let's have a look at the most recent one, the crash of Air France flight 447 over the Atlantic.
> 
> Initially they found some debris. So what did they do?
> 
> ...



Are you so dicklessly insane that you're going to compare the crash search methology of a plane lost at sea to a plane that crashed into the biggest building in the world. 

This is really fucking tired shit debunked in 2005.

8,000 people worked on the Pentagon, over the course of the day of the attack and the days after. 

These include.





> Alexandria VA Fire & Rescue, American Airlines, American Red Cross, Arlington County Emergency Medical Services, Arlington County Fire Department, Arlington County Sheriff's Department, Arlington VA Police Department, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic staff, DeWitt Army Community Hospital staff, District of Columbia Fire & Rescue, DOD Honor Guard, Environmental Protection Agency Hazmat Teams, Fairfax County Fire & Rescue, FBI Evidence Recovery Teams, FBI Hazmat Teams, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams, FEMA 68-Person Urban Search and Rescue Teams Maryland Task Force 1, New Mexico Task Force 1, Tennessee Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 2, FEMA Emergency Response Team, Fort Myer Fire Department, Four U.S. Army Chaplains, Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit, Military District of Washington Engineers Search & Rescue Team, Montgomery County Fire & Rescue, U.S. National Guard units, National Naval Medical Center CCRF, National Transportation Safety Board, Pentagon Defense Protective Service, Pentagon Helicopter Crash Response Team, Pentagon Medical Staff, Rader Army Health Clinic Staff, SACE Structural Safety Engineers and Debris Planning and Response Teams, Salvation Army Disaster Services, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach Fairfax County and Montgomery County, Virginia Beach Fire Department, Virginia Department of Emergency Management, Virginia State Police



All these groups were in on it Jazzz?

This is the work that happened when any human remains were found



> The following approach was applied to the recovery of Pentagon Incident fatalities: When a victim was located, work in the area was halted to protect the body, personal belongings, and evidence. An FBI evidence team (one of several on constant standby in front of the collapse) would document the site and gather evidence. If physical extrication was required, a Rescue Squad from the assigned US&R task force was given this task. The next step in the process was a Military Mortuary Team who collected and removed the victim from the building.
> 
> All the debris removed from the building was spread out by the heavy equipment, and (on the signal of the IST US&R Specialist) the equipment would stop and Canine Search Teams from the US&R Task Forces would deploy across the material in search of any scent indicating human remains. Then US&R Search Team members would conduct a physical search for remains, crawling and walking over all the debris. Finally, after being searched three or more times, the debris would be loaded into trucks with skip loaders, where it would be taken to one of the Pentagon parking lots to be further combed for human remains and evidence by the FBI, ATF, Military units, and the Arlington Police Department. (p. 8)



A Case study on Urban search and rescue

All these people are in on it too Jazzz?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 16, 2009)

As a little experiment I've just joined that aviation professionals site, let's see how rigorous they are at checking peoples credentials 

After all, I'm sure they won't want their list to get bigger just to make it look more important, would they?


----------



## 8den (Nov 16, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Conspiracy denialists are those who deny conspiracy theories.  For example I am myself a denialist with regard to 9/11, for I agree with most aspects of the Bush/Cheney version of events.
> 
> I don't think that Olson lied about his wife's phone call.  I think he was telling the truth.  But it's really not a good idea to set too much store by his claim,



Phil you fucking Numpity, Does the syphilitic addled diseased organ on your shoulders even remember how, or why Oslon came up. 

You accused me of lying about Jazzz disrespecting the people who made and received the calls on 911. I cited Oslon as one example of this disrespect. 

Whats hilarious is, you've forgotten all about this, and have gone on to suggest Oslon is a mass murdered. 

So congratulations, you've made my point, and then some. 



> for he has made his living lying on behalf of Reagan and Bush--and specifically by lying to cover up their various conspiracies.



So he's gone from "being directly involved in plots to murder millions" to acting like a lawyer. 

[to the tune of the classic Batman theme]

Liar Liar Liar DWYER! DWYER! LIAR DWYER!


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 16, 2009)

8den said:


> Whats hilarious is, you've forgotten all about this



Surely you're not suggesting that Dwyer is simply shit stirring? 

Whatever next.


----------



## 8den (Nov 16, 2009)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> As a little experiment I've just joined that aviation professionals site, let's see how rigorous they are at checking peoples credentials
> 
> After all, I'm sure they won't want their list to get bigger just to make it look more important, would they?



You can check the various lies they claim

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/pentagonattackpage2

Pilotsfortruth became infamous years ago, they claim U77 was remote controlled and hit the pentagon. 

Which is at odds with Jazzz's claim that it was a different plane not U77.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 16, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> Oh, do fuck off and grow up you ignorant twat.



swearing, not big not clever!!


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 16, 2009)

8den said:


> [to the tune of the classic Batman theme]
> 
> Liar Liar Liar DWYER! DWYER! LIAR DWYER!



So this is the level to which (many of) our denialists have now sunk.

A cause espoused in such a manner discredits itself.

No further comment seems necessary.


----------



## editor (Nov 16, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> So this is the level to which (many of) our denialists have now sunk.


How many exactly? Could you name them please because I'm getting fed up with your constant vague and unsubstantiated slurs against posters here.

Oh, and talking of slurs: why did you think it was relevant to bring up Olsen's remarriage? 

And on a general note: will posters please tone down the swearing. Thanks.


----------



## xes (Nov 16, 2009)

Olsen is a mass murdered?

Have you been drinking 8den?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 16, 2009)

editor said:


> How many exactly?



Three or four.  The denialists are definitely the sweariest bunch on here.  I don't see the need to name them: anyone can identify them by reading back through the thread.  8den is the prime culprit, clearly enough.

I'm not saying their constant intemperance and obscenity necessarily proves them wrong, but it certainly doesn't make their case look good.  I do appreciate the fact that you've just warned them--let's see if they pay attention.

I thought Olson's re-marriage was interesting, that's why I mentioned it.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 16, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I thought Olson's re-marriage was interesting



In what way?


----------



## editor (Nov 16, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I'm not saying their constant intemperance and obscenity necessarily proves them wrong, but it certainly doesn't make their case look good.  I do appreciate the fact that you've just warned them--let's see if they pay attention.


Tbh, I don't think your evasive behaviour, contant refusal to acknowledge when you've been caught out and your general _wriggleness _makes your case look very good either.



phildwyer said:


> I thought Olson's re-marriage was interesting, that's why I mentioned it.


"Interesting" in the context of Jazzz's faked calls claims, _how_?

I'd say it's fairly obvious what you were inferring and it isn't very pleasant.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 16, 2009)

editor said:


> I'd say it's fairly obvious what you were inferring and it isn't very pleasant.



He's not a very pleasant character.

In fact, I think he's utterly despicable.

I'd be very surprised if anyone here disagrees, frankly.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 16, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Three or four.  The denialists are definitely the sweariest bunch on here.  I don't see the need to name them: anyone can identify them by reading back through the thread.  8den is the prime culprit, clearly enough.
> 
> I'm not saying their constant intemperance and obscenity necessarily proves them wrong, but it certainly doesn't make their case look good.  I do appreciate the fact that you've just warned them--let's see if they pay attention.
> 
> I thought Olson's re-marriage was interesting, that's why I mentioned it.




they (Clap Boy and 8den) remind me of the Barse song "Tourettes"...

http://justmusicstore.com/Lyrics/41..._Em_Cut_Em_Up/Ive_Got_Tourettes/download-mp3/


----------



## 8den (Nov 16, 2009)

xes said:


> Olsen is a mass murdered?
> 
> Have you been drinking 8den?



That was Dywer's claim two pages ago. I know you have the intelligence of gnat but try and keep up.


----------



## 8den (Nov 16, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Three or four.  The denialists are definitely the sweariest bunch on here.  I don't see the need to name them: anyone can identify them by reading back through the thread.  8den is the prime culprit, clearly enough.
> 
> I'm not saying their constant intemperance and obscenity necessarily proves them wrong,



And making a baseless accusation that someone is "directly responsible for a plot to murder millions", isn't obscene? 

Jesus Dwyer your sensibility are fucking warped. 



> but it certainly doesn't make their case look good.  I do appreciate the fact that you've just warned them--let's see if they pay attention.
> 
> I thought Olson's re-marriage was interesting, that's why I mentioned it.



And why is it interesting?


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 16, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> they (Clap Boy and 8den) remind me of the Barse song "Tourettes"...
> 
> http://justmusicstore.com/Lyrics/41..._Em_Cut_Em_Up/Ive_Got_Tourettes/download-mp3/



Have you actually got anything to add to the thread, or are you just going to keep popping-in to post totally off-topic nonsense and demonstrating what a complete ignorant twat you are?


----------



## 8den (Nov 16, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> He's not a very pleasant character.
> 
> In fact, I think he's utterly despicable.
> 
> I'd be very surprised if anyone here disagrees, frankly.



Yeah fighting to overturn a ban on gay marriage, the bastard. 

He's a republican lawyer Phil, I doubt there are few people here who'd really care for him, but you're suggesting he's directly responsible for a plot to kill millions, and thats fucking wrong. 

Also the argument you're having is basically "I'm not saying Ted Oslon lied about his wife's calls to him, it's just I think he's despicable, a mass murderer, and remarried the next year, my isn't that interesting". 

It's dishonest and it's cowardly. 

Remember Oslon got brought into this when you leapt to Jazzz's defence, about "how dare you suggest he's said anything wrong about the victims or their families" (or words to that effect), I pointed to Jazzz's comments about Oslon on a previous thread. You've taken that little thing and basically tried to suggest Oslon is some kind of evil republican genius who's murdered millions. 

It's very classy.


----------



## xes (Nov 16, 2009)

8den said:


> That was Dywer's claim two pages ago. I know you have the intelligence of gnat but try and keep up.



it is also your claim to me, every time I make a speeeeelling mistake/gramatical error, I was just retarding the favour. (see what I did there?  )


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 16, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> He's not a very pleasant character.
> 
> In fact, I think he's utterly despicable.
> 
> I'd be very surprised if anyone here disagrees, frankly.



Wriggle wriggle wriggle....


----------



## Mooncat (Nov 16, 2009)

Lol break


----------



## 8den (Nov 16, 2009)

xes said:


> it is also your claim to me, every time I make a speeeeelling mistake/gramatical error, I was just retarding the favour.



Xes, if you think I have nothing better to do then spell check all your posts, you're even more delusional than I thought. 

Now do you have anything constructive to say? No?



> (see what I did there?



Yes you misspelled "grammatical"


----------



## xes (Nov 16, 2009)

8den said:


> Xes, if you think I have nothing better to do then spell check all your posts, you're even more delusional than I thought.


 might want to take a leaf out of your own book then, cos you've done it a few times on this thread yourself.


> Now do you have anything constructive to say? No?


 don't be silly




> Yes you misspelled "grammatical"


 Bastard!


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 16, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> Have you actually got anything to add to the thread, or are you just going to keep popping-in to post totally off-topic nonsense and demonstrating what a complete ignorant twat you are?




did you listen to the song?

Urgh urgh woof woof meow meow i've got Tourettes!!


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 16, 2009)

8den said:


> It's valid he's a nutcase.
> 
> Are you so dicklessly insane that you're going to compare the crash search methology of a plane lost at sea to a plane that crashed into the biggest building in the world.
> 
> ...



There is nothing different about the protocol for the Air France crash and any other. Finding the serial numbers is crucial. It is your hardest evidence that the plane actually ended up there. Note that even with passengers washing up, and a ticket being found, they were still keen to find serial numbers - because that's the only way to really be utterly certain the plane ended up there.

Here's a defence against a freedom of information act request which seems to suggest they didn't bother to match up any serial numbers:



> Since being served with the Summons and Amended Complaint, Federal Defendant, with assistance of its attorneys, has analyzed Plaintiff’s request and conducted a search for responsive records. Federal Defendant has determined that there are no responsive records. The identities of the airplanes hijacked in the September 11 attacks was never in question, and, therefore, there were no records generated “revealing the process by which wreckage recovered by defendant, from aircraft used during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, was positively identified by defendant . . . as belonging to said aircraft .


 F.B.I. Counsel: No Records Available Revealing ID Process Of Recovered 9/11 Plane Wreckage

Plenty more stuff on that blog also revealing a lack of serial numbers on the black box and CDR.

No, I don't think all those groups were 'in on it'. They could have all been entirely genuine. It would only take a few people to go around before planting body parts, and there you go (that is simply one method by which the results could have been corrupted).


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 16, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> It would only take a few people to go around before planting body parts


Do you actually _read _this shit before you hit "submit reply"?


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 16, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> No, I don't think all those groups were 'in on it'. They could have all been entirely genuine. It would only take a few people to go around before *planting body parts*, and there you go (that is simply one method by which the results could have been corrupted).



You’re a sick man; no one is interested in your delusional ramblings, why do you keep posting this shit?


----------



## 8den (Nov 16, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> There is nothing different about the protocol for the Air France crash and any other. Finding the serial numbers is crucial. It is your hardest evidence that the plane actually ended up there. Note that even with passengers washing up, and a ticket being found, they were still keen to find serial numbers - because that's the only way to really be utterly certain the plane ended up there.



Jazzz theres a difference between a plane going missing and then minutes later crashing into a building intentionally and trying to piece together the mysterious last moments of a plane crash into the atlantic. 

For example the black boxes of U77 turned up at the pentagon. 



> No, I don't think all those groups were 'in on it'. They could have all been entirely genuine. It would only take a few people to go around before planting body parts, and there you go (that is simply one method by which the results could have been corrupted).



Jesus fucking christ it was next to an eight lane highway at rushhour, how fucking retarded are you? Whole people were found strapped into chairs. 

What are fucking suggesting. They got the passengers killed them, charred and mutilated their remains, and then snuck them out onto the lawn of a military base, and no one noticed?


----------



## 8den (Nov 16, 2009)

*Oh Noes Jazzz!*







"The part in question is the power supply for the emergency lights. ...I assure you it was Flight 77, AA 757 5BP."

And

Firefighters Carlton Burkhammer and Brian Moravitz "spotted an intact seat from the plane's cockpit with a chunk of the floor still attached."

Ladies and Gentlemen heres the two arguments.

On Sept 11th AA 77 took off at 8:20. Sometime around 8:51 or 8:54 the plane was hijacked. Between 9:12 and 9:30 Aprrox, passengers and flight attendants rang loved ones, and tried to raise the Alarm. 

Around 9:36, AA 77 flew above a eight lane highway, fast and low, clipping lamposts. Over 150 eyewitnesses, including pilots and firemen witnessed this, and 23 witnesses say it had American Airlines markings. Over a dozen correctly described the make and model. 

Immediately hundred of people ran to the crash site. Some say they saw charred smoking human remains still buckled into their seats. 

Over the following few days, personal effects, human remains, the flight recording, black boxes, as well as parts consistent with a 757, and with United Airlines markings, are recovered, in a painstaking search, involving experts in the field of aviation, forensics, and search and rescue. 


Now apparently the alternative......




AA77 took off, or maybe it didn't, and all the passengers went onto a different plane, *or something*. At some point another plane appeared *or something*. Then for someone faked/forced/bribed family members called their loved ones and pretended they were on a plane and it was hijacked *or something*. Then a missile/other plane/something was fired at the pentagon, *or something*. Immediately an elite team of special ops/ninja/faeries *or something* leapt into action and infront of thousands of people littered the lawn with fake evidence, body parts *or something*. Now the passenger had been killed/were killed/went to Bali *or something*, and Godzilla ate the real AA 77 *or something*. And they went to all this trouble, all this effort, bribed/threated FBI agents/Flight Crash investigators etc etc etc, but this entire stupidly idiotic plot is unravelling because of a FOI about serial numbers, and the fact that they went to all these other steps to fake the crash but failed to do something so elementary according to you *or something*. 


Did I miss anything Jazzz or would you care to give a more coherent description of what you think happened?


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 16, 2009)

8den said:


> Did I miss anything Jazzz ...?



Yes, the lizards, you missed out the fucking lizards!


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 16, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> You’re a sick man; no one is interested in your delusional ramblings, why do you keep posting this shit?



Because people keep responding to it. Why don't you all leave it?


----------



## editor (Nov 16, 2009)

Red Cat said:


> Because people keep responding to it. Why don't you all leave it?


Because _he keeps posting it up._


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 16, 2009)

8den said:


> Did I miss anything Jazzz or would you care to give a more coherent description of what you think happened?



Unless I'm very much mistaken, there is not one piece of aircraft wreckage that has been formally identified as coming from flight 77 (or indeed any of the other four flights). That would include the black box and voice recorder where it seems the identifying numbers have been withheld.

Has anyone actually matched the numbers up on that piece?


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 16, 2009)

editor said:


> Because _he keeps posting it up._


/\ /\


----------



## 8den (Nov 16, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> Unless I'm very much mistaken,



WHAT WOULD BE THE ODDS OF THAT 



> there is not one piece of aircraft wreckage that has been formally identified as coming from flight 77 (or indeed any of the other four flights). That would include the black box and voice recorder where it seems the identifying numbers have been withheld.



NTSB: Flight 77 Flight Data Recorder (FDR) report



> Has anyone actually matched the numbers up on that piece?



Yes. 

Now explain how all the bodies of passengers turned up on the lawn and the wreckage of a 757?

Now Jazzz you disagree with my above assertion of what you think happened   on sept 11th?


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 16, 2009)

8den said:


> WHAT WOULD BE THE ODDS OF THAT


Lucky Jizzz isn't a bookie!


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 16, 2009)

editor said:


> Because _he keeps posting it up._



Yeh, but _he keeps posting it up_ to meet some psychological need to try to convince people of his delusional fantasy and to wind people up. You can all see that and yet you continue to argue as though rational argument and evidence will make a jot of difference to how he sees the world.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 16, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> It would only take a few people to go around before planting body parts, and there you go (that is simply one method by which the results could have been corrupted).


have you ever tried going around and planting body parts? it's by no means as simple as you make out. why, the last time i was doing it i was lucky not to be arrested.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 16, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> have you ever tried going around and planting body parts? it's by no means as simple as you make out. why, the last time i was doing it i was lucky not to be arrested.


It was a bit of a half-arsed attempt though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 16, 2009)

Beanburger said:


> It was a bit of a half-arsed attempt though.


strangely, that was what i was dumping at the time.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 16, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> strangely, that was what i was dumping at the time.


I know. That's what I was implying. Implication fail.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 16, 2009)

Beanburger said:


> I know. That's what I was implying. Implication fail.


got rid of the rest of the corpse without any difficulty though


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 16, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> got rid of the rest of the corpse without any difficulty though


But did you get a leg over? Ba boom, tish.


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 17, 2009)

8den said:


> WHAT WOULD BE THE ODDS OF THAT
> 
> NTSB: Flight 77 Flight Data Recorder (FDR) report



You'd assume they matched up the serial number there, wouldn't you?

But no:

THE FBI WITHHELD THE SERIAL NUMBER of the Flight Data Recorder from the NTSB.

Of course, the number DCA01MA064 is not the serial number of the recorder: it is the document reference.



> *9/11 Aircraft 'Black Box' Serial Numbers Mysteriously Absent*
> 
> Of all major U.S. airline crashes within the U.S. investigated and published by the National Transportation Safety Board during the past 20 years, the 9/11 'black boxes' are virtually the only ones without listed inventory control serial numbers.


 Aidan Monaghan


Now, why on earth would they need to do that if there is nothing to hide?

  




			
				8den said:
			
		

> Jazzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I DO hope you are not shabbily making that up. Kindly direct us to the confirmation please.


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 17, 2009)

*curiouser and curiouser*

And the lack of a serial number is FAR from the only mystery with this flight data recorder.

The raw data on it - which Calum Douglas managed to obtain with FOIA requests and detective work - is irreconcilable with the flight path supposedly taken by flight 77! And the FBI have no comment as to why the data doesn't match up.

Flight 77: The Flight Data Recorder Investigation Files


----------



## 8den (Nov 17, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> You'd assume they matched up the serial number there, wouldn't you?
> 
> But no:
> 
> ...



You are such a fool. The Document has the plane's tail number.  



> [url="http://www.911blogger.com/node/14081]Aidan Monaghan[/url]



Broken link fucknut. 

Get your fucking act together. 



> Now, why on earth would they need to do that if there is nothing to hide?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



JESUS JAZZ ARE YOU FUCKING DEFECTIVE? 

You're claiming evidence was planted at the scene, DNA forensics, plane parts, phone calls were faked.  But they didn't do this? 

Jazzz, why wouldn't they fake the serial numbers as well. 

If you were shown the serial numbers the plane parts, the logs, the body parts, you'd still claim it was faked. 

Answer me this Jazzz.



> AA77 took off, or maybe it didn't, and all the passengers went onto a different plane, or something. At some point another plane appeared or something. Then for someone faked/forced/bribed family members called their loved ones and pretended they were on a plane and it was hijacked or something. Then a missile/other plane/something was fired at the pentagon, or something. Immediately an elite team of special ops/ninja/faeries or something leapt into action and infront of thousands of people littered the lawn with fake evidence, body parts or something. Now the passenger had been killed/were killed/went to Bali or something, and Godzilla ate the real AA 77 or something. And they went to all this trouble, all this effort, bribed/threated FBI agents/Flight Crash investigators etc etc etc, but this entire stupidly idiotic plot is unravelling because of a FOI about serial numbers, and the fact that they went to all these other steps to fake the crash but failed to do something so elementary according to you or something.



Please explain how your awesome conspiracy theory pulled all this off, and then forgot this simple thing. 

This is nearly, nearly, as fucking idiotic as your claim that the FBI don't want Bin Laden.


----------



## 8den (Nov 17, 2009)

*Jazzz you dishonest little shit*

Quell surprise you missed out a bit



> Because of the criminal nature of the 9/11 attacks, the FBI became the lead investigative agency into the 9/11 aircraft mishaps, along with the requested aid of the NTSB. It is possible that *the FBI seized FAA 9/11 aircraft records containing component serial number data for aircraft identification *purposes and that the FAA no longer possesses them.



http://www.911blogger.com/node/14081

NONE of the other instances sited are crimes. 

THE SERIAL NUMBERS HAVEN'T BEEN RELEASED BECAUSE ITS EVIDENCE OF A STILL ONGOING MURDER TRIAL

Fucking hell, your own link points that out. 

Jazzz  you don't get to paw around in the investigation of a murder trial to suit your grumpy daft evidence proof conspiracy theories. 

Jesus Jazzz just fuck off. 

The body parts aren't good enough, the DNA, the Flight Data, the Eyewitness accounts, all not good enough, you leap on the one piece of evidence not in the public domain and go "AH HA CONSPIRACY THEORY!" 

Fucking pathetic.


----------



## editor (Nov 17, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> The raw data on it - which Calum Douglas managed to obtain with FOIA requests and detective work - is irreconcilable with the flight path supposedly taken by flight 77! And the FBI have no comment as to why the data doesn't match up.


I'm not watching some unexplained 55 minute conspiracy video, so could you tell me who this Calum Douglas is please, what his relevant qualifications are and if his findings have been independently verified and properly peer reviewed or not?


----------



## 8den (Nov 17, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> And the lack of a serial number is FAR from the only mystery with this flight data recorder.
> 
> The raw data on it - which Calum Douglas managed to obtain with FOIA requests and detective work - is irreconcilable with the flight path supposedly taken by flight 77! And the FBI have no comment as to why the data doesn't match up.
> 
> Flight 77: The Flight Data Recorder Investigation Files



Oh piss off. This is achingly old debunked shit that has been gone over on this forum already

WHAT DO YOU THINK HAPPENED TO AMERICAN AIRLINES 77, and WHAT DO YOU THINK HAPPENED AT THE PENTAGON.


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 17, 2009)

Really 8den, this is no good at all. You have started ranting like a lunatic with the huge font because my points have held up.

Let me remind you of the comment you thought was easily disproved:




			
				Jazzz said:
			
		

> there is not one piece of aircraft wreckage that has been formally identified as coming from flight 77 (or indeed any of the other four flights). That would include the black box and voice recorder where it seems the identifying numbers have been withheld.



And indeed this is precisely the case. You have, despite claiming that it has happened, been completely unable (so far) to provide any source for the numbers matching on the piece you found pictured on the Randi forum. Now, I really don't want to accuse you of making that up, but it's becoming quite hard.

Now of course, you've realised that the FDR which you quickly googled (from a skeptics site) doesn't actually have the serial number on it. So quickly you've changed tack to some strange excuse that they couldn't show it (unlike 30+ pages of data from it!!) because it's an 'ongoing crime investigation'. 

Now let's get it straight: _there is no evidence that the NTSB was ever told the serial number by the FBI_. I've already showed, from their own words, that they have no documentation pertaining to the identification of any plane parts because they simply assumed that any aircraft parts discovered at the crash site were from flight 77. So, it means absolutely nothing that they put the aircraft number on the FDR document.

Now, perhaps if you will admit that my statement was entirely correct, and drop the ridiculous abuse and huge fonts, we might press on with the other stuff a bit more amicably.


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 17, 2009)

8den said:


> Oh piss off. This is achingly old debunked shit that has been gone over on this forum already[/SIZE]



I say you are making this up. Link please...


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 17, 2009)

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=6



> Though dozens of witnesses saw a Boeing 757 hit the building, conspiracy advocates insist there is evidence that a missile or a different type of plane smashed into the Pentagon






> *Claim:* Two holes were visible in the Pentagon immediately after the attack: a 75-ft.-wide entry hole in the building's exterior wall, and a 16-ft.-wide hole in Ring C, the Pentagon's middle ring. Conspiracy theorists claim both holes are far too small to have been made by a Boeing 757. "How does a plane 125 ft. wide and 155 ft. long fit into a hole which is only 16 ft. across?" asks reopen911.org, a Web site "dedicated to discovering the bottom line truth to what really occurred on September 11, 2001."
> 
> The truth is of even less importance to French author Thierry Meyssan, whose baseless assertions are fodder for even mainstream European and Middle Eastern media. In his book The Big Lie, Meyssan concludes that the Pentagon was struck by a satellite-guided missile — part of an elaborate U.S. military coup. "This attack," he writes, "could only be committed by United States military personnel against other U.S. military personnel






> *FACT*: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.
> 
> Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."
> 
> The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide — not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 17, 2009)

same site



> *Claim*: Conspiracy theorists insist there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon. "In reality, a Boeing 757 was never found," claims pentagonstrike.co.uk, which asks the question, "What hit the Pentagon on 9/11?





> *FACT*: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 17, 2009)

editor said:


> I'm not watching some unexplained 55 minute conspiracy video, so could you tell me who this Calum Douglas is please, what his relevant qualifications are and if his findings have been independently verified and properly peer reviewed or not?


You can find the summary here in the Pilots for 9/11 Truth press release dated 26/3/07.


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 17, 2009)

JC, the modus operandi of that Popular Mechanics article was the classic 'straw man' - i.e. to select weak arguments to knock down. There were certainly pieces of plane inside the Pentagon - that doesn't make it flight 77. If the wings didn't enter the Pentagon it's rather curious that there were no big chunks of them left outside.

Henshall writes (9/11 - The New Evidence)

_"The Moussaoui trial evidence included pictures of severely charred bodies from the crash site inside the Pentagon. But from these pictures it would appear that Kilsheimer would not have been able to distinguish between uniformed Pentagon personnel inside the building and people onboard the plane"_

reference for the pictures is www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution.html (warning likely not pleasant at all)


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Nov 17, 2009)

Big chunks of wing? Understanding fail.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 17, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> I say you are making this up.



Fucking hell Jazzz keeps claiming other people are making stuff up.  



> the modus operandi of that Popular Mechanics article was the classic 'straw man' - i.e. to select weak arguments to knock down.



Says the expert on 'straw men'.


----------



## A Dashing Blade (Nov 17, 2009)

50 pages of regurgitated clap-trap from Urban's resident conspiriloons  . . . ??

Last In.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 17, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> If the wings didn't enter the Pentagon it's rather curious that there were no big chunks of them left outside.





Not the same plane, not exactly the same walls I know, but should give you a rough idea of what happens.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 17, 2009)

Anyway, what does everyone think about this swine flu vaccine, I heard it's  designed to cull 80% of the human race!


----------



## kyser_soze (Nov 17, 2009)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Not the same plane, not exactly the same walls I know, but should give you a rough idea of what happens.




*Tekken V/O* CONCRETE WALL...WINS!!!!!



> the modus operandi of that Popular Mechanics article was the classic 'straw man' - i.e. to select weak arguments to knock down.



Given how long you've been here, you should know that a straw man isn't about selecting a weak arguement, it's about creating a point of argument that no one else involved in the discussion has (altho it may be related to the core subject) and then knocking it down.


----------



## laptop (Nov 17, 2009)

8den said:


> Jazzz  you don't get to paw around in the investigation of a murder trial to suit your grumpy daft evidence proof conspiracy theories.




But for what purpose does the court system exist, if not to answer WHATEVER'S ON JAZZZ'S MIND RIGHT NOW?


----------



## Sgt Howie (Nov 17, 2009)

I understand the urge to challenge the conspiraloons but it seems a bit pointless once they've demonstrated again and again that they've both made up their minds and are impervious to rational argument.

Re: the OP. No, conspiracy theorists might not be in the ascendency but their influence is clearly a malign one - at best offering a distracton to credible challenges to the system, at worst providing a narrative that is actively damaging, i.e. giving cover for muslims to deny Islamist responsibily for 9/11 and 7/7. 

It's easy enough to say that in a secular world conspiracy theories offer something to believe in, but I'm not sure we'd see nonsense like Loose Change getting so much attention if the radical left had a clear, credible, populist message to offer a far stronger pole of attraction for those who are skeptical of authority.


----------



## editor (Nov 17, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> You can find the summary here in the Pilots for 9/11 Truth press release dated 26/3/07.


This appears to be nothing more  just a short list of random, probably long retired pilots and their cohorts, none of who seem to have any relevant qualifications in analysing this data.

I asked you who Calum Douglas is, what his relevant qualifications are and if his findings have been independently verified and properly peer reviewed or not. 

Could you answer that question please? I mean, you have checked any of this? And if not, _why not?_


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 17, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> JC, the modus operandi of that Popular Mechanics article was the classic 'straw man' - i.e. to select weak arguments to knock down.



That's not what "straw man" means.


----------



## 8den (Nov 17, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> Now of course, you've realised that the FDR which you quickly googled (from a skeptics site) doesn't actually have the serial number on it.



I confused the plane's tail number with the serial number sue me. You really don't get to be on the high horse for making mistakes. 



> So quickly you've changed tack to some strange excuse that they couldn't show it (unlike 30+ pages of data from it!!) because it's an 'ongoing crime investigation'.



Why the fuck does the concept of "ongoing criminal investigation" not suit you fucko?



> Now let's get it straight: _there is no evidence that the NTSB was ever told the serial number by the FBI_.



And there's no reason the FBI and NTSB have to jump through hoops to satisfy your gouhlish ludicrous conspiracy theorists.   



> I've already showed, from their own words, that they have no documentation pertaining to the identification of any plane parts because they simply assumed that any aircraft parts discovered at the crash site were from flight 77. So, it means absolutely nothing that they put the aircraft number on the FDR document.



Exactly what piece of evidence are you looking for. What would satisfy you. Photos of bits of the plane, with their serial numbers on them, and a log book linking them to the AA77? Is that it? Exactly?



> Now, perhaps if you will admit that my statement was entirely correct, and drop the ridiculous abuse and huge fonts, we might press on with the other stuff a bit more amicably.




I'm not going to be amicable to someone as contemptible as yourself.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> Really 8den, this is no good at all. You have started ranting like a lunatic with the huge font because my points have held up.



Actually 8den was raving like a lunatic long before that.

He has single-handedly alienated many posters from the denialist case.  A cause supported so vehemently by such a crazed thicko cannot possibly be without fault.  Of course one cannot evaluate arguments based solely on the intelligence of their advocates, but it's not a bad place to start.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> That's not what "straw man" means.



I think you'll find it is.


----------



## fogbat (Nov 17, 2009)

He's definitely getting worse


----------



## 8den (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Actually 8den was raving like a lunatic long before that.
> 
> He has single-handedly alienated many posters from the denialist case.  A cause supported so vehemently by such a crazed thicko cannot possibly be without fault.  Of course one cannot evaluate arguments based solely on the intelligence of their advocates, but it's not a bad place to start.



Yes dear. whatever.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2009)

8den said:


> THE SERIAL NUMBERS HAVEN'T BEEN RELEASED BECAUSE ITS EVIDENCE OF A STILL ONGOING MURDER TRIAL
> 
> Fucking hell, your own link points that out.
> 
> ...



Worth quoting for posterity, just in case 8den sobers up long enough to attempt to edit this evidence of his disgraceful behavior and disturbed condition.

Seriously--and I speak as a denialist myself--one really does have to wonder why people like 8den get so enraged over this issue.  It so clearly bespeaks some psychological imperative: 8den is not arguing anything resembling a rational case here.  Am I right or wrong?  

People have been very quick to say that Jazzz is fulfilling some kind of psychological need by giving credibility to conspiracy theories, but it really does seem to me that charge might far more convincingly be leveled against 8den and his ilk.

I'm not joking in the slightest, btw.


----------



## 8den (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I think you'll find it is.



You are immensely thick Phil. 

A strawman, is greeting one argument with a fallacious misrepresentation of the other persons position, or a counter argument that bares no resemblance to the original point. 

I'll wait and let you get a dictionary out to figure out what the big words mean.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 17, 2009)

fogbat said:


> He's definitely getting worse



Who, jazzz or phildwyer?


----------



## 8den (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I'm not joking in the slightest, btw.



Nope just insane.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I think you'll find it is.



I think you'll find it isn't.  A straw man is introducing something your opponent *didn't* say (usually a misrepresentation/distortion of something they did say) and attacking that.  As you well know.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> I think you'll find it isn't.  A straw man is introducing something your opponent *didn't* say (usually a misrepresentation/distortion of something they did say) and attacking that.  As you well know.



Yes and no.  It's an example of an initially incorrect usage that becomes an accepted part of the language.  Like "hopefully" or "sympathy."  

A good one to keep an eye on is "momentarily."  I'm willing to bet that in ten years' time it will mean "in a moment" as well as "for a moment."


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Yes and no.  It's an example of an initially incorrect usage that becomes an accepted part of the language.  Like "hopefully" or "sympathy."
> 
> A good one to keep an eye on is "momentarily."  I'm willing to bet that in ten years' time it will mean "in a moment" as well as "for a moment."



Stop trolling phil.  Being a published academic, you know *exactly* what it means.  All you're doing here is stirring things.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 17, 2009)

dwyer said:
			
		

> Actually 8den was raving like a lunatic long before that.
> 
> He has single-handedly alienated many posters from the denialist case. A cause supported so vehemently by such a crazed thicko cannot possibly be without fault.



Dwyer's still persisting with his contrived 'campaign'**  to smear conspiracy sceptics here  I see.

**(inverted commas deliberate  )

Yet again with the made up smear-term 'denialist' too, use it often enough and perhaps dwyer thinks it will stick.

Actually until now, 'denialist' has most often been applied online to climate change denialists and AIDs denialists (  ), ie people who are patent 'contrarians' and/or out and out conspiracists subscribing to very very dubious, and vested interest laden,  versions of 'science'.

Dwyer's current repeated use of the term is a transparent (and indeed trolling) effort to label conspiracy-sceptics to be as off the wall and hatstand as them.




			
				dwyer said:
			
		

> Of course one cannot evaluate arguments based solely on the intelligence of their advocates, but it's not a bad place to start.



Agreed, so lets include the prebuilt in confirmation biases, arrant lack of logic, thoroughly dodgy sourcing, wild disregard for evidence and probability, and sheer speculation of the vast majority of  '9/11'-related conspiracy theories for starters.

Stuff that in so many cases is so provactively ludicrous (check some of Jazzz's bizarre claims earlier up) that it's hardly surprising that one or two CT sceptics lose it ... I'm not defending  swearing and abuse in the anti-CT responses (counterproductive) but just because Jazzz is polite  doesn't make his fantasy filled '9/11' claims any less ridiculous  

And as such, pretty provocative themselves -- I've not noticed any dwyer criticisms of *that*. Unsurprisingly ...


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 17, 2009)

editor said:
			
		

> Oh, and someone not believing in invisible missiles, holographic planes and CIA insta-Mike Yarwoods is not a "denialist." They're just _normal_.



Nutshell time.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Stop trolling phil.  Being a published academic, you know *exactly* what it means.  All you're doing here is stirring things.



No, I'm sorry but the meaning of words and phrases is not static.  It changes with time and usage.  You may not like it, but it remains a fact for all that.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> No, I'm sorry but the meaning of words and phrases is not static.  It changes with time and usage.  You may not like it, but it remains a fact for all that.



This one hasn't.  As you well know.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> Yet again with the made up smear-term 'denialist' too



The word "denialist" is used to designate those who deny conspiracies automatically and with no regard for the evidence.  I believe that many people _need_ to deny such theories, just as other need to believe in them.  So I'm afraid that the term will continue to be used in that sense.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Worth quoting for posterity, just in case 8den sobers up long enough to attempt to edit this evidence of his disgraceful behavior and disturbed condition.
> 
> Seriously--and I speak as a denialist myself--one really does have to wonder why people like 8den get so enraged over this issue.  It so clearly bespeaks some psychological imperative: 8den is not arguing anything resembling a rational case here.  Am I right or wrong?
> 
> ...



It really is hard to tell nowadays if you're still trolling as usual, or, as I suspect, you've crossed the line and now actually believe the pompous shite you post...


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> This one hasn't.  As you well know.



I'm sorry, but you are wrong.  Definitions of the phrase "straw man" include:

"a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted"

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=straw+man


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 17, 2009)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> phildwyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Still waiting on an answer to this btw 

Wriggle wriggle wriggle...


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I'm sorry, but you are wrong.  Definitions of the phrase "straw man" include:
> 
> "a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted"
> 
> http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=straw+man



404 Page Not Found


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2009)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> It really is hard to tell nowadays if you're still trolling as usual, or, as I suspect, you've crossed the line and now actually believe the pompous shite you post...



I have certainly become more sympathetic to conspiracy theories about 9/11 as a result of reading the debates on these boards.

I was initially fully committed to the denialist position, but having considered Jazzz's well-reasoned arguments and the raging incoherence that generally characterizes his opponents, I am no longer as certain as I was.

I believe it is called "having an open mind."


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 17, 2009)

You have to laugh when the only thing left for someone to score points off is an argument about the definition of "straw man"


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> 404 Page Not Found



http://www.metaglossary.com/meanings/964287/


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2009)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Still waiting on an answer to this btw



I think it is a comment on his character.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I have certainly become more sympathetic to conspiracy theories about 9/11 as a result of reading the debates on these boards.
> 
> I was initially fully committed to the denialist position, but having considered Jazzz's well-reasoned arguments and the raging incoherence that generally characterizes his opponents, I am no longer as certain as I was.
> 
> I believe it is called "having an open mind."



Yes Phil.  Of course it is.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I think it is a comment on his character.



And you think that comment is.....


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> http://www.metaglossary.com/meanings/964287/



Yes, an argument "set up".  Not one put by your debating opponent.

This is poor even for you phil.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I was initially fully committed to the denialist position, but having considered Jazzz's well-reasoned arguments and the raging incoherence that generally characterizes his opponents, I am no longer as certain as I was.
> 
> I believe it is called "having an open mind."



so you're influenced more by the nature of the messenger than the evidence


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 17, 2009)

smokedout said:


> so you're influenced more by the nature of the messenger than the evidence



Come now, he has _an open mind_, we should respect and worship him.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Yes, an argument "set up".  Not one put by your debating opponent.



You are simply mistaken.  A "straw man" argument can be one that has actually been made by your opponent.  As Jazzz said, to attack a "straw man" is to attack one of your opponent's weakest arguments.  It does *not* necessarily involve attributing to them something that they did not say.  And so you are wrong:

"A straw man is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue." 

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

And so you are wrong.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> i have certainly become more sympathetic to conspiracy theories about 9/11 as a result of reading the debates on these boards.
> 
> I was initially fully committed to the denialist position, but having considered *jazzz's well-reasoned arguments* and the raging incoherence that generally characterizes his opponents, i am no longer as certain as i was.
> 
> I believe it is called "having an open mind."



lol


----------



## smokedout (Nov 17, 2009)

i wonder if he wants to buy some magic beans


----------



## editor (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Actually 8den was raving like a lunatic long before that.
> 
> He has single-handedly alienated many posters from the denialist case.  A cause supported so vehemently by such a crazed thicko cannot possibly be without fault.  Of course one cannot evaluate arguments based solely on the intelligence of their advocates, but it's not a bad place to start.





phildwyer said:


> Worth quoting for posterity, just in case 8den sobers up long enough to attempt to edit this evidence of his disgraceful behavior and disturbed condition.


Your endless  personal attacks are becoming pretty disgraceful too. And very disruptive.



Blagsta said:


> Stop trolling phil.  Being a published academic, you know *exactly* what it means.  All you're doing here is stirring things.


Indeed. His arguments have been pwned so many times all he can do is endlessly wriggle and try and change the topic. It's transparently hopeless.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2009)

smokedout said:


> so you're influenced more by the nature of the messenger than the evidence



No.  

But the messenger certainly _influences_ my evaluation of the argument.  When one reads page after page in which one side presents its case calmly and rationally, and the other simply rages and rants using copious obscenity and abuse, that naturally affects my response to the argument itself.  

And that is what has happened here.


----------



## Knotted (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> You are simply mistaken.  A "straw man" argument can be one that has actually been made by your opponent.  As Jazzz said, to attack a "straw man" is to attack one of your opponent's weakest arguments.  It does *not* necessarily involve attributing to them something that they did not say.  And so you are wrong:
> 
> "A straw man is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue."
> 
> ...



Why do people assume Phil is trolling when he is clearly just a bit dim?


----------



## editor (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> But the messenger certainly _influences_ my evaluation of the argument.  When one reads page after page in which one side presents its case calmly and rationally, and the other simply rages and rants using copious obscenity and abuse, that naturally affects my response to the argument itself.


Jazzz's claims, sources and analysis are anything _but_ rational.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 17, 2009)

Knotted said:


> Why do people assume Phil is trolling



Coz some of us remember a certain webpage he once made


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 17, 2009)

dwyer said:
			
		

> Worth quoting for posterity, just in case 8den sobers up long enough to attempt to edit this evidence of his disgraceful behavior and disturbed condition.
> 
> Seriously--and I speak as a denialist myself--one really does have to wonder why people like 8den get so enraged over this issue. It so clearly bespeaks some psychological imperative: 8den is not arguing anything resembling a rational case here. Am I right or wrong?
> 
> ...





beesonthewhatnow said:


> It really is hard to tell nowadays if you're still trolling as usual, or, as I suspect, you've crossed the line and now actually believe the pompous shite you post...



Nah it's easy enough to spot what dwyers doing. He's clearly still trolling, as (further) proven by this deliberate use of one of the conspiracy theorists' favourite phrases, bolded :




			
				dwyer said:
			
		

> I have certainly become more sympathetic to conspiracy theories about 9/11 as a result of reading the debates on these boards.
> 
> I was initially fully committed to the denialist position, but having considered Jazzz's well-reasoned arguments and the raging incoherence that generally characterizes his opponents, I am no longer as certain as I was.
> 
> *I believe it is called "having an open mind."*



Conspiracy theorists' usual version of being 'open minded' is to be 'open minded'**  towards any and every fantastic '9/11' theory speculated on on committedly conspiracist blogs and CTer websites.

**(as in never in any way questioning,  being sceptical or being critical toward their own theories, while forever accusing conspiracy-sceptics of being gullible acceptors of the establishment line)

Anyone who's 'openminded' towards this illreasoned mishmash of 'any anti government theories whatsoever are automatically true' had better (in the classic phrase) watch out that their mind isn't so open that their brain falls out.

In any case, it's as plain as you like to any genuinely 'openminded' reader of these forums that dwyer isn't for a moment believing a single word of this stuff. His posing as somone gradually becoming 'converted' to '9/11' conspiracies is the same as all his other stuff in this thread. Trolling and deliberately adopted 'contrarianism' and no more ...


----------



## smokedout (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> No.
> 
> But the messenger certainly _influences_ my evaluation of the argument.  When one reads page after page in which one side presents its case calmly and rationally, and the other simply rages and rants using copious obscenity and abuse, that naturally affects my response to the argument itself.
> 
> And that is what has happened here.



so the truthers who've harrassed survivors of both 7/7 and 911, publicly accused myself and other posters on these boards of being MOD/MI5/MOSSAD and are now accusing people who lost loved ones of either lying or being very stupid

that doesnt affect your view of the argument at all?


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 17, 2009)

Knotted said:


> Why do people assume Phil is trolling when he is clearly just a bit dim?



Wrong on evey level. He's not dim at all, he's ferociously canny at adopting 'postions' (inverted commas deliberate) for maximum contrariness.

The vast majority of his track record on these forums is a that of a troll.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> You are simply mistaken.  A "straw man" argument can be one that has actually been made by your opponent.  As Jazzz said, to attack a "straw man" is to attack one of your opponent's weakest arguments.  It does *not* necessarily involve attributing to them something that they did not say.  And so you are wrong:
> 
> "A straw man is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue."
> 
> ...



No, a straw man is where "an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue." (as you said).  That is not the same thing as actually engaging with your opponents points!

Poor show.  2/10


----------



## 8den (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> http://www.metaglossary.com/meanings/964287/



Jesus Phil you're trolling or you're just fucking thick. 




			
				Jazzz said:
			
		

> i.e. to select weak arguments to knock down.



Your link



> a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted
> http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=straw+man
> Helpful?     		  		    0
> 
> ...



NONE OF THOSE THINGS MATCH JAZZZ's claims about "a weak argument easy to knock down."

You are fucking useless Phil. Whats your specialisation some bullshit nonsense in post modern philosophy?


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 17, 2009)

Knotted said:


> Why do people assume Phil is trolling when he is clearly just a bit dim?



Because he has admitted that he trolls in a blog about one of his academic books.


----------



## free spirit (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> You are simply mistaken.  A "straw man" argument can be one that has actually been made by your opponent.  As Jazzz said, to attack a "straw man" is to attack one of your opponent's weakest arguments.  It does *not* necessarily involve attributing to them something that they did not say.  And so you are wrong:
> 
> "A straw man is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue."
> 
> ...


erm, but all the arguments addressed by popular mechanics are ones that have at one point or another been made by one conspiracy theorist or another. They may be irrelevant to the current strain of CT argument, but it wasn't popular mechanics who constructed the straw men (if that's what they are), it was the CTers who came up with the incredibly weak arguements which Popular mechanics proceded to demolish.

also, if popular mechanics had decided the weakest arguements were too weak to bother with, and had only addressed the ones CTers now consider more relevant, are you really suggesting the the CTers would have simply conceded the point on the weak arguements? 

Experience indicates otherwise, hence the need to address all the points, even the most ridiculous, because CTers have consistently shown themselves to be like drowning men gladly clutch at any straw available and hold it aloft for all the world to see as an example of their troof seeking prowess, regardless of how utterly ridiculous they look holding said straw and expecting it to keep them / their argument afloat.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 17, 2009)

I dunno, I'm really starting to think he's got himself into a position not dissimilar to a fading rock star, one who has started to believe his own hype, having nothing original left in him but to try and come out with ever more outlandish routines in a desperate attempt to entertain and be loved by a public that got bored years ago.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> No, a straw man is where "an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue." (as you said).  That is not the same thing as actually engaging with your opponents points!



Nor is it the same as misrepresenting your opponent's position, as you wrongly claimed.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 17, 2009)

editor said:


> Jazzz's claims, sources and analysis are anything _but_ rational.



For just one example out of many, his citation of Gen Stubblebine as some sort of reputable authority on '9/11', a little while ago :




			
				claphamboy said:
			
		

> Major General Albert Stubblebine maybe retired from the U.S. Army, but he's the founder and director of 'Natural Solutions Foundation' - that campaigns against vaccines and prescription drugs, that have been so successful in extending life expectancy over the last few generations, on the basis that they are Weapons of Mass Destruction!
> 
> You can visit the NSF site and make a donation, buy natural supplements, power foods, homeopathic crap or some Valley of the Moon Chemical Free Coffee!
> 
> ...



The above is typical of the thoroughly sloppy approach to source selection indulged in by Jazzz and other '9/11' CTers. 

The idea that dwyer, supposedly an academic, has become converted towards '9/11' conspiracism by Jazzz's way of arguing, and in the face of Jazzz's use of sources like the above (and there are many other similar examples in this thread and elsewhere) is to say the least unconvincing .....


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 17, 2009)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I dunno, I'm really starting to think he's got himself into a position not dissimilar to a *fading rock star*, one who has started to believe his own hype, having nothing original left in him but to try and come out with ever more outlandish routines in a desperate attempt to entertain and be loved by a public that got bored years ago.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Nor is it the same as misrepresenting your opponent's position, as you wrongly claimed.



Give it up phil.  You're beat and you know it.


----------



## kyser_soze (Nov 17, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


>



OI! No dissing Professor Brian May!!! He's a good populariser of science now he's got round to doing his phd in astrophysics...


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 17, 2009)

I thought he was an astronomer by background  ... at least he's not an astrologer (or conspiracy theorist  ) anyway

OK, slack and speedy use of first image coming to mind for a cheap laugh, holding up my hands, guilty!


----------



## fogbat (Nov 17, 2009)

Trim the hair, and the resemblance is uncanny


----------



## 8den (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Nor is it the same as misrepresenting your opponent's position, as you wrongly claimed.



Ahem Phil from *your* link about the definition of strawman




			
				Dywer's definition of Strawman said:
			
		

> a misrepresentation of a point another person made
> http://episteme.arstechnica.com/grou...75/m/537003397...



So to be clear. 

*Your* definition of "strawman" *doesn't* include Jazzz's interpretation of the term, but it *does* include Blagstas. 

Oh Noes Dwyer Duble fce palm.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 17, 2009)

There really has been some epic self pwnage on this thread


----------



## editor (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Nor is it the same as misrepresenting your opponent's position, as you wrongly claimed.


You, sir, are drowning in an epic sea of pure pwnage.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2009)

See, this is the kind of argument that is convincing me that Jazzz's claims have some truth to them.

I prove Blagsta wrong, with perfect and irrefutable citation.  Just to remind everyone: Blagsta claims that to make a "straw man" is to misrepresent your opponent: to claim that he has said something he has not.

Now (and this is easily verified) I point out that Blagsta is wrong.  To construct a "straw man" is to choose a weak or irrelevant argument to counter.  It does not necessarily involve putting words in one's opponent's mouth.

The response of our denialists is eerily similar to their response to Jazzz.  They refuse to check the evidence and oafishly boast that they have been victorious.

It becomes clear that such people are not interested in the truth at all.  And so, despite the apparent implausibility of the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11, reasonable people will start to look at such theories more closely.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> See, this is the kind of argument that is convincing me that Jazzz's claims have some truth to them.
> 
> I prove Blagsta wrong, with perfect and irrefutable citation.  Just to remind everyone: Blagsta claims that to make a "straw man" is to misrepresent your opponent: to claim that he has said something he has not.
> 
> ...



My god, you really _are_ starting to believe your own bullshit.


----------



## Knotted (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> See, this is the kind of argument that is convincing me that Jazzz's claims have some truth to them.
> 
> I prove Blagsta wrong, with perfect and irrefutable citation.  Just to remind everyone: Blagsta claims that to make a "straw man" is to misrepresent your opponent: to claim that he has said something he has not.
> 
> ...



Now _that's_ trolling.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2009)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> My god, you really _are_ starting to believe your own bullshit.



Look, this is very easily settled.

Bees: do you (A) think (as Blagsta does) that to construct a "straw man" is to argue against a point that your opponent has not made.

Or do you (B) think (as I and everyone who knows anything about rhetoric does) that to construct a "straw man" is to choose a weak and irrelevant argument to counter?

There is no room for ambiguity here, there is no matter for discussion.  You can simply look this up in a dictionary.

Let us see if you are capable of admitting the truth, even about such a trivial point.

Which is it: (A) or (B)?


----------



## kyser_soze (Nov 17, 2009)

I have to say, there has been a magnificent comeback on the quality of troll here. It was dead as a dodo around the 6-800 mark, but he's come out swinging...


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 17, 2009)

I personally go with:

c) a known troll and self confessed internet windup merchant ends up desperately wriggling as people point and laugh at his utterly transparent attempts to be controversial


----------



## Maidmarian (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Look, this is very easily settled.
> 
> Bees: do you (A) think (as Blagsta does) that to construct a "straw man" is to argue against a point that your opponent has not made.
> 
> ...



Is THIS a strawman ?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 17, 2009)

Maidmarian said:


> Is THIS a strawman ?



Our survey says....


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2009)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I personally go with:
> 
> c) a known troll and self confessed internet windup merchant ends up desperately wriggling as people point and laugh at his utterly transparent attempts to be controversial



No, Bees.  You're not getting off this hook.

Is it (A) or (B)?

Answer, or expose yourself as an oaf who has not interest in the truth.  Thus also discrediting the more important cause you have been trying to espouse.


----------



## kyser_soze (Nov 17, 2009)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Our survey says....



You could at least have put an NSFW warning against a picture of a cunt, bees.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> No, Bees.  You're not getting off this hook.
> 
> Is it (A) or (B)?
> 
> Answer, or expose yourself as an oaf who has not interest in the truth.



Tell you what phil, you answer my question first:




			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> I think it is a comment on his character
> 
> 
> beesonthewhatnow said:
> ...



and then we'll look at your query.

I asked first, so it seems only fair.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2009)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Tell you what phil, you answer my question first:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



OK, you've got yourself a deal.

Let's just be clear about the terms.  I answer your question here, then you will say whether your answer to my question above is (A) or (B).

Is that correct?  Read over the terms carefully before agreeing, for I have no intention of allowing you to renege on this.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> OK, you've got yourself a deal.



Marvellous. 



> Let's just be clear about the terms.



Agreeing to a deal, _then_ then trying to agree terms?

You're a poor businessman phil


----------



## editor (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> See, this is the kind of argument that is convincing me that Jazzz's claims have some truth to them.


Catastrophic logic fail plus epic pwnage, sprinkled with troll fail.

 Dwyer keeps on giving!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> *...I prove Blagsta wrong, with perfect and irrefutable citation...*



Hmmm.


> The response of our denialists is eerily similar to their response to Jazzz.  They refuse to check the evidence *and oafishly boast that they have been victorious.
> 
> It becomes clear that such people are not interested in the truth at all.*



More self-pwnage from the master of self-pwnage.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2009)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Marvellous.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You can't do it, can you?

Even though the issue is entirely unambiguous, even though it is a matter of fact and not of opinion, even though everyone can verify the answer themselves--as I'm sure you have--you just _can't_ admit the truth.

Now, if we can't trust you to be fair and objective on such a trivial point, why should anyone trust you to be fair and objective about an issue like 9/11?

Obviously they cannot.  And that, my friends, is why I grow more and more convinced that Jazzz's claims must have some merit.

QED.


----------



## Knotted (Nov 17, 2009)

To be fair, this is quite masterful trolling.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 17, 2009)

Knotted said:


> To be fair, this is quite masterful trolling.



i haven't even been following it for a few days, but from WHO?


----------



## Knotted (Nov 17, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> i haven't even been following it for a few days, but from WHO?



Phil. I wouldn't worry about it. He's managing to troll about the meaning of "straw man argument" using a straw man argument and it's almost working. You've got to hand it to him.


----------



## 8den (Nov 17, 2009)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Marvellous.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





But this is Phil, offering the ladies of urban a chance to punch him in the face for free, and then amending the deal to insist said punch had to be preceded  by a blowjob, furthermore Phil now started to maintain that this clause _had always_ been a part of the arrangement. 

What I'm trying to say is the terms of any deal with phil are not bound by us mere mortals understanding of the space time continuum.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> You can't do it, can you?
> 
> Even though the issue is entirely unambiguous, even though it is a matter of fact and not of opinion, even though everyone can verify the answer themselves--as I'm sure you have--you just _can't_ admit the truth.
> 
> ...



That is a quite _spectacular_ logical failure 

Anyhoos, are you going to explain what you meant by "a comment on his character"?

Wriggle wriggle wriggle...


----------



## 8den (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> It becomes clear that such people are not interested in the truth at all.  And so, despite the apparent implausibility of the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11, reasonable people will start to look at such theories more closely.



Phil, dude it's been eight years since the attack why have the reasonable people been letting only unreasonable people look at the theories? Seriously dwyer fuck off. 

For shits n giggles phil, ask Jazzz what he thinks happened at the twin towers, or what hit the pentagon? Or what happened to United 93? Ask him to give a full coherent narrative of his alternative theories. 

We've had 8 years of this bullshit, and Jazzz and his ilk can't even do that. Well thank fuck you rational people are now on the case. 

A couple of years ago, I ask Jazzz politely (Oh all right semi politely) to explain what evidence could be presented to him to believe the (and I don't like this term) official conspiracy theory was true. Seriously what piece of physical evidence/testimony/whatever could be presented to change his mind. He obfuscated and procrastinated, and eventually ignored the question.  What does that tell you?


----------



## editor (Nov 17, 2009)

Knotted said:


> To be fair, this is quite masterful trolling.


Well it might be if he wasn't making such an arse of himself in the process. 

Quality trolling isn't about endlessly posting pages of lamentable guff - it should be all about _other people_ making fools of themselves, not the wannabe troller.

He's getting boring now tbh.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> And that, my friends, is why I grow more and more convinced that Jazzz's claims must have some merit.



bullshit.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> bullshit.


quote a dwyer post which isn't


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> See, this is the kind of argument that is convincing me that Jazzz's claims have some truth to them.
> 
> I prove Blagsta wrong, with perfect and irrefutable citation.  Just to remind everyone: Blagsta claims that to make a "straw man" is to misrepresent your opponent: to claim that he has said something he has not.
> 
> ...


now, about the existence of god...


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 17, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> now, about the existence of god...



Careful now, the way things are going he'll end-up declaring himself as being God, with Jazzz as his son.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> now, about the existence of god...



Take it up with the Mods.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> See, this is the kind of argument that is convincing me that Jazzz's claims have some truth to them.
> 
> I prove Blagsta wrong, with perfect and irrefutable citation.  Just to remind everyone: Blagsta claims that to make a "straw man" is to misrepresent your opponent: to claim that he has said something he has not.
> 
> ...



Give it up, losser.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Give it up, losser.



If you're going to call someone a "loser" you should _really_ make sure you can spell the word first.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 17, 2009)




----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> If you're going to call someone a "loser" you should _really_ make sure you can spell the word first.


loser


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2009)

Blagsta said:


>



Does this make me the winer?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Does this make me the whiner?


*corrected*


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 17, 2009)

editor said:


> Quality trolling isn't about endlessly posting pages of lamentable guff and it should be all about _other people_ making fools of themselves, not the wannbe troller.


And quality trolling also involves people_ not realising_ that you're trolling. Trolling fail.


----------



## editor (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> If you're going to call someone a "loser" you should _really_ make sure you can spell the word first.


Doh! 

Doh! 

Doh! 

Doh! 

Doh!


----------



## Corax (Nov 17, 2009)

editor said:


> He's getting boring now tbh.



Yep.  I'm a bit disappointed tbh.

Phil, you're looossing your sparkle mate.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2009)

Corax said:


> Yep.  I'm a bit disappointed tbh.
> 
> Phil, you're looossing your sparkle mate.


he never had it


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 17, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> That's not what "straw man" means.



It is, actually.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 17, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> I think you'll find it isn't.  A straw man is introducing something your opponent *didn't* say (usually a misrepresentation/distortion of something they did say) and attacking that.  As you well know.



Ah, I see the problem. It's semantics, as usual. One person says 'select weak arguments to knock down'. The other says, 'introducing something they didn't sayl, and knocking that down'.

Shades of grey.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> No, I'm sorry but the meaning of words and phrases is not static.  It changes with time and usage. .



I don't think the meaning of 'straw man' has changed, at least not in our lifetimes.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I have certainly become more sympathetic to conspiracy theories about 9/11 as a result of reading the debates on these boards.
> 
> I was initially fully committed to the denialist position, but having considered Jazzz's well-reasoned arguments and the raging incoherence that generally characterizes his opponents, I am no longer as certain as I was.



Have you changed your position based upon the comments of an individual on a bb, and the alleged ineffectiveness of his opposition; as opposed to your own analysis of the facts etc?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> No.
> 
> But the messenger certainly _influences_ my evaluation of the argument.  When one reads page after page in which one side presents its case calmly and rationally, and the other simply rages and rants using copious obscenity and abuse, that naturally affects my response to the argument itself.
> 
> .



But that's a reflection on the individuals involved in the debate, not on the merits of the opposing positions.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 17, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Have you changed your position based upon the comments of an individual on a bb, and the alleged ineffectiveness of his opposition; as opposed to your own analysis of the facts etc?






Johnny Canuck2 said:


> But that's a reflection on the individuals involved in the debate, not on the merits of the opposing positions.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 17, 2009)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I dunno, I'm really starting to think he's got himself into a position not dissimilar to a fading rock star, one who has started to believe his own hype, having nothing original left in him but to try and come out with ever more outlandish routines in a desperate attempt to entertain and be loved by a public that got bored years ago.



I'd say this was less an addition to the discussion, and something more along the lines of a 'Cheesy/Attack!'...

I coined that last phrase myself, you know.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> See, this is the kind of argument that is convincing me that Jazzz's claims have some truth to them.
> 
> I prove Blagsta wrong, with perfect and irrefutable citation.  Just to remind everyone: Blagsta claims that to make a "straw man" is to misrepresent your opponent: to claim that he has said something he has not.
> 
> ...









This is not a Cheesy/Attack!, even though it might look like it. It's a fair comment on the nature of the quoted post, imo.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Have you changed your position based upon the comments of an individual on a bb, and the alleged ineffectiveness of his opposition; as opposed to your own analysis of the facts etc?



Well I wouldn't go so far as to say that I've changed my position.

But anyone reading these threads can't help but be struck by the contrast between the way the conspiracy theorists put their case--calm, rational, unfailingly polite--and the way the denialists put theirs--raging, hysterical, constantly abusive.

It does make one wonder how far the two sides are being motivated by deep-seated unconscious impulses.  

So I'm looking at the evidence again.  Which I wouldn't have done were it not for threads such as this one.  I'll get back to you regarding any change in my opinion.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> It is, actually.



Thank you!

I'm still waiting for Blagsta or his allies to acknowledge their mistake here.

And their continued reluctance to do so makes me view their other arguments with suspicion, quite frankly.  It makes me think they might be the kind of people who care more about winning an argument than about the truth.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> It makes me think they might be the kind of people who care more about winning an argument than about the truth.


if you cared about the truth you'd have spent some time recently proving the existence of god.


----------



## 8den (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Well I wouldn't go so far as to say that I've changed my position.
> 
> But anyone reading these threads can't help but be struck by the contrast between the way the conspiracy theorists put their case--calm, rational,



Jazzz thinks someone(s) ran around the crash site at the pentagon littering the bodies of victims of AA 77, among fake wreckage, the midst of a major disaster. And you think thats rational?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> But that's a reflection on the individuals involved in the debate, not on the merits of the opposing positions.



My hunch is that certain individuals are attracted to certain positions because of personal rather than rational reasons.

In fairness, I think this works both ways.  I think there are people who _need_ to believe in conspiracy theories, and I also think there are people who _need_ to debunk them.

The problem for the rest of us is deciding who these people are.  And the manner in which they put their cases is a decent clue in this direction.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2009)

8den said:


> Jazzz thinks someone(s) ran around the crash site at the pentagon littering the bodies of victims of AA 77, among fake wreckage, the midst of a major disaster.



See, this is the problem.

I'd never believe that.  But based on your attitude and behavior throughout this debate, I don't believe you when you say that Jazzz believes that either.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> But anyone reading these threads can't help but be struck by the contrast between the way the conspiracy theorists put their case--calm, rational, unfailingly polite--and the way the denialists put theirs--raging, hysterical, constantly abusive.
> 
> It does make one wonder how far the two sides are being motivated by deep-seated unconscious impulses.


So you don't think that's got anything to do with so-called "denialists" being sick and tired of listening to the same old discredited lunatic shite spouted by the conspiraloon tendency then?


----------



## 8den (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> See, this is the problem.
> 
> I'd never believe that.  But based on your attitude and behavior throughout this debate, I don't believe you when you say that Jazzz believes that either.



He wrote that on this very thread you fucking numpity.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> So I'm looking at the evidence again.  Which I wouldn't have done were it not for threads such as this one.  I'll get back to you regarding any change in my opinion.



I have reviewed things based on this thread and others. The reason for me, is that I've looked at links that caused me to go to other sources, to determine the veracity of the original Jazz links.

The level of calm, or otherwise, of the individual posters, has had no bearing on my decision to check sources.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Thank you!
> 
> I'm still waiting for Blagsta or his allies to acknowledge their mistake here.
> 
> And their continued reluctance to do so makes me view their other arguments with suspicion, quite frankly.  It makes me think they might be the kind of people who care more about winning an argument than about the truth.



As I went through the original posts about 'straw man', it appeared to me to be an argument based on semantics, as I've said in a post above. But the argument deepened, then hardened, based on personalities, and not much else, imo.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2009)

Beanburger said:


> So you don't think that's got anything to do with so-called "denialists" being sick and tired of listening to the same old discredited lunatic shite spouted by the conspiraloon tendency then?



No I don't.

Why do you think Beesonthewhatnow _refused_ to acknowledge that he was wrong about the definition of "straw target?"

I think it was because he has difficulty acknowledging that he's wrong about anything.

So even if he knew he was wrong about 9/11, I think he'd refuse to acknowledge the fact.

So I don't take his arguments as seriously as I take those of Jazzz, who _does_ acknowledge when he's proved to be wrong.

That's fair enough, right?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> My hunch is that certain individuals are attracted to certain positions because of personal rather than rational reasons.
> 
> In fairness, I think this works both ways.  I think there are people who _need_ to believe in conspiracy theories, and I also think there are people who _need_ to debunk them.
> 
> The problem for the rest of us is deciding who these people are.  And the manner in which they put their cases is a decent clue in this direction.



There might be people like that, but to me, the psychological reasons that a person holds a position, are irrelevant to me. As stated above, I'll go to the source material, and make my own decision based upon whatever factual evidence is available.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2009)

8den said:


> He wrote that on this very thread you fucking numpity.



OK, here's a test case.  Prove it.


----------



## 8den (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> So I don't take his arguments as seriously as I take those of Jazzz, who _does_ acknowledge when he's proved to be wrong.
> 
> That's fair enough, right?



Really? I've only ever seen Jazzz admit he was wrong once an 9/11 thread, including the time he was ripped to shreds by an architect on the engineering, structure, and design of the WTC.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> No I don't.
> 
> Why do you think Beesonthewhatnow _refused_ to acknowledge that he was wrong about the definition of "straw target?"
> 
> ...


Not really, no. Coz Jazzz won't even _contemplate the possibility_ that he's wrong. He's discovered "the truth", and nothing will persuade him to the contrary. Frankly, it's hardly surprising if people get irate in the face of such zealous, pseudo-religious behaviour.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> No I don't.



I do. Have you seen Rain Man? Eventually, Cruise just wants to slap Hoffman, and deep inside somewhere, so do you. Even though the poor man has a mental problem.

It's the same here. If someone endlessly repeats nonsense, no matter how much logic is thrown at them, eventually, you want to start screaming, with spittle flecked words, and you want to take them by the lapels and slap them.

Even if they have a mental deficiency. Terrible, I know: but true.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> So I don't take his arguments as seriously as I take those of Jazzz, who _does_ acknowledge when he's proved to be wrong.



Like fuck he does, most of the time he comes back with more unconnected delusional evidence-free nonsense, totally ignores that he has been proved wrong or disappears completely.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> That's fair enough, right?



No. That manner of living, and of determining truth, leads to people being persuaded by the Hitlers and the Ted Bundys, just because they're smooth and persuasive talkers.

It's about the message, not the messenger.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2009)

8den said:


> He wrote that on this very thread you fucking numpity.



indeed: he writes it on many of his threads.


----------



## 8den (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> OK, here's a test case.  Prove it.



Happily;

In a response to my detailed linking to the Forensics and Search and Rescue efforts at the Pentagon Jazzz wrote




			
				Jazzz said:
			
		

> It would only take a few people to go around before planting body parts, and there you go (that is simply one method by which the results could have been corrupted).



Jazzz's post is 1211

My post was 1187

Thoughts? Comments? Or are you just going to ignore that Phil?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 17, 2009)

Where'd Phil go?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2009)

8den said:


> Happily;
> 
> In a response to my detailed linking to the Forensics and Search and Rescue efforts at the Pentagon Jazzz wrote
> 
> ...



See, this proves my point about your motives.

Jazzz emphatically does _not_ claim what you said he claimed.

So now I have proof that you're willing to lie and misrepresent his position.

So I'm confirmed in my skepticism about everything else you claim.

See how this works?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> See, this proves my point about your motives.
> 
> Jazzz emphatically does _not_ claim what you said he claimed.
> 
> ...



Why not address my points about the message/messenger dichotomy?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Why not address my points about the message/messenger dichotomy?


because he can't


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2009)

Another example would be Ted Olson.

Ted Olson has lied in court about Iran-Contra.  He's lied in court about Bush's election.

But rather than admit this, our denialists have rushed to defend him, simply because they think it serves their case.

So that makes me suspicious of their case in general.

See how this works?


----------



## 8den (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> See, this proves my point about your motives.
> 
> Jazzz emphatically does _not_ claim what you said he claimed.



Okay Phil since you're so confident what does




			
				Jazzz said:
			
		

> It would only take a few people to go around before planting body parts, and there you go



Seeing as the topic of conversation was the forensics at the pentagon. 

Please, tell, us, Phil, _emphatically_ what Jazzz meant.




> So now I have proof that you're willing to lie and misrepresent his position.
> 
> So I'm confirmed in my skepticism about everything else you claim.
> 
> See how this works?



Phil seriously, not working.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Why not address my points about the message/messenger dichotomy?



Sure.

If I see hysterical, abusive messengers, who can be proved willing to lie about stuff I know about, that makes me suspect their message regarding things I'm not sure about.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Another example would be Ted Olson.
> 
> Ted Olson has lied in court about Iran-Contra.  He's lied in court about Bush's election.
> 
> ...


I haven't seen anyone "rush to defend" Olson. I've seen people argue that any human being is highly unlikely to lie about the murder of their wife. That's an observation on human nature - not a defence of Olson. The fact that you've chosen to falsely characterise such comments betrays your own bias and lack of objectivity. Which is fine. But pot, kettle.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2009)

8den said:


> Phil seriously, not working.









dwyer recently


----------



## 8den (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Another example would be Ted Olson.
> 
> Ted Olson has lied in court about Iran-Contra.  He's lied in court about Bush's election.



No you said Ted Oslon was directly involved in a plot to kill millions. Remember Phil? Phil?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2009)

8den said:


> Seeing as the topic of conversation was the forensics at the pentagon.
> 
> Please, tell, us, Phil, _emphatically_ what Jazzz meant.



You said he'd claimed that people went about scattering body parts at the Pentagon.

Asked for proof, you cited a post in which he used this as a purely hypothetical scenario, and in which he said this was one among many possible scenarios.

So you lied, and misrepresented him.

So now I don't believe anything you say about him.

Are you beginning to see how this works now?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Both of them.


no they didn't


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Are you beginning to see how this works now?


You split hairs then use that as an excuse for putting your fingers in your ears, whilst saying "ner ner, not listening"?


----------



## 8den (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> You said he'd claimed that people went about scattering body parts at the Pentagon.
> 
> Asked for proof, you cited a post in which he used this as a purely hypothetical scenario, and in which he said this was one among many possible scenarios.
> 
> ...



Wow. Dude. You're fucking nuts. You claim that's even a rational "hypothesis"

Stay in Academia Phil boy actual reality is going to be far too scary for you.


----------



## editor (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> But rather than admit this, our denialists have rushed to defend him, simply because they think it serves their case.


Name these people and produce supporting quotes, please.


phildwyer said:


> See how this works?


Yes. You keep digging yourself in deeper and deeper. 

It's fast becoming rather an unedifying sight to be honest.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2009)

8den said:


> Wow. Dude. You're fucking nuts. You claim that's even a rational "hypothesis"



No, I've claimed no such thing.

And you have once again resorted to obscenity and abuse.

So now you have openly lied _again_--apparently not even caring that everyone can see this--and you have _again_ debased our debate with your rage and hysteria.

You really can't be surprised when people look with increasing sympathy at your opponent's case.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> No, I've claimed no such thing.
> 
> And you have once again resorted to obscenity and abuse.
> 
> ...


Actually, you're debasing your own case with your personal attacks. I'm taking you less seriously by the minute. And if anyone takes a conspiraloon argument more seriously based on a spat in an internet forum thread, then they're a fucktard.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2009)

editor said:


> Name these people and produce supporting quotes, please.



OK:



8den said:


> He was Regan's lawyer during the Iran Contra hearings. How's that directly involved?
> 
> And he was Dubya's lawyer in Gore V Bush. How is that direct involvement with the murder of anyone? It's like saying Irving Kanarek's was "directly"
> involved in the Manson murders.
> ...


----------



## smokedout (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> OK:



nah, youve lost it now dwyer, question is can you make a successful fighting retreat or are you going to keep digging a hole


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> OK:



Nope, that doesn't do it.

Just give up now, you've long since become boring.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> Nope, that doesn't do it.(



I'm afraid it does.  It provides just the evidence that was requested.

In addition (and this doesn't include you CB), I must say that the way various sycophantic sheep stampede onto threads like this one to bleat their agreement with the denialist viewpoint must confirm any decent person in their skepticism.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 17, 2009)

fail


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I'm afraid it does.  It provides just the evidence that was requested.


I think you'll find you're firmly in the minority with that one. That proves you're wrong 



> In addition (and this doesn't include you CB), I must say that the way various sycophantic sheep stampede onto threads like this one to bleat their agreement with the denialist viewpoint must confirm any decent person in their skepticism.


And such transparent baiting must confirm any reasonable person's suspicion that you're trolling.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> See how this works?



No. Mistaking the message for the messenger is an intellectual fault that I wouldn't have expected in you.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Sure.
> 
> If I see hysterical, abusive messengers, who can be proved willing to lie about stuff I know about, that makes me suspect their message regarding things I'm not sure about.



I think what you said, is that it makes you more willing to reconsider your opinion.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> In addition (and this doesn't include you CB), I must say that the way various sycophantic sheep stampede onto threads like this one to bleat their agreement with the denialist viewpoint must confirm any decent person in their skepticism.


quite. let's not let the facts stand in the way of an irrational belief in utter loonery.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 17, 2009)




----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> No. Mistaking the message for the messenger is an intellectual fault that I wouldn't have expected in you.



I haven't mistaken them, and I remain pretty certain that the Bush/Cheney account of 9/11 is true.

I was once _completely_ certain of that. But the furious outrage with which idiots greet any skepticism about that account has made me suspicious that some manipulation of public opinion may well have taken place.  

When manifest know-nothings feel certain enough of something to rage and abuse those who question it, they are usually wrong, in my experience.


----------



## editor (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I'm afraid it does.  It provides just the evidence that was requested.
> 
> In addition (and this doesn't include you CB), I must say that the way various sycophantic sheep stampede onto threads like this one to bleat their agreement with the denialist viewpoint must confirm any decent person in their skepticism.


Ya Rly, phil.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I was once _completely_ certain of that. But the furious outrage with which idiots greet any skepticism about that account has made me suspicious that some manipulation of public opinion may well have taken place.


Outrage on an internet forum = proof of conspiraloonacy. Troll fail.


----------



## Knotted (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I haven't mistaken them, and I remain pretty certain that the Bush/Cheney account of 9/11 is true.
> 
> I was once _completely_ certain of that. But the furious outrage with which idiots greet any skepticism about that account has made me suspicious that some manipulation of public opinion may well have taken place.
> 
> When manifest know-nothings feel certain enough of something to rage and abuse those who question it, they are usually wrong, in my experience.



Oh Phil.  You're like a robot. Sometimes the idea that you'll ever think for yourself seems like science fiction. But then I think I'm sure it's possible you will do someday.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I haven't mistaken them, and I remain pretty certain that the Bush/Cheney account of 9/11 is true.
> 
> I was once _completely_ certain of that. But the furious outrage with which idiots greet any skepticism about that account has made me suspicious that some manipulation of public opinion may well have taken place.
> 
> When manifest know-nothings feel certain enough of something to rage and abuse those who question it, they are usually wrong, in my experience.



The rage or otherwise of know nothings is less than irrelevant to me. My own analysis of the thing, is what I tend to rely on.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 17, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> The rage or otherwise of know nothings is less than irrelevant to me. My own analysis of the thing, is what I tend to rely on.


Irrational denialist!


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> The rage or otherwise of know nothings is less than irrelevant to me. My own analysis of the thing, is what I tend to rely on.



Me too.  

In general.  On this thread, however, we have seen people who frankly could not tell Osama bin Laden from Fidel Castro scamper up to tell us how _certain_ they are, how absolutely _positive,_ that all conspiracy theories about 9/11 are complete and utter nonsense, rubbish and garbage.

That should make a sensible person prick up their ears.

I'm not sure of the facts behind 9/11, but I do know one thing.  When people like 8den and his ilk line up to salute the official version of events, I will always be skeptical.  Someone has certainly told them what to believe, and that someone has done their job very well indeed.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Me too.
> 
> In general.  On this thread, however, we have seen people who frankly could not tell Osama bin Laden from Fidel Castro scamper up to tell us how _certain_ they are, how absolutely _positive,_ that all conspiracy theories about 9/11 are complete and utter nonsense, rubbish and garbage.
> 
> That should make a sensible person prick up their ears..



I take your point to the extent that whenever someone expresses unshakeable certainty about something, it makes me look askance at _the person_.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> On this thread, however, we have seen people who frankly could not tell Osama bin Laden from Fidel Castro scamper up to tell us how _certain_ they are, how absolutely _positive,_ that all conspiracy theories about 9/11 are complete and utter nonsense, rubbish and garbage.


... because of the overwhelming evidence. 



> Someone has certainly told them what to believe, and that someone has done their job very well indeed.


Troll fail.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> I take your point to the extent that whenever someone expresses unshakeable certainty about something, it makes me look askance at _the person_.



It depends on the person.  I have no problem believing sensible and informed people who express certainty about current affairs.

However when a gaggle of geese like 8den and company waddle along quacking in unison "down with conspiraloons," then I _know_ that someone has been telling them what to think.

Doesn't necessarily mean that they've been misinformed.  But they've certainly been informed.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> It depends on the person.  I have no problem believing sensible and informed people who express certainty about current affairs.


Why are you interested in people's opinions rather than the facts? 



> However when a gaggle of geese like 8den and company waddle along quacking in unison "down with conspiraloons," then I _know_ that someone has been telling them what to think.
> 
> Doesn't necessarily mean that they've been misinformed.  But they've certainly been informed.


Troll fail.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> It depends on the person.  I have no problem believing sensible and informed people who express certainty about current affairs.



I don't mean mere certainty. I mean the 'my mind is made up, I am right, nothing will change my opinion, and you're crazy for disagreeing' kind of certainty.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> I don't mean mere certainty. I mean the 'my mind is made up, I am right, nothing will change my opinion, and you're crazy for disagreeing' kind of certainty.



Well there we agree.

The truth however is that, with today's media at their disposal, the government can make the majority believe whatever they want them to believe.

As I keep saying, that doesn't necessarily mean it's untrue.  But just take a look at some of the human sheep on this thread.  They'd believe the moon was a balloon if they were told to.  Not only that: they are willing to _hate_ anyone who disagrees.  That's the truly frightening thing about them.


----------



## 8den (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> OK:



No phil you thick as pig shit goatfucker. 

You said "Ted Olson was directly involved in plots to murder millions"

I say "How" 

You ranted about "Bush Blah Blah" 

I pointed out; "He was Regan's Lawyer and Bush's Lawyer, how does that make him directly involved in plots to murder millions". 

The quote you picked from me, comes* after* your obscene smear that Ted Olson was a mass murderer. 


Jesus. You are really fucking bad at this.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> The truth however is that, with today's media at their disposal, the government can make the majority believe whatever they want them to believe.


let's take the war in iraq. that's something the government really wanted people to believe was right, but as is widely known they fucked it up.

you're a lying piece of shit, phil, and it's plain for all to see.


----------



## 8den (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> As I keep saying, that doesn't necessarily mean it's untrue.  But just take a look at some of the human sheep on this thread.  They'd believe the moon was a balloon if they were told to.



I heard, and it's purely hypothetical, that Dwyer has the worlds largest collection of gay midget donkey scat porn. 

But's it's only a theory. Doesn't mean that I believe it. Nope.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 17, 2009)

8den said:


> I heard, and it's purely hypothetical, that Dwyer has the worlds largest collection of gay midget donkey scat porn.
> 
> But's it's only a theory. Doesn't mean that I believe it. Nope.


*I* do.


----------



## editor (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> However when a gaggle of geese like 8den and company waddle along quacking in unison "down with conspiraloons," then I _know_ that someone has been telling them what to think.
> 
> Doesn't necessarily mean that they've been misinformed.  But they've certainly been informed.


Oh, do shut up. Whatever novelty your daft trolling had here has long vanished.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2009)

Beanburger said:


> *I* do.


did you hear that rumour about him using a bonsai tree as some sort of perverse dildo up his jaxi? allegedly.


----------



## 8den (Nov 17, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> did you hear that rumour about him using a bonsai tree as some sort of perverse dildo up his jaxi? allegedly.



Apparently Dwyer can cum only if he's killed a dog in the last 60 minutes.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2009)

phil's gone all quiet


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2009)

8den said:


> Last edited by 8den; 17-11-2009 at 23:34.



I love the way 8den always feels the need to edit his abuse.

He's such a perfectionist.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 17, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> phil's gone all quiet



So would you if you had a bonsai tree up your jaxi.


----------



## 8den (Nov 17, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> phil's gone all quiet



And that dog that was barking for ages suddenly stopped....


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> He's such a perfectionist.


you're quite the opposite.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2009)

8den said:


> And that dog that was barking for ages suddenly stopped....


the curious case of the dog in the shite


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I love the way 8den always feels the need to edit his abuse.
> 
> He's such a perfectionist.


you're a lying piece of shit, dwyer.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 17, 2009)

Dwyers flailing around on this thread really is a sight to behold.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> you're a lying piece of shit, dwyer.



And you, Pickman's, are an ex-public schoolboy who joined Class War.

Which tells us all we need to know about you really.


----------



## 8den (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I love the way 8den always feels the need to edit his abuse.
> 
> He's such a perfectionist.



That wasn't abuse Phil, that was me correcting a missing word, in that bit when I caught you out lying, again. 



> You said "Ted Olson was directly involved in plots to murder millions"
> 
> I say "How"
> 
> ...



Remember you accused a guy of being involved in a plot to murder  millions,  and weirdly some people objected to you baseless slander. 






Speaking of which, isn't that dog getting cold?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> And you, Pickman's, are an ex-public schoolboy who joined Class War.
> 
> Which tells us all we need to know about you really.


you're a lying piece of shit, dwyer.


----------



## editor (Nov 17, 2009)

Well done, dwyer. Once again you have single handedly trashed a thread with your relentless trolling.

Your problem is that you just don't know when to give up.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2009)

editor said:


> Well done, dwyer. Once again you have single handedly trashed a thread with your relentless trolling.
> 
> Your problem is that you just don't know when to give up.


perhaps he could be given a helping hand.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> No I don't.
> 
> Why do you think Beesonthewhatnow _refused_ to acknowledge that he was wrong about the definition of "straw target?"
> 
> I think it was because he has difficulty acknowledging that he's wrong about anything.



I said I'd answer your question after you'd answered mine, all you managed was another wriggle.

You really have made yourself look like a spectacular twunt on this thread


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> you're a lying piece of shit, dwyer.



You _are_ though, aren't you?  You're an ex-public schoolboy who joined Class War.

"I say you chaps, let's jolly well bash the rich eh what?"


----------



## 8den (Nov 17, 2009)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Dwyers flailing around on this thread really is a sight to behold.



No a sight to behold is Phil's tranny ping pong show. 

Oh he doesn't do it in a club, he styles himself as a "children's entertainer". 

Hypothetically.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> And you, Pickman's, are an ex-public schoolboy who joined Class War.
> 
> Which tells us all we need to know about you really.


out of curiosity, do you think anyone gives a fuck about anything you say, you lying piece of shit?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> out of curiosity, do you think anyone gives a fuck, you lying piece of shit?



Oh yah, I think they jolly well do old chap.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 17, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> perhaps he could be given a helping hand.


+1

At least Jazzzzz stays on topic.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2009)

Beanburger said:


> +1
> 
> At least Jazzzzz stays on topic.


however nuttily


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> however nuttily



Sorry I outed you Pickers old bean.  Dashed bad form of me.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Sorry I outed you Pickers old bean.  Dashed bad form of me.


am i supposed to give a fuck? cos i don't care a fig what you say. you are, after all, a lying sack of shit with all none of the redeeming features usually associated with such.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> am i supposed to give a fuck?



I should jolly well think not.  

A chap of your breeding who joins Class War clearly doesn't lack for a bit of sand eh what?

_[seriously, this is true]_


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 17, 2009)

So, phil.

"a comment on his character"


Care to expand on this? What are you implying?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> _[seriously, this is true]_


you're a proven liar, phil. if you think you can somehow redeem yourself like this, you're sadly mistaken.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> you're a proven liar, phil. if you think you can somehow redeem yourself like this, you're sadly mistaken.



I say Pickers, the Queen Mum really is a dreadful old bird, wouldn't you agree?

Let's round up some of our saltiest fellows and give her a damned good hiding!


----------



## Signal 11 (Nov 17, 2009)




----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I say Pickers, the Queen Mum really is a dreadful old bird, wouldn't you agree?
> 
> Let's round up some of our saltiest fellows and give her a damned good hiding!


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


>



My word Pickers old bean, that unspeakable oik Prince Charles could do with a sound debagging don't you think?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> My word Pickers old bean, that unspeakable oik Prince Charles could do with a sound debagging don't you think?


i hope you're making sense to yourself, phil, cos you're making precious little to me.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> i hope you're making sense to yourself, phil, cos you're making precious little to me.



Of course not Pickers.  

Actually I'm feeling a bit cruel now.  Why shouldn't old Pickers work off his guilt as he damned well sees fit eh what?  He's not a bad old stick, and none of the decent chaps believe what that ghastly little fag Ponsonby-Smythe said about what him and the beak got up to after rugger practice.

Bedtime...


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2009)

i don't care how you're feeling. you're a lying piece of shit now, and you'll be a lying piece of shit in the morning.


----------



## 8den (Nov 17, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Of course not Pickers.
> 
> Actually I'm feeling a bit cruel now.  Why shouldn't old Pickers work off his guilt as he damned well sees fit eh what?  He's not a bad old stick, and none of the decent chaps believe what that ghastly little fag Ponsonby-Smythe said about what him and the beak got up to after rugger practice.
> 
> Bedtime...



sleep it off Phil.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Nov 17, 2009)

What a dull troll you have become phil.


----------



## free spirit (Nov 17, 2009)

phils got a novel take on what to do when you've dug yourself into a huge hole, he's aware enough of the problem to stop digging downwards, instead he randomly strikes out sideways, regardless of the obvious danger of unsupported horizontal tunnels collapsing on the person digging them.


----------



## ymu (Nov 17, 2009)

Fuck's sake. It's not a novel take on anything. He spouts nonsense so that people will come and tell him that it's nonsense so that he can spout more nonsense in return and get you all going some more. It's all highly amusing to watch, but really, get a grip people.


----------



## toblerone3 (Nov 17, 2009)

The referee should stop this thread.


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 18, 2009)

8den said:


> Exactly what piece of evidence are you looking for. What would satisfy you. Photos of bits of the plane, with their serial numbers on them, and a log book linking them to the AA77? Is that it? Exactly?


congratulations! You got there 

Failing that, simply official confirmation that some piece - ANY PIECE! - of one of the four aircraft had been positively identified.

It's not rocket science, as I have shown, it is utterly routine crash investigation.

After all, there were 400 tons of airplane on 9/11.

Where did it all go? 

Particularly, say, the engines, wings, and tail of flight 77. None of them went in to the Pentagon. So they really have to be outside it. But no.


----------



## Diamond (Nov 18, 2009)

So what happened to this one then?

I find it difficult to believe that urban has still got the stamina to argue the toss over holograms and suchlike.


----------



## editor (Nov 18, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> Particularly, say, the engines, wings, and tail of flight 77. None of them went in to the Pentagon. So they really have to be outside it. But no.


After being free to peddle your conspiracy stories here in thousands of unedited posts for over eight years, why do you think that barely a soul believes a word of your barking theories?

Why is that, do you think? Is it because we're all stupid sheeple and only you and your fellow bunch of unqualified, DVD-shifting Troofers can see through the haze of government lies?


----------



## 8den (Nov 18, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> congratulations! You got there
> 
> 
> Failing that, simply official confirmation that some piece - ANY PIECE! - of one of the four aircraft had been positively identified.



Jazzz you're claimed that all the forensics evidence could have been faked, what possible reason would have to believe you, when you say that you'd be satisfied by a log book with serial numbers? You'd just claim that was faked also. 




> It's not rocket science, as I have shown, it is utterly routine crash investigation.



Nothing about 9/11 was routine you ninny. 



> After all, there were 400 tons of airplane on 9/11.
> 
> Where did it all go?



Are you talking about all four planes or  a specific crash?




> Particularly, say, the engines, wings, and tail of flight 77. None of them went in to the Pentagon. So they really have to be outside it. But no.



The wings were made of Aluminium and filled with jet fuel

So you're saying the engines of the plane werent found at the pentagon?






Engine. 

H Jazzz. 







But I guess those pesky faeries planted all of the above when they were scattering body parts around.


----------



## editor (Nov 18, 2009)

8den said:


> But I guess those pesky faeries planted all of the above when they were scattering body parts around.


You would have thought people might have spotted these mystery agents wandering about busily distributing body parts seeing as something rather noticeable had just happened in the area.

The most amazing thing is that almost all of the people on the flight were positively identified by a team of forensic pathologists, odontologists, a forensic anthropologist, DNA experts, investigators and support personnel, which means they would have had to have been taken off the plane, killed, burnt, sliced and frazzled and then sent to the crash scene quicker than the plane could get there itself.

Any idea how that remarkable feat might have been achieved, Jazzz?



> What some experts have called "the most comprehensive forensic investigation in U.S. history" ended Nov. 16 with the identification of 184 of the 189 who died in the terrorist attack on the Pentagon.
> 
> A multidisciplinary team of more than 50 forensic specialists, scientists, and support personnel from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, with headquarters at Walter Reed, played a major role in Operation Noble Eagle investigations, officials said.
> 
> ...



http://www.dcmilitary.com/dcmilitary_archives/stories/112901/12279-1.shtml


----------



## free spirit (Nov 18, 2009)

editor said:


> Any idea how that remarkable feat might have been achieved, Jazzz?


the forensics team are obviously in on it as well


----------



## rollinder (Nov 18, 2009)

Funky


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 18, 2009)

8den said:


> Jazzz you're claimed that all the forensics evidence could have been faked, what possible reason would have to believe you, when you say that you'd be satisfied by a log book with serial numbers? You'd just claim that was faked also.


Even if it is true, which it isn't, it's completely beside the point.

Forging evidence is difficult. It leaves a trail. There are very few people with full knowledge of the plot. They cannot get the vast majority of people under them to lie and cheat. They can order them to NOT investigate, to ignore stuff, to bluster and destroy evidence. But getting them to forge evidence and flat out lie - that's far harder.

So to accomplish the deception what is necessary is to let the crime happen, then remove the evidence which would settle the issue against you. You avoid create things that when properly analysed prove a case against you.



> So you're saying the engines of the plane werent found at the pentagon?


May I repeat - NO PIECE of aircraft has been identified as coming from flight 77. I thought you'd got that by now.

The problem with the engines is the lack of holes going in. If there is no hole in the wall for them, then they must have been outside. But they certainly were not. To avoid that, one must ascribe to the 'magic wings' theory where the wings (and fantastically heavy engines) do not crash into the wall, but fold up and enter through the same tiny hold as the nose of the aircraft.




> But I guess those pesky faeries planted all of the above when they were scattering body parts around.


It is also possible that the body parts were not scattered around, but simply introduced along the way to the DNA identification labs, and the investigation arranged so that that may be got away with. As you recall, most of the bodies were from Pentagon Staff.

A fact which I think phildwyer will appreciate about those staff - they were the bookkeepers and financial auditors, low ranking. Why did the terrorists go to the trouble to target low-ranking auditors instead of the other side of the Pentagon - easier to hit - which had the top brass in it?

*Consider that only the day before, September 10th, Rumsfeld had had to admit that $2.3 TRILLION had vanished from the Pentagon's accounts* (normally that news would have been released on a Friday to best bury it, instead it came on the Monday)


----------



## free spirit (Nov 18, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> The problem with the engines is the lack of holes going in. If there is no hole in the wall for them, then they must have been outside. But they certainly were not. To avoid that, one must ascribe to the 'magic wings' theory where the wings (and fantastically heavy engines) do not crash into the wall, but fold up and enter through the same tiny hold as the nose of the aircraft.


magic wings?

wtf do you expect to happen when the centre of a plane stops suddenly because it's smashed into a wall, while the engines on the plane want to keep going because they've not yet hit the wall? The engines are attached to the wings, which in turn are attached at one end to the plane, and at the other to nothing, therefore the engines momentum will pivot them around the point where the wings join the plane, meaning the engines would be expected to swing in towards the middle front of the plane before hitting the wall.

no magic involved


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 18, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> The truth however is that, with today's media at their disposal, the government can make the majority believe whatever they want them to believe..



I think that state of affairs has existed, as long as media have existed.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 18, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> There are very few people with full knowledge of the plot.



But...... you're one of them?


----------



## editor (Nov 18, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> It is also possible that the body parts were not scattered around, but simply introduced along the way to the DNA identification labs, and the investigation arranged so that that may be got away with. As you recall, most of the bodies were from Pentagon Staff.


Wrong, as usual. 184 of the 189 people who died in the terrorist attack on the Pentagon were identified, which means a minimum of 59 were from the passengers.

Feel free to explain how their DNA and tissue got to the scene if not by the aircraft which smashed into building at high speed. Thanks.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 18, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> There are very few people with full knowledge of the plot.



You know, given the level of mendacity, expertise, and yes, evil, required to pull off such a massive deception on the public, you're lucky that they've let you live.

You've been out here for years, sounding the clarion call. You'd think those responsible for this could make someone like you disappear in a way that would raise nary an eyebrow.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 18, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> *Consider that only the day before, September 10th, Rumsfeld had had to admit that $2.3 TRILLION had vanished from the Pentagon's accounts* (normally that news would have been released on a Friday to best bury it, instead it came on the Monday)



I'll bet there's some sort of link-up here, but it's  escaping me at the moment...


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 18, 2009)

free spirit said:


> magic wings?
> 
> wtf do you expect to happen when the centre of a plane stops suddenly because it's smashed into a wall, while the engines on the plane want to keep going because they've not yet hit the wall? The engines are attached to the wings, which in turn are attached at one end to the plane, and at the other to nothing, therefore the engines momentum will pivot them around the point where the wings join the plane, meaning the engines would be expected to swing in towards the middle front of the plane before hitting the wall.
> 
> no magic involved


.


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 18, 2009)

editor said:


> Wrong, as usual. 184 of the 189 people who died in the terrorist attack on the Pentagon were identified, which means a minimum of 59 were from the passengers.


And that contradicts my statement how exactly?



> Feel free to explain how their DNA and tissue got to the scene if not by the aircraft which smashed into building at high speed. Thanks.


You have to develop a more critical mind editor. The bodies were not analysed at the scene. My point was that an alternative explanation to them being planted was that they were simply introduced along the way to the laboratory.


----------



## editor (Nov 18, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> And that contradicts my statement how exactly?
> 
> You have to develop a more critical mind editor. The bodies were not analysed at the scene. My point was that an alternative explanation to them being planted was that they were simply introduced along the way to the laboratory.


Right - so without a single scrap of proof to back any of this insane batshit up - you're suggesting that the plane vanished off the radar without anyone noticing, and was somehow replaced by a missile pretending to be a plane without anyone noticing that either (including all the eye witnesses who failed to notice anything wrong).

Meanwhile, the passengers were landed at some secret airport and were taken off and all murdered, and then torn apart, charred, shredded and spiced with fuel, with the grisly remains invisibly shipped into the forensics lab without anyone noticing, while the the remainder of the 60 bodies   (and all their belongings and, presumably, the entire plane) were then magically vanished off the face of the earth?

That is one sick fantasy. Actually, it's worse than that. It's obscene.


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 18, 2009)

This response belies a total ignorance of the facts surrounding flight 77. 



editor said:


> Right - so without a single scrap of proof to back any of this insane batshit up - you're suggesting that the plane vanished off the radar without anyone noticing,


You are assuming that flight 77 had a continuous radar track. Well of course, that's what you would expect. In fact flight 77 DID vanish off the radar, and air traffic control CERTAINLY noticed.

This alone should call into question the whole official theory.

What is fascinating, and somewhat amusing, is to see you assuming facts which align with your theory, and then throwing your mistaken assumptions at me as if they are true when they are completely mistaken. 



> and was somehow replaced by a missile pretending to be a plane without anyone noticing that either (including all the eye witnesses who failed to notice anything wrong).


A great many eyewitnesses failed to spot a plane. We've been over that many times. The initial reports were of a bomb.

April Gallop, who was tens of feet from the impact hole is currenly suing Rumsfeld and Cheney:

_"I didn't know it was a plane until I was informed at the hospital. If I wasn't informed I would have never believed it. I walked through that place to try to get out before everything collapsed on us . . . surely we should have seen something"_ source



> Meanwhile, the passengers were landed at some secret airport and were taken off and all murdered, and then torn apart, charred, shredded and spiced with fuel, with the grisly remains invisibly shipped into the forensics lab without anyone noticing, while the the remainder of the 60 bodies   (and all their belongings and, presumably, the entire plane) were then magically vanished off the face of the earth?
> 
> That is one sick fantasy. Actually, it's worse than that. It's obscene.


It IS sick. However, ignoring your obvious exaggerations, it's far from an impossible fantasy, unlike the official story. The trouble is, we cannot conceive of our leaders arranging such a thing, because we wouldn't do it.

However, they would. Really.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 18, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> A great many eyewitnesses failed to spot a plane. (



http://www.dothetest.co.uk/


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 18, 2009)

A car travelling 60 mph covers 88 feet per second.

A jet homing in on the Pentagon at, let's say, 400 mph, covers around 550 feet per second. 

Don't forget: they weren't intending on 'landing' per se, so the aircraft wouldn't be approaching at landing speed: it would be approaching at flight speed.

If you aren't looking in exactly the right place at the right time, you won't see it.

If you blink at the wrong time, you won't see it.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 18, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> The initial reports were of a bomb.



This is true, I remember it well.

There were also reports of car bombs going off all over Manhattan.  Never heard anything more of them after 9/11 itself.


----------



## editor (Nov 18, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> It IS sick. However, ignoring your obvious exaggerations, it's far from an impossible fantasy, unlike the official story. The trouble is, we cannot conceive of our leaders arranging such a thing, because we wouldn't do it.
> 
> However, they would. Really.


I'd like you to explain the exaxt route by which the body parts supposedly got to the forensics lab, in some case mere _hours_ after the crash, please.

I want you to detail where the real plane went and how it was vanished off the face of the earth, and I want you to explain the process by which the passengers were slaughtered en masse, and then methodically torn apart, shredded, burnt and sliced by Evil CIA Operatives, and then their body parts somehow slipped into the forensics lab without a single soul noticing anything amiss.

And I'd like you to explain what happened to the plane, the pilots and crew and the substantial amount of body parts after because no one seems to have seen anything of them.

I can't imagine how many people would need to be involved in such a fast-track slaughter'n'maim/cover-up and sneak-in operation, but considering the tight time span and the logistics involved, you're no doubt accusing hundreds of people of being involved in such a dreadful crime.

The fact that you haven't a single scrap of credible evidence to support your vile, groundless accusations of mass murder and ghoulish body mutilation really sums up how sick your conspiracy fantasies have become. Where do you get off on making up these stories?


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 18, 2009)

editor said:


> The fact that you haven't a single scrap of credible evidence to support your vile, groundless accusations of mass murder and ghoulish body mutilation really sums up how sick your conspiracy fantasies have become. Where do you get off on making up these stories?



You think this is sick? 

At least 911 in all the past, so his delusions here are not dangerous to life, over on the swine flu thread he’s posted a link to prison planet in an attempt to scare pregnant women by trying to link miscarriages to the vaccine, despite there being no evidence whatsoever. 

He would prefer pregnant women and their babies to die from swine flu - he’s a fucking disgrace to the human race.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 18, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> he’s a fucking disgrace to the human race.



Claphamboy.  Even if you believe this (and I think you do), can't you see that you're harming your case by saying it?

Look at this from the perspective of someone who doesn't really know the details and hasn't really made up his mind--I'm such a person myself.  When I read threads like this, I see Jazzz: obviously an intelligent, well-read bloke who sincerely believes what he says, expresses himself without abusing his opponents or losing his temper, and is prepared to stand up for his beliefs in the face of raging tirades of abuse.

People are likely to admire such a person.

On the other side, we see Yahoos like 8den, who clearly have no education in or knowledge of politics or history, who are functionally illiterate, who are driven into a rage when they encounter unfamiliar ideas, and who express themselves almost entirely in four-letter words.  

Now, which side is someone undecided more likely to believe?  

In fact, you are the _only_ denialist who strikes me as having the first idea what they're talking about.  So when you join in the crowing, gloating know-nothingism that charaterizes the majority of your side, you do your cause no favors at all.

This debate has already convinced me that the conspiracy theories about 9/11, which I'd previously dismissed out of hand, bear further investigation.  I supsect that I'm not alone.  So please, for the sake of your beliefs, tone it down.


----------



## editor (Nov 18, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> This debate has already convinced me that the conspiracy theories about 9/11, which I'd previously dismissed out of hand, bear further investigation. I supsect that I'm not alone. So please, for the sake of your beliefs, tone it down.


Stop this trolling now please, dwyer. And yes, this is an official warning.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 18, 2009)

editor said:


> Stop this trolling now please, dwyer. And yes, this is an official warning.



Have you officially warned 8den for his ongoing swearathon?


----------



## editor (Nov 18, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Have you officially warned 8den for his ongoing swearathon?


I have asked him to stop several times even though no one has actually reported him. 

At least he has a genuine interest in the discussion, even if his language can be offensive.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 18, 2009)

smokedout said:


> nah, youve lost it now dwyer, question is can you make a successful fighting retreat or are you going to keep digging a hole



Surely you mean "strategic withdrawal"?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 18, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> And you, Pickman's, are an ex-public schoolboy who joined Class War.
> 
> Which tells us all we need to know about you really.



No, Pickman's Model attended an *approved* (by HMIP, naturally) school. You're mixing him up with the former Urbanite known as "Old Stoic", or possibly with The Black Hand, who has probably *believed* that he went to a public school at least once during one of his delusions.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 18, 2009)

editor said:


> Your problem is that you just don't know when to give up.



A failing that has caused him more problems than just on this bulletin board.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 18, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Claphamboy.  Even if you believe this (and I think you do), can't you see that you're harming your case by saying it?.



Not at all, I think 90%+ of people would agree that spreading misinformation suggesting a link between miscarriages and the swine flu vaccine, potentially putting pregnant women and their babies at risk of death, in an attempt to prove delusional beliefs that there’s a conspiracy behind the vaccine is about as low as anyone can get.

Make no mistake, he’s a cunt.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 18, 2009)

editor said:


> I have asked him to stop several times even though no one has actually reported him.
> 
> At least he has a genuine interest in the discussion, even if his language can be offensive.



Thanks for the reply. Did anyone happen to report Phil Dwyer?


----------



## kyser_soze (Nov 18, 2009)

> Look at this from the perspective of someone who doesn't really know the details and hasn't really made up his mind--I'm such a person myself. When I read threads like this, I see Jazzz: obviously an intelligent, well-read bloke who sincerely believes what he says, expresses himself without abusing his opponents or losing his temper, and is prepared to stand up for his beliefs in the face of raging tirades of abuse.



Yeah, just like Nick Griffin on Question Time. Altho you should have said 'widely read' rather than 'well read', as that implies some kind of discernment in choice of reading materials, as opposed to Prison Planet, whale.to etc etc.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 18, 2009)

Yesterday I found an 'interesting' fact about '9/11'

The day before, there was a meeting of members of the Magnum Photos Agency in New York.

This meant that there was a much larger than usual number of their photographers around the City on '9/11', there on hand to take many iconic on the spot pictures of the Twin Towers .....

Coincidence? 

'9/11' troofers will no doubt think not. Because nothing ever just happens to happen  ... does it?? <--conspiracist 'logic'


----------



## kyser_soze (Nov 18, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> Yesterday I found an 'interesting' fact about '9/11'
> 
> The day before, there was a meeting of members of the Magnum Photos Agency in New York.
> 
> ...



It's that vaccine Will. You're not _part of the conspiracy_


----------



## Fedayn (Nov 18, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> This debate has already convinced me that the conspiracy theories about 9/11, which I'd previously dismissed out of hand, bear further investigation.  I supsect that I'm not alone.  So please, for the sake of your beliefs, tone it down.



No surprise given your own belief in whispered-in-the-ear AIDS denialism.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 18, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> It's that vaccine Will. You're not _part of the conspiracy_



Just a victim of it.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 18, 2009)

As for dwyer, it looks like I missed an episode of sustained trolling last night that was spectacularly self destructive and utterly, self-pwningly transparent,  even by his standards.



beesonthewhatnow said:


> Dwyers flailing around on this thread really is a sight to behold.






			
				freespirit said:
			
		

> phils got a novel take on what to do when you've dug yourself into a huge hole, he's aware enough of the problem to stop digging downwards, instead he randomly strikes out sideways, regardless of the obvious danger of unsupported horizontal tunnels collapsing on the person digging them.




Consensus is not necessarily a bad word ... 




			
				dwyer said:
			
		

> This debate has already convinced me that the conspiracy theories about 9/11, which I'd previously dismissed out of hand, bear further investigation. I supsect that I'm not alone.






			
				Fedayn said:
			
		

> No surprise given your own belief in whispered-in-the-ear AIDS denialism.



He doesn't genuinely believe a word of either, they're both deliberately contrived 'contrarian'-positions for maximum trolling effect. Good on you for using the word 'denialism' in its correct context though.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 18, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> It's that vaccine Will. You're not _part of the conspiracy_



 

The vaccine conspiracy to turn conspiracy sceptics into conspiracy theorists you mean?

Could be working already!!  .... 

You never know dwyer I could be switching to 'your side' before long. Be warned though that among other vaccine side effects attacks of _trollitis  incompetentis_ have been reported ....


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 18, 2009)

OK shutting up now re trolling  , given that yer main man's been officially warned.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 18, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> You think this is sick?
> 
> At least 911 in all the past, so his delusions here are not dangerous to life, over on the swine flu thread he’s posted a link to prison planet in an attempt to scare pregnant women by trying to link miscarriages to the vaccine, despite there being no evidence whatsoever.
> 
> He would prefer pregnant women and their babies to die from swine flu - he’s a fucking disgrace to the human race.




Note: (not especially to claphamboy)

The current pandemic is not a "swine flu" pandemic. H1N1 is a combination of Swine, Avian and other flus. The constant description of the virus as "swine flu" is simplistic and misleading disinformation.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 18, 2009)

editor said:


> Stop this trolling now please, dwyer. And yes, this is an official warning.



So just to clarify: am I now banned from this thread completely?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 18, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> So just to clarify: am I now banned from this thread completely?



He asked you to stop trolling the thread.

The fact you take this as meaning you can't post on it at all speaks volumes


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 18, 2009)

On the *general* topic of conspiracy theories and their methods of 'research' and the way many conspiracists tend to draw conclusions. 

I was very recently struck (once again!) by the contrast between the take by most CTers on what counts as reliable, trustable facts/evidence, and the research methods of many _genuinely_ dilligent investigative journalists and researchers.

Excellent review in last Saturday's Guardian of two books on the Oil Industry




			
				Review conclusion said:
			
		

> At a time when much contemporary non-fiction is devoted to the construction of theory, strategy and metanarrative, these two books simply provide the facts: facts that news channels and the continually updated online newspapers seem systemically incapable of digging out. They are each, in their own way, a tribute to the power of the meticulous, journalistic book. Both open a window on the global nightmare we have created: Bower's is a story of power, Maass's a story of powerlesseness.



I'm sure both books will have their drawbacks (I particularly want to read Maass's book mind) but it does _look_ like they approach the subject (the power of the oil industry) with a systematic and credible and logical and rational approach to evidence gathering and fact presentation. Perhaps Bower, given his track record, will err on the side of sensationalism, but both book seem to be highly critical of the Oil Establishment and related government actions/policies.

It would be interesting to check the notes/citations of the two books and see how many 'conspiracy theory' sites or books are cited.

I would guess *none*.

Conspiracy theorists rarely work like this, being far too tempted to speculate, guess, draw random 'conclusions', bring in any and every half relevant half connected fact or pseudo-fact into a grand theory of everything, and have a thoroughly cavalier approach to 'reputableness' of sources. 

Such CTer favoured sources very much including whale.to/rense/Icke/Alex Jones/wedemandthe9/11truth!!!1!!ONE!.blog.com type 'sources' racked up to the gunnells with confirmation bias and preconstructed 'conclusions'

Most CTers have learnt little about reliable methodology from independent investigative journalists and researchers and historians. The latter people can have their faults and their own biases all right, but they come up smelling of relative roses compared to your most 'out there' conspiracy theorists.


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 18, 2009)

editor said:


> I have asked him to stop several times even though no one has actually reported him.
> 
> At least he has a genuine interest in the discussion, even if his language can be offensive.


And phildwyer doesn't? Seems to me he is just about the _only_ other person with a genuine interest in the discussion.

8den's abuse has gone way, way over the line. As you have been strongly present on the thread you are clearly aware of it, so reporting it would seem rather unnecessary.

Moreover, I have long since stopped bothering to report abuse such as from 8den against me, because my experience is that nothing will happen.

Instead, I simply draw the line at username corruptions, and my recent experience with those - despite it being a routine piece of modding - is that several of those were ignored and it was only when I made it very clear I expected them to be dealt with and was not going to stop reporting them that you guys took any action.

Indeed, there was one recently from beanburger on this thread, and I have seen no evidence of you doing anything about it.

It is abundantly clear that your definition of 'trolling' here has precious little to do with any objective evaluation of posting misdemeanor - and has everything to do with whether the poster is on your favoured side of the discussion.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 18, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> And phildwyer doesn't? Seems to me he is just about the _only_ other person with a genuine interest in the discussion.



Christ, you really are deluded  




> Instead, I simply draw the line at username corruptions



Why get so upset over something so, well, unimportant?


----------



## editor (Nov 18, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> It is abundantly clear that your definition of 'trolling' here has precious little to do with any objective evaluation of posting misdemeanor - and has everything to do with whether the poster is on your favoured side of the discussion.


Blah blah blah.

Are you going to answer any of the questions I've asked you in DIRECT response to your cliams, or are you going to continue your ongoing campaign of posting up unverified batshit shit and then changing the subject whenever challenged or asked about specifics?

Are you going to add detail to your bizarre claim about DNA material being somehow smuggled into the forensic labs and then explain what happened to the 'real' plane - and provide some supporting evidence for what seems like a particularly gory and ghoulish fantasy of mas murder and mass mutilation?

And could you explain who Calum Douglas is, what his relevant qualifications are to your claims and if his findings have been independently verified and properly peer reviewed?

If you're just posting up wild claims and refusing to back them up or discuss any aspect of them, well, that's just trolling too. Or taking the piss.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 18, 2009)

editor said:


> And could you explain who Calum Douglas is, what his relevant qualifications are to your claims and if his findings have been independently verified and properly peer reviewed?


i fear you'll find mr douglas's peers are people like jazzz, and that any review they carry out will not be of the most rigorous.


----------



## Fedayn (Nov 18, 2009)

editor said:


> And could you explain who Calum Douglas is, what his relevant qualifications are to your claims and if his findings have been independently verified and properly peer reviewed?



Take your pick... Calum Douglas


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 18, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> Take your pick... Calum Douglas


he's a fucking loon


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 18, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> And phildwyer doesn't? Seems to me he is just about the _only_ other person with a genuine interest in the discussion.



 I reckon even phil will be laughing his tits off when he reads that statement.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 18, 2009)

editor said:


> Right - so without a single scrap of proof to back any of this insane batshit up - you're suggesting that the plane vanished off the radar without anyone noticing, and was somehow replaced by a missile pretending to be a plane without anyone noticing that either (including all the eye witnesses who failed to notice anything wrong).
> 
> Meanwhile, the passengers were landed at some secret airport and were taken off and all murdered, and then torn apart, charred, shredded and spiced with fuel, with the grisly remains invisibly shipped into the forensics lab without anyone noticing, while the the remainder of the 60 bodies   (and all their belongings and, presumably, the entire plane) were then magically vanished off the face of the earth?
> 
> That is one sick fantasy. Actually, it's worse than that. It's obscene.


And more to the point, why the fuck would they bother? Given the huge cover-up necessary to fake the impact of a passenger jet, why not just find a bloody jumbo jet to fly into the Pentagon?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 18, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> I reckon even phil will be laughing his tits off when he reads that statement.


yeh, he's always struck me as the sort of person with moobs.

he's like an unholy cross between eric cartman and homer simpson with none of the attractive qualities of either.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 18, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Now, which side is someone undecided more likely to believe?


Given the resounding lack of support that your posts have encountered, I think you have your answer. 



taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Thanks for the reply. Did anyone happen to report Phil Dwyer?


At least two people have asked publicly for him to be shown the door from this thread.



Jazzz said:


> Indeed, there was one recently from beanburger on this thread, and I have seen no evidence of you doing anything about it.


Phew. Thought for a while that you'd missed that!


----------



## Fedayn (Nov 18, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> he's a fucking loon



You are referring to a leading light in the truthseeking community fighting the evil in our midst in the hunt for the truth about 9/11 and the quest to rid us of our brainwashed govt inspired mindcontrol. 
But 'fucking loon' will probably suffice.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 18, 2009)

I really, genuinely intended not to post about dwyer again today, but this takes the biscuit *so* bloody much ... 




			
				Jazzz said:
			
		

> And phildwyer doesn't? *Seems to me he is just about the only other person with a genuine interest in the discussion.*



Have you actually *read* his posts over the last 3 or 4 or 5 pages?

If you genuinely think he really was posting on 'your favoured side of the discussion' and was actually helping that position, then you really *are* thoroughly deluded.

That the above is your intepretation of dwyer's posts doesn't say anything that's at all good about your reading and interpretation and critical assessment skills.

See post 1501, top of this page


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 18, 2009)

Seriously Jazzz, dwyer is not helping your position in this thread *at all.*


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 18, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> You are referring to a leading light in the truthseeking community fighting the evil in our midst in the hunt for the truth about 9/11 and the quest to rid us of our brainwashed govt inspired mindcontrol.
> But 'fucking loon' will probably suffice.


it's a technical term


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 18, 2009)

I'd like to know whether I'm allowed to reply to the various aspersions being cast upon me.  Please clarify whether I am banned from this thread or not.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 18, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> Seriously Jazzz, dwyer is not helping your position in this thread *at all.*


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 18, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I'd like to know whether I'm allowed to reply to the various aspersions being cast upon me.  Please clarify whether I am banned from this thread or not.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 18, 2009)

phildwyer]OK said:


> OK Ninny, that does it.  You are now banned from my thread.  And don't bother sending any of your grovelling PM's this time.





phildwyer said:


> I'd like to know whether I'm allowed to reply to the various aspersions being cast upon me.  Please clarify whether I am banned from this thread or not.


as you've previously usurped mod powers to try to ban other people from threads, it seems only fitting you should be banned from a thread yourself.


----------



## Fedayn (Nov 18, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> it's a technical term



And it appears to be both factually and technically accurate.


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 18, 2009)

editor said:


> I'd like you to explain the exaxt route by which the body parts supposedly got to the forensics lab, in some case mere _hours_ after the crash, please.
> 
> I want you to detail where the real plane went and how it was vanished off the face of the earth, and I want you to explain the process by which the passengers were slaughtered en masse, and then methodically torn apart, shredded, burnt and sliced by Evil CIA Operatives, and then their body parts somehow slipped into the forensics lab without a single soul noticing anything amiss.
> 
> And I'd like you to explain what happened to the plane, the pilots and crew and the substantial amount of body parts after because no one seems to have seen anything of them....



Unbelievable! 

You make absolutely NO COMMENT WHATSOEVER about your extraordinary errors, in particular where you asserted that flight 77 had a continuous radar trace when in fact it completely and mysteriously vanished from radar and was never reidentified by FAA officials.

The extraordinary thing was not so much that you assumed it was true but that you threw your mistaken assumptions in MY face and now have not even had the modicum of grace to acknowledge the errors (let alone find the revelations that you might learn from the necessary self-examination).

Instead, you are quite bizarrely demanding that - in order to explain all the inconsistensies surrounding the official evidence and story - _I_ have to come up with the detailed explanation of events that fits all the facts. No - not the FBI, not the USG, not the people that have all the withheld evidence and upon whose word world events change - no, you are demaning that _I_ have to explain it all. As if _I _have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq! As if _I_ am taking away your liberties!

Do you not think, hang on, maybe this is the wrong way around? Perhaps I am asking the wrong person here?



I would like to think that you are seeking to make a genuine contribution to the thread rather than just seeking to score points (in which case I would normally expect you to resort to your 'threads from several years ago out of context rant')


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 18, 2009)

"Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence" though, no?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 18, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> Unbelievable!
> 
> You make absolutely NO COMMENT WHATSOEVER about your extraordinary errors, in particular where you asserted that flight 77 had a continuous radar trace when in fact it completely and mysteriously vanished from radar and was never reidentified by FAA officials.
> 
> ...



There just isn't enough facepalm in the universe...


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 18, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I'd like to know whether I'm allowed to reply to the various aspersions being cast upon me.  Please clarify whether I am banned from this thread or not.



Oh lordy


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 18, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> See post 1501, top of this page



As per your request William I have looked at this post carefully. It seems to me that you refer to two books on the oil industry, both of which go into detail to describe a world of ruthless corruption, where things are not what they seem, where our leaders give vapid speeches about human rights while in fact they are the false patriots who would gladly pimp out their own grandmothers.

You suggest that the careful research of these books (although, you haven't actually read them) is in contrast to the work of 'conspiracy theorists'.

Perhaps you will forgive me if I cannot find the same conclusion.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 18, 2009)

Yet more facepalm required...


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 18, 2009)

Jazzz said:
			
		

> As per your request William I have looked at this post carefully. It seems to me that you refer to two books on the oil industry, both of which go into detail to describe a world of ruthless corruption, where things are not what they seem, where our leaders give vapid speeches about human rights while in fact they are the false patriots who would gladly pimp out their own grandmothers.
> 
> You suggest that the careful research of these books (although, you haven't actually read them) is in contrast to the work of 'conspiracy theorists'.
> 
> Perhaps you will forgive me if I cannot find the same conclusion.



My point was that the *research methods* of the authors of those books seems to contrast quite strongly with those found acceptable by many/most conspiracy theorists (particularly on line).

My other point was that you can (and very often should) reach conclusions critical of 'the establishment', of power elites,. etc., without resorting to the cut corners, sloppy 'evidence' etc  favoured by many/most conspiracists.

Find me a conspiracist on line who *never* cites prisonplanet, whale.to, Icke's site, Alex Jones' site, rense and the vested-interest, confirmation-biased, preconcluded like and I'll see one who at least *starts* to be discerning and discriminatory about the quality and standard of their sources ....


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 18, 2009)

just saw a book today "The Murder of Princess Diana" by Noel Botham. Anyone fancy chipping in for a Xmas present for Clapham Boy & 8den?
Had a quick flick thru it and Diana said something along the lines of "people close to me are in grave danger" - so even SHE must've been a conspiracy theorist ho ho!


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 18, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> dwyer





editor said:


> dwyer





beesonthewhatnow said:


> dwyer





ViolentPanda said:


> dwyer





William of Walworth said:


> dwyer.... dwyer.... dwyer.... DWYER.... dwyerdwyerdwyerdwyer...



Really, this is quite ridiculous now.

Am I allowed to participate in this thread or not?

If I am banned, so be it.  It seems a monstrous injustice, but such is life.  I'll live.  But this uncertainty is a torment beyond endurance.  Am I or am I not banned from this thread?

A simple yes or no will suffice.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 18, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> just saw a book today "The Murder of Princess Diana" by Noel Botham. Anyone fancy chipping in for a Xmas present for Clapham Boy & 8den?
> Had a quick flick thru it and Diana said something along the lines of "people close to me are in grave danger" - so even SHE must've been a conspiracy theorist ho ho!



New York Times review from 2007 of a TV programme. Review refers to the Botham book from which the TV programme was adapted...




			
				Review said:
			
		

> We’ve seen this movie before. As you can guess from the title, “The Murder of Princess Diana,” like the book by Noel Botham from which it was adapted, is a compendium of Diana conspiracy theories: the royal family/MI6/C.I.A./international arms dealers marked her for death because she was pregnant/she was going to marry a Muslim/she was about to put a crimp in land-mine sales and covered it up by erasing the surveillance tapes/faking the driver’s blood test/killing her in the ambulance. Or were they trying to kill Dodi?



Let's just say the full NYT review looks suitably sceptical ....


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 18, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> It seems a monstrous injustice, but such is life.  I'll live.  But this uncertainty is a torment beyond endurance.


Fuck's sake. Get a grip! It's only the internet! Switch off your PC and go and do something productive with your time!


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 18, 2009)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> There just isn't enough facepalm in the universe...


oh hi bees.

So, how did your application to join Pilots for 9/11 Truth get on? Did you hear back?


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 18, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> Anyone fancy chipping in for a Xmas present for Clapham Boy & 8den?



Hmmm... let me think about that for a minute...............







































.................................  Nah.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 18, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> New York Times review from 2007 of a TV programme. Review refers to the Botham book from which the TV programme was adapted...
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just say the full NYT review looks suitably sceptical ....



reviewed by Clapham Boy?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 18, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Really, this is quite ridiculous now.
> 
> Am I allowed to participate in this thread or not?
> 
> ...



Tut tut, selectively quoting a single word from someone's post in order to shore up your insinuations of persecution.
Shame on you.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 18, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> just saw a book today "The Murder of Princess Diana" by Noel Botham. Anyone fancy chipping in for a Xmas present for Clapham Boy & 8den?
> Had a quick flick thru it and Diana said something along the lines of "people close to me are in grave danger" - so even SHE must've been a conspiracy theorist ho ho!



 



phildwyer said:


> Really, this is quite ridiculous now.
> 
> Am I allowed to participate in this thread or not?
> 
> ...







Jazzz said:


> oh hi bees.
> 
> So, how did your application to join Pilots for Truth get on? Did you hear back?



Or did Jazzz tip them off?  

This thread is seriously delivering a laugh a minute this afternoon.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 18, 2009)

Beanburger said:


> Fuck's sake. Get a grip! It's only the internet! Switch off your PC and go and do something productive with your time!



How can he, in the face of such a monstrous injustice being done to his person?


----------



## A Dashing Blade (Nov 18, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> Unbelievable!
> 
> You make absolutely NO COMMENT WHATSOEVER  . . .
> 
> ...



A singular thing I've noticed is that you always always always evade a direct question along the lines of "well Jazz, tell us what YOU think happened".

Why is that?


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 18, 2009)

A Dashing Blade said:


> A singular thing I've noticed is that you always always always evade a direct question along the lines of "well Jazz, tell us what YOU think happened".
> 
> Why is that?



Another question that he always always always evades is - do you have a reliable source for that?


----------



## editor (Nov 18, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> Instead, you are quite bizarrely demanding that - in order to explain all the inconsistensies surrounding the official evidence and story - _I_ have to come up with the detailed explanation of events that fits all the facts.


I am asking you come up with a remotely sane explanation of events that would make your evidence-free, gore-fest remotely possible.

You see, when you start wildly accusing people of being involved in mass murders, gross human mutilations, mass slaughters of passengers, plane disappearing tricks and cover ups involving the tacit involvement of hundreds if not thousands of people, it's up to _you_ to explain how this act may have been achieved. 

However, if you don't have a single shred of evidence to support your murderous accusations then I advise you to shut the fuck up because the ghoulish human slash'n'burn fantasies you're posting up here are positively *sick*.

Oh, and for the fourth time: could you explain who Calum Douglas is, what his relevant qualifications are to your claims and if his findings have been independently verified and properly peer reviewed?


----------



## Knotted (Nov 18, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> Another question that he always always always evades is - do you have a reliable source for that?



That's a far less significant point than the one Dashing Blade raises in my opinion.


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 18, 2009)

A Dashing Blade said:


> A singular thing I've noticed is that you always always always evade a direct question along the lines of "well Jazz, tell us what YOU think happened".
> 
> Why is that?


Why should I, when this is something I am campaigning to discover?


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 18, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> Why should I, when this is something I am campaigning to discover?



As your official online spin doctor and campaign advisor  can I suggest in the spirit of positive helpfulness that you review your truth seeking methods and approach?

Top tip : dwyer's posts are of no genuine assistance whatsoever to your position re '9/11' on this thread.

Other (more general) tip : see my earlier post further up this page, as well as rereading post 1501 at the top of the previous page.

More tips to follow later, as required ...


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 18, 2009)

trevhagl said:
			
		

> reviewed by Clapham Boy?



Don't be an arse trev. Ignore criticism if you like but cheap shots make you look idiotic.

That advice comes in at £9:70 inclusive of VAT -- a bargain, I'm sure you'll agree


----------



## Knotted (Nov 18, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> Why should I, when this is something I am campaigning to discover?



Because if the truth is unimportant in the immediate, then it is unimportant after a long campaign (which will probably bare no fruits in any case).


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 18, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> As your official online spin doctor and campaign advisor



I'm sorry William, but I am afraid I have to fire you.

I thank you for your service thus far and wish you every success in the future.


----------



## editor (Nov 18, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> Why should I, when this is something I am campaigning to discover?


For the fifth time: could you explain who Calum Douglas is, what his relevant qualifications are to your claims and if his findings have been independently verified and properly peer reviewed?

You linked to this guy to support your argument, so why can't you answer these questions - or don't you actually care if he's a credible source or not, so long as he trots out stuff that pleases your conspiraloon ears?

Oh, and I'm still waiting for your explanation about the body parts being magically slipped into the forensic lab and what happened to the plane and the passengers.


----------



## Yossarian (Nov 18, 2009)

Why has Jazzz been allowed to hijack this thread and steer it into twin towers of insanity, anyway?

The theory about Illuminati operatives strolling around the Pentagon and strewing body parts like diabolical Johnny Appleseeds sounds like a fresh invention, but other than that he seems to be just regurgitating the same old stuff.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 18, 2009)

Yossarian said:


> Why has Jazzz been allowed to hijack this thread and steer it into twin towers of insanity, anyway?


I've been wondering about that for ages. It's a blatant hijack of the original topic. This wasn't meant to be another thread discussing his insane theories, was it?


----------



## Knotted (Nov 18, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> Why should I, when this is something I am campaigning to discover?



There is also the point that if you are unwilling to theorise seriously about what happened, then you are unlikely to know how to campaign successfully.

In a way this is the most disingenuous thing you have said. All these conspiracy theories remain as conspiracy theories. JFK, moonlandings, Diana - it doesn't matter - no conspiracy theorist has ever uncovered anything.

If you're not willing to test your own ideas, it shows that deep down inside you believe the official version completely and totally. I think you are wrong to do so. There most probably were dodgy goings on in the background. No need to fear the truth.


----------



## A Dashing Blade (Nov 18, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> Why should I, when this is something I am campaigning to discover?



OK, let's make it even easier.
Do you have a theory (but you're unwilling to share) or not?


----------



## Knotted (Nov 18, 2009)

A Dashing Blade said:


> OK, let's make it even easier.
> Do you have a theory (but you're unwilling to share) or not?



I'll be willing to bet Jazzz won't answer that.

Think of Jazzz as an "intelligent design" advocate, and imagine you've just asked him if he believes in the biblical account of creation. That's exactly the right question to ask. No need to play footsy over the technical arguments.


----------



## cesare (Nov 18, 2009)

That prisonplanet site looks like profiteering. Fair enough, there doesn't seem to be the far right links that are so obvious in many of the conspiracy theory sites - but shopping carts and ads upon ads! Bloody hell, I hadn't realised there was so much money to be made out of this conspiracy theory lark 

A fool and his money etc


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 18, 2009)

cesare said:


> That prisonplanet site looks like profiteering. Fair enough, there doesn't seem to be the far right links that are so obvious in many of the conspiracy theory sites - but shopping carts and ads upon ads! Bloody hell, I hadn't realised there was so much money to be made out of this conspiracy theory lark
> 
> A fool and his money etc



Alex Jones is a massive moneymaking machine in the U.S., his radio show is carried on dozens of radio stations and he uses it to interview the authors and publishers of books and videos he sells as well as promoting his own published material, all of which is sold via both the prisonplanet and infowars websites.


----------



## 8den (Nov 18, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> Even if it is true, which it isn't, it's completely beside the point.



No, _it's precisely the point_. The forensic evidence is something you dismiss because it's in the public domain. You start screaming about serial numbers because it's something you can't have. You're like a whinging child. 



> Forging evidence is difficult. It leaves a trail. There are very few people with full knowledge of the plot. They cannot get the vast majority of people under them to lie and cheat.



Exactly Jazzz, which is why your claims about the Forensic evidence being faked is fucking crap.



> They can order them to NOT investigate, to ignore stuff, to bluster and destroy evidence. But getting them to forge evidence and flat out lie - that's far harder.



Do you have basis to support this puerile conjecture and speculation. Do you really think that thousands of FBI agents, Flight Crash Investigators, and Federal Employees are just going to destroy evidence, ignore evidence, just because they're _told to_? 



> May I repeat - NO PIECE of aircraft has been identified as coming from flight 77. I thought you'd got that by now.



No it has. You're just belligerently ranting about this at this junction. 



> The problem with the engines is the lack of holes going in.



The engine was found outside the pentagon Jazzz. The right wing clipped a power substation before the pentagon, sheering the engine off. Your basic ignorance of the facts is once again exposed.



> If there is no hole in the wall for them, then they must have been outside. But they certainly were not.



The photo I showed directly contradicts this nonsense. 



> To avoid that, one must ascribe to the 'magic wings' theory where the wings (and fantastically heavy engines) do not crash into the wall, but fold up and enter through the same tiny hold as the nose of the aircraft.



Oh christ. 









> It is also possible that the body parts were not scattered around, but simply introduced along the way to the DNA identification labs, and the investigation arranged so that that may be got away with. As you recall, most of the bodies were from Pentagon Staff.



Aside from the passengers?



> A fact which I think phildwyer will appreciate about those staff - they were the bookkeepers and financial auditors, low ranking. Why did the terrorists go to the trouble to target low-ranking auditors instead of the other side of the Pentagon - easier to hit - which had the top brass in it?



OH OF ALL THE CHRIST ALMIGHT STUPID.....

Jazzz would you fucking listen to yourself? How. the. fuck. would. the. terrorists. know. where. the. top. brass. was? Before. The. Attack. 

Of all the sunday fucking morning quaterbacking. 



> *Consider that only the day before, September 10th, Rumsfeld had had to admit that $2.3 TRILLION had vanished from the Pentagon's accounts* (normally that news would have been released on a Friday to best bury it, instead it came on the Monday)



JAZZZ THIS SORT OF CRAP GOT DEBUNKED WITH LOOSE CHANGE VOLUME 2

Jesus fucking wept. 2005 called and want their conspiracy theories back. 

You lazy fly, you just vomit up this crap and regurgitate it back up at a later date. 

Rumsfeld said nothing of the sort. And even if he did, do you not think that gosh the greatest fraud in history, an amount of money that dwarves the financial collapse, might. I don't know. Just. Maybe. Maybe. Have. Been. Picked. Up again. At SOME POINT IN THE FOLLOWING 8 YEARS!

Here's what he actually said. 



> The adversary's closer to home. It's the Pentagon bureaucracy. Not the people, but the processes. Not the civilians, but the systems...
> 
> In this building, despite this era of scarce resources taxed by mounting threats, money disappears into duplicative duties and bloated bureaucracy—not because of greed, but gridlock. Innovation is stifled—not by ill intent but by institutional inertia.
> 
> ...



The MONEY NEVER DISAPPEARED. NEVER. Rumsfeld was talking about streamlining and improving financial transactions between various DOD departments to combat waste, and bad book keeping. 

Jesus wept.


----------



## 8den (Nov 18, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> A great many eyewitnesses failed to spot a plane. We've been over that many times. The initial reports were of a bomb.



H DEAR. Feel that Jazzz thats a pwnage in the post

Pentagon Witness List.

Because Jazzz tends to ignore this kind of stuff, I'll post up the details.



> From the lists above, 136 people saw the plane approach the Pentagon, and
> 
> *104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.*
> 
> ...






> April Gallop, who was tens of feet from the impact hole



APRIL GALLOP WAS IN THE SODDING BUILDING. SHE WASN'T NEAR A WINDOW!



> is currenly suing Rumsfeld and Cheney:



Not because she doesn't think she was injured by plane impacting the building, a typically dishonest piece of cojecture Jazzz.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 18, 2009)

8den said:


> H DEAR. Feel that Jazzz thats a pwnage in the post
> 
> Pentagon Witness List.


That's possibly one of the best pieces of pwnage that I've ever had the pleasure of experiencing.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 18, 2009)

Beanburger said:


> That's possibly one of the best pieces of pwnage that I've ever had the pleasure of experiencing.



You're a wanker mate.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 18, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> You're a wanker mate.


I'd be hurt, but frankly your use of expletives and personal attacks has undermined the credibility of your argument, and while I previously felt fairly certain that I _was _a wanker, I'm now seriously considering the possibility that I might not be.


----------



## 8den (Nov 18, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> You're a wanker mate.




*FOOL! YOU HAVE BEEN CAST ASSUNDER FROM THIS THREAD!!!!

POST ON IT NO MORE, OR THE CONSEQUENCES WILL BE...DWYER*



Phil I take it back, I totally get why you come out with crap like that, it's awesome fun to type. But Phil seriously though that kind of language underminds your point. Whatever that is, at the moment.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 18, 2009)

Beanburger said:


> I'd be hurt, but frankly your use of expletives and personal attacks has undermined the credibility of your argument, and while I previously felt fairly certain that I _was _a wanker, I'm now seriously considering the possibility that I might not be.



You were right the first time.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 18, 2009)

8den said:


> Phil I take it back, I totally get why you come out with crap like that, it's awesome fun to type.



You're probably a bit of a wanker too, but I detect a sense of humor there somewhere.  You're not a _sneerer._


----------



## 8den (Nov 18, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> You're probably a bit of a wanker too, but I detect a sense of humor there somewhere.  You're not a _sneerer._



Sorry Phil I hold you in withering scathing contempt.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 18, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> You were right the first time.


A random stranger (who nobody seems to like) on an internet forum thinks I'm a wanker.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 18, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> You're probably a bit of a wanker too, but I detect a sense of humor there somewhere.  You're not a _sneerer._


As attempts at divide and conquer go, that's really a bit lame.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 18, 2009)

8den said:


> Sorry Phil I hold you in withering scathing contempt.



It makes me love you more.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 18, 2009)

Beanburger said:


> As attempts at divide and conquer go, that's really a bit lame.



You'd give your right nostril for a bit of popularity.  Daresay you already have.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 18, 2009)

Beanburger said:


> A random stranger (who nobody seems to like) on an internet forum thinks I'm a wanker.



The stench of desperation.

Sycophant.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 18, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> You'd give your right nostril for a bit of popularity.  Daresay you already have.


Projection. Stop sulking and go and get a pint. It's infinitely more productive.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 18, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> The stench of desperation.
> 
> Sycophant.


You really do seem to have lost all those inhibitions about name-calling and personal abuse, doncha? Watching you reveal the extent of your hypocrisy has been highly entertaining. Keep it coming please. Every childish insult is grist to my mill. 

Troll.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 18, 2009)

Beanburger said:


> Projection. Stop sulking and go and get a pint. It's infinitely more productive.



You come on here, sidle up to the big boys, try to ingratiate yourself by feebly joining in with their bullying.  Hanging round the back of the pack, occasionally _sneering._  Vileness.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 18, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> You come on here, sidle up to the big boys, try to ingratiate yourself by feebly joining in with their bullying.  Hanging round the back of the pack, occasionally _sneering._  Vileness.


I'm genuinely surprised at the speed of your retreat from the moral high-ground. It's truly entertaining though. More please!


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 18, 2009)

Beanburger said:


> I'm genuinely surprised at the speed of your retreat from the moral high-ground. It's truly entertaining though. More please!



Every single one of your posts on this thread has been along these lines:



Beanburger said:


> That's possibly one of the best pieces of pwnage that I've ever had the pleasure of experiencing.



I'd call it self-satisfaction, but you don't even do the insults yourself.  You wait for bigger, tougher boys to do them and then you pat them on the back, hoping they'll let you share their toblerone.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 18, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Every single one of your posts on this thread has been along these lines:


You've obviously not been paying attention then. I'd go and find you a whole load of posts that contradict your assertion, but justifying myself to a troll is fairly low down my list of priorities. 



> I'd call it self-satisfaction, but you don't even do the insults yourself.  You wait for bigger, tougher boys to do them and then you pat them on the back, hoping they'll let you share their toblerone.


No pleasing you, is there Phil? So now you're criticising people for _not _throwing insults around? Priceless. Call me all the names you want, mate.... don't you get it... I don't give a shit what you think. In fact, the lower your opinion of me, the better I feel about myself. Every post you make is validating all the negative things that people have said about you on this thread. You're a troll, and you're proving it. Nice work.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 18, 2009)

Beanburger said:


> troll



Twoll.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 18, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Twoll.


Keep it up. I've nearly stopped laughing.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 18, 2009)

Beanburger said:


> Keep it up. I've nearly stopped laughing.



I bet.

Look, I don't really begrudge you your search for friends.  Just be a little less blatant about it, and stop trying to win them over by feebly picking on those you perceive to be unpopular.  It's too obvious.  Nasty too.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 18, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> I bet.
> 
> Look, I don't really begrudge you your search for friends.  Just be a little less blatant about it, and stop trying to win them over by feebly picking on those you perceive to be unpopular.  It's too obvious.  Nasty too.


Nasty? Who's the one who keeps coming back to this thread to do a bit more name-calling? Did you read the link?

Projection. 

What happened to the moral high-ground, Phil? I thought name-calling was *bad*?


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 18, 2009)

Beanburger said:


> What happened to the moral high-ground, Phil?



It got washed away in the storm.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 18, 2009)

Beanburger said:


> Nasty?



Mmm.  Nasty.  Your type often find their way to these boards.  You're a bit insecure, and think that the quickest way to popularity is to join in with a gang who are laughing at someone.  Like this:



Beanburger said:


> That's possibly one of the best pieces of pwnage that I've ever had the pleasure of experiencing.



It's too obvious.  If you take my advice you'll sit back and read without posting for a while.  The social dynamics here are bit more complicated than you think.  You'll find your way in, but this isn't the way to go about it.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 18, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> It got washed away in the storm.


I'd agree with you, but that would just be ingratiating myself with the "big boys", apparently.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 18, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Mmm.  Nasty.  Your type often find their way to these boards.  You're a bit insecure, and think that the quickest way to popularity is to join in with a gang who are laughing at someone.


Phil mate, you're a comedian. Laughing at you is an automatic reaction. No gangs required. 



> It's too obvious.  If you take my advice you'll sit back and read without posting for a while.  The social dynamics here are bit more complicated than you think.  You'll find your way in, but this isn't the way to go about it.


If I was bothered about fitting in, I might give your words some consideration. Clearly it's something that's important to you, as you've obviously given it a lot of thought. You _really _should read that link now.

Projection.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 18, 2009)

Beanburger said:


> I'd agree with you, but that would just be ingratiating myself with the "big boys", apparently.



Oh ffs, don't worry about it.  I'm sorry if I sounded harsh.  Look, just stick with me and you'll be alright.  I'll show you the ropes, introduce you around.  I'll even help you pull a bird if you like.  They're easy round here.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 18, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Oh ffs, don't worry about it.  I'm sorry if I sounded harsh.  Look, just stick with me and you'll be alright.  I'll show you the ropes, introduce you around.  I'll even help you pull a bird if you like.  They're easy round here.


That's better. Tongue in cheek piss-taking without being blatantly nasty. Raises the tone and does your self-image no end of good. Feels much better than all that bile, doesn't it?


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 18, 2009)

Actually that was a lie, there was no actual storm, it was faked, and indeed there was no actual moral high ground, it was just an illusion caused by holographic trolling.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 18, 2009)

Beanburger said:


> That's better. Tongue in cheek piss-taking without being blatantly nasty. Raises the tone and does your self-image no end of good. Feels much better than all that bile, doesn't it?



No.  Piss off.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 18, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> No.  Piss off.


Self-improvement fail.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 18, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> holographic trolling.


----------



## 8den (Nov 18, 2009)

Beanburger said:


> I'm genuinely surprised at the speed of your retreat from the moral high-ground. It's truly entertaining though. More please!



The moral high ground gave Phil altitude sickness. He didn't spend enough time in the moral mid ground acclimatising himself, before he attempted to to scale those heady peaks. Even his team of Sherpas said "Fuck off Dwyer", and left him.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 18, 2009)

I thought trolls were meant to wind _other people_ up rather than themselves? Trolling fail.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 18, 2009)

8den said:


> The moral high ground gave Phil altitude sickness.



I fear the exposure to low air pressure at that level of the twatosphere was too much for him.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 18, 2009)

He's gone quiet. Perhaps he's taken my advice and gone for a pint to help him calm down.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 18, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> I fear the exposure to low air pressure at that level of the twatosphere was too much for him.


Hang on... sorry... not sure I should be siding with you. Phil has more posts. Which one of you is a "big boy"? This popularity game is fucking confusing.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 18, 2009)

Beanburger said:


> Hang on... sorry... not sure I should be siding with you. Phil has more posts. Which one of you is a "big boy"? This popularity game is fucking confusing.



It can be at first, but you're with me now.  Your worries are over.

Now, it's basically a bit like prison here.  What you need to do is find the biggest, hardest mother, walk straight up to him and tell him he's a pussy-ass bitch.  Don't worry if you get your ass kicked a few times.  You'll soon have the respect of the people who matter.  Before you know it the Mods will be sharing their snout with you and 8den will be sucking your dick on work detail.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 18, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> It can be at first, but you're with me now.  Your worries are over.
> 
> Now, it's basically a bit like prison here.  What you need to do is find the biggest, hardest mother, walk straight up to him and tell him he's a pussy-ass bitch.  Don't worry if you get your ass kicked a few times.  You'll soon have the respect of the people who matter.  Before you know it the Mods will be sharing their snout with you and 8den will be sucking your dick on work detail.


You shoulda gone out for that pint of bitter rather than hanging around and feeling bitter.


----------



## 8den (Nov 18, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> It can be at first, but you're with me now.  Your worries are over.
> 
> Now, it's basically a bit like prison here.  What you need to do is find the biggest, hardest mother, walk straight up to him and tell him he's a pussy-ass bitch.  Don't worry if you get your ass kicked a few times.  You'll soon have the respect of the people who matter.



Phil aside from the blatant homoerotic subtext going on with your language, You've been hurling abuse at people here for years, and _no one respects you_. 

Seriously tho Phil "biggest hardest", is that what you think when you were abusing Pickman's last night?




			
				PhilDire said:
			
		

> Hmmmmm yeah Pickman's. Yeah. You're soooooo big aren't you Pickmans? Hmmmmm yeah oh I thought so......soooooo big.....and oooooohhhhhh sooooo hard......Mmmmmm yeah......


----------



## Corax (Nov 18, 2009)

LOL.  Quite impressed with Beanburger on his first encounter with fuck off dywer.  


I've said it before recently Phil; you're losing your edge.  Getting pwned by n00bs now?  What is the world coming to?


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 18, 2009)

Corax said:


> LOL.  Quite impressed with Beanburger on his first encounter with fuck off dywer.
> 
> I've said it before recently Phil; you're losing your edge.  Getting pwned by n00bs now?  What is the world coming to?


I'd love to take the credit, but phil's the one who's been putting all the hard work in. I couldn't have done it without him.


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 18, 2009)

8den said:


> Phil aside from the blatant homoerotic subtext going on with your language, You've been hurling abuse at people here for years, and _no one respects you_.



speak for yourself 8den.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 18, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> speak for yourself 8den.



Poor effort.


----------



## 8den (Nov 18, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> speak for yourself 8den.



Oh look Jazzz respects you Phil. Jazzz who cites holocaust deniers while parading the fact his grandad escaped the holocaust, respects you.


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 18, 2009)

Beanburger said:


> I'd love to take the credit, but phil's the one who's been putting all the hard work in. I couldn't have done it without him.



Beanburger, seems to me phildwyer has you down to the proverbial T. It's painful seeing you try to ingratiate yourself with nothing but childish abuse and sycophantic posts. I wouldn't expect it to work either. I've told you to sod off once already.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 18, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> Beanburger, seems to me phildwyer has you down to the proverbial T.


Given the rest of your beliefs mate, forgive me if I don't give too much weight to your opinions. 



> I've told you to sod off once already.


I know. And it still hurts.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 18, 2009)

8den said:


> Oh look Jazzz respects you Phil. Jazzz who cites holocaust deniers while parading the fact his grandad escaped the holocaust, respects you.



Another lie, this time a (seriously) disgraceful one.

I'd sooner have Jazzz's respect than that of a thousand 8dens.


----------



## 8den (Nov 18, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> Beanburger, seems to me phildwyer has you down to the proverbial T. It's painful seeing you try to ingratiate yourself with nothing but childish abuse and sycophantic posts. I wouldn't expect it to work either. I've told you to sod off once already.



Ahem Jazzz firstly all this righteous indignation over my language looks really really fucking pathetic when you consistently tell people to sod off. Tell me whats so wrong with my swearing, but what's okay with yours? Is it the words? Tell me what words are okay, what terms, and which ones are boo boos? 

Secondly Posts 1555, and 1556 Jazzz, when you're not busy saying mean things to posters could you respond?


----------



## 8den (Nov 18, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Another lie, this time a (seriously) disgraceful one.



No it's in an old Icke thread, someone showed Jazzz a link where David Icke discusses the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and Jazzz waved his grandad's passport around, and basically said "My Grandad escaped the Nazis, I trust Icke, QED Icke is not Anti Semitic". 

It happened Phil, you loudly denounce it, demand I prove it, expect me to to search the archives for it, and then you can engage in some weird dance of semantics where you start bleating "No Jazzz was just being metaphorical" 

It's a nice dance Phil, but your knee is gone, and I think you'd better sit this one out.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 18, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> Another lie, this time a (seriously) disgraceful one



I suggest you use the search function for "Nick Kollerstrom"


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 18, 2009)

8den said:


> No it's in an old Icke thread, someone showed Jazzz a link where David Icke discusses the Protocols of the Elders of Zion



So you believe that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion denies the holocaust.

You pitiful, ignorant berk.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 19, 2009)

When people are seriously arguing of "Protocols" it is probably time to step back and admit that a constructive discussion has gone somewhat downhill.

To get back to the thread title somewhat, here is Jones interviewing Jon Ronson about a week ago regarding "Men Who Stare At Goats" (good film for what it is, but not nearly as based on the book as viewers might think)

Jones makes the usual dick of himself in places but any idea that Ronson pwns him (or vice versa) would be silly, they get on very well and disagreements are cordial. Perhaps there is a lesson in there somewhere


----------



## 8den (Nov 19, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> So you believe that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion denies the holocaust.
> 
> You pitiful, ignorant berk.



No but Icke has engaged Holocaust denial you woefully ignorant motherfucker. Jesus Phil you know fuck all about the subject, stop swaggering onto threads like John Wayne. You're John Wayne Bobbitt. 

While I warm to the subject he claims American Free Press (another holocaust denial site) does "excellent research". 

He also regularly links to www.whale.to on Swine Flu and Vaccine threads right there on the front page see "Holocaust Hoax". 

Oh and if you're interested in this you should find out about his old mate Nic Kollerstrom, a sacked academic who called Auschwitz a holiday camp. 

Now FUCK OFF DWYER. Search the archive before you start calling people liars.


----------



## 8den (Nov 19, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> When people are seriously arguing of "Protocols" it is probably time to step back and admit that a constructive discussion has gone somewhat downhill.



Taffy you wouldn't spot a constructive conversation if the foundations were being drilled into your skull.



> To get back to the thread title somewhat, here is Jones interviewing Jon Ronson about a week ago regarding "Men Who Stare At Goats" (good film for what it is, but not nearly as based on the book as viewers might think)
> 
> Jones makes the usual dick of himself in places but any idea that Ronson pwns him (or vice versa) would be silly, they get on very well and disagreements are cordial. Perhaps there is a lesson in there somewhere




Yeah you should probably read the book version of secret rulers of the world, which differs from the documentary account a great deal. Speaking of the documentary i attended a screening of it, early in the year, and Ronson was even more unflattering of Jones in the Q&A. 

Ronson uses Jones as a source for article material, and knows he needs to keep him on side to his face. 

Jon also told David Shalyer to "fuck off" on a radio show a couple of years ago, BK was on it as I recall. So there is a lesson to learned there too I guess


----------



## 8den (Nov 19, 2009)

I love the way that in the space of an evening he's gone from




			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> It makes me love you more



to



phildwyer said:


> You pitiful, ignorant berk.



Phil you're going Bunny Boiler on me. Full Glenn Close. 

Dwyer have you stopped taking your Lithium?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 19, 2009)

Congrats and thanks for not directly swearing. I get the idea in that link that Ronson is slightly patronising towards Jones. I have read "Secret Rulers..." along with "Them" some time ago. Sometimes these things become a blur. I think Ronson would be the first to admit that there is truth and bullshit in all these areas. That's the trick: Discerning them without getting too rude or winding people up (which I aknowledge I have done somewhat)


----------



## editor (Nov 19, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> You're probably a bit of a wanker too, but I detect a sense of humor there somewhere.  You're not a _sneerer._





phildwyer said:


> It makes me love you more.





phildwyer said:


> You'd give your right nostril for a bit of popularity.  Daresay you already have.





phildwyer said:


> The stench of desperation.
> 
> Sycophant.





phildwyer said:


> Twoll.





phildwyer said:


> Oh ffs, don't worry about it.  I'm sorry if I sounded harsh.  Look, just stick with me and you'll be alright.  I'll show you the ropes, introduce you around.  I'll even help you pull a bird if you like.  They're easy round here.





phildwyer said:


> No.  Piss off.


What did I tell you about continuing your off-topic, disruptive bullshit?

Now get off this thread and stay off it.


----------



## 8den (Nov 19, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Congrats and thanks for not directly swearing.



Up your bum. 



> I get the idea in that link that Ronson is slightly patronising towards Jones. I have read "Secret Rulers..." along with "Them" some time ago. Sometimes these things become a blur. I think Ronson would be the first to admit that there is truth and bullshit in all these areas.



Really? Really? You should have heard him in February or read some of his posts on the Randi forum, since secret rulers of the world and 9/11 and 7/7 his views about conspiracies and conspiracy theorist have hardened a great deal. The sheer level of vitriol he's received from like the 7/7 truthers, accusing him of being a Zionist Shill, and Dupe and Gatekeeper, and the torrents of abuse, he considers them mentally unstable, and the  theories ridiculous . 

You should read some of his posts on the James Randi forum, if you don't believe me. 

Otherwise be like "yeah man, he's like kinda on our wave length" 



> That's the trick: Discerning them without getting too rude or winding people up (which I aknowledge I have done somewhat)



Phil's accused a man of being a mass murderer without basis. Jazzz accuses crash investigators of being criminally complicit in the cover up of mass murder, without a shred of evidence,  and you guys get offended when you get told to "shut the fuck up"? 

Fuck off.


----------



## editor (Nov 19, 2009)

Hi Jazzz. Still waiting. 





editor said:


> I am asking you come up with a remotely sane explanation of events that would make your evidence-free, gore-fest remotely possible.
> 
> You see, when you start wildly accusing people of being involved in mass murders, gross human mutilations, mass slaughters of passengers, plane disappearing tricks and cover ups involving the tacit involvement of hundreds if not thousands of people, it's up to _you_ to explain how this act may have been achieved.
> 
> ...


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 19, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> Beanburger, seems to me phildwyer has you down to the proverbial T. It's painful seeing you try to ingratiate yourself with nothing but childish abuse and sycophantic posts. .



From what I've seen of this guy, I'd have to agree.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 19, 2009)

8den

"Fuck off"

Aw - you were doing so well.

I honestly dont think I have heard of this Randi chap. I'll look it up.

ETA: at least it's open in being a "skeptic" site. One of the more recent threads suggests there is a "racist theme" to the "truth" movement in any suggestion that "arabs in a cave" couldnt have pulled off 911.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 19, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> One of the more recent threads suggests there is a "racist theme" to the "truth" movement in any suggestion that "arabs in a cave" couldnt have pulled off 911.


unless they were controlling the planes from afar


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 19, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> No.  Piss off.


what was that you were saying about sweary people again?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 19, 2009)

phildwyer said:


> It seems a monstrous injustice, but such is life.  I'll live.


more's the pity


----------



## Corax (Nov 19, 2009)

Shall we do MMR now?


----------



## Fedayn (Nov 19, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> what was that you were saying about sweary people again?



I fear you're labouring under the misapprehension that phillip is in any way consistent in regards to his ramblings on here or anywhere else.


----------



## kyser_soze (Nov 19, 2009)

> One of the more recent threads suggests there is a "racist theme" to the "truth" movement in any suggestion that "arabs in a cave" couldnt have pulled off 911.



It's a valid criticism of a great many in the 'Truth' movement.


----------



## 8den (Nov 19, 2009)

> Aw - you were doing so well.



Oh like I give a fuck.



> ETA: at least it's open in being a "skeptic" site. One of the more recent threads suggests there is a "racist theme" to the "truth" movement



There is. 



> in any suggestion that "arabs in a cave" couldnt have pulled off 911.



Funnily enough Jazzz has used that exact term on this forum. It's a derogatory term suggesting that Al Qaeda are a bunch of cavemen, incapable of such a feat. It ignores the fact that many of the senior members of Al Qaeda, and the hijackers where highly educated.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 19, 2009)

8den said:


> Oh like I give a fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



certainly higher educated than people who think there was nowt suspicious about Diana's death !!!

Let the battle recommence!


----------



## 8den (Nov 19, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> certainly higher educated than people who think there was nowt suspicious about Diana's death !!!



Are these people able to construct coherent sentences? 
"certainly higher educated than people who think?" 

I think I need my English/Moron Moron/English dictionary. 



> Let the battle recommence!











"What are you going to do Trev? Bleed on us?


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 19, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> certainly higher educated than people who think there was nowt suspicious about Diana's death !!!
> 
> Let the battle recommence!



Looks like the twatomagnet has been activated again.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 19, 2009)

Jazzz said:
			
		

> Beanburger, seems to me phildwyer has you down to the proverbial T. It's painful seeing you try to ingratiate yourself with nothing but childish abuse and sycophantic posts. .





Johnny Canuck2 said:


> *From what I've seen of this guy*, I'd have to agree.



Who, Beanburger?

What a bizarre post .... 

If you look at pages 63 and 64 of this thread especially, the abuse (and trolling) has all come from a dwyerward direction 

The general agreement on this thread that that's what dwyer's been up to is neither ingratiating nor sycophantic.

Not all consensus is wrong.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 19, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> Looks like the twatomagnet has been activated again.



i will never disappoint you


----------



## Corax (Nov 19, 2009)

William of Walworth said:


> Who, Beanburger?
> 
> What a bizarre post ....



JC's always enjoyed picking on new(ish) posters who get too vocal hasn't he?


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 19, 2009)

8den said:


> Ahem Jazzz firstly all this righteous indignation over my language looks really really fucking pathetic when you consistently tell people to sod off. Tell me whats so wrong with my swearing, but what's okay with yours? Is it the words? Tell me what words are okay, what terms, and which ones are boo boos?
> 
> Secondly Posts 1555, and 1556 Jazzz, when you're not busy saying mean things to posters could you respond?



Let's make this very clear so you can get it.

*I have a 'no personal abuse' policy*. So that means, in general, I will not retaliate in kind to any emotional, personal attack. How does that contribute to a discussion of facts? It doesn't. And do I want to be a being of hate? No. I would rather radiate love, my spiritual beliefs hold that we are all one and the same so to hate another is to hate myself (indeed, I believe you will learn this yourself sooner or later, quite likely later).

However, there are rare exceptions when I might be rude. I might retaliate under intense provocation. Also, what occasionally happens is that a poster turns up who has no point to make except to play 'jeer at the heretic' and I find that they can't resist playing the game even on threads which are entirely non-controversial. So when I find I can't post on a thread about apostrophes without beanburger bringing lizards up, I tell him to 'sod off'. 

I will indeed demolish your post 1555, as I have done with all your other ones. After that, I feel the thread is perhaps coming to an end for me, as editor's behaviour is becoming ridiculous, highly emotional and aggressive with misuse of moderation threats. The idea that he might get an independent moderator to deal with threads where he is a highly emotional and aggressive participant - well I don't have my hopes up too high.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 19, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> From what I've seen of this guy, I'd have to agree.


Agree with what exactly, big boy?


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 19, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> How does that contribute to a discussion of facts? .



Facts? 

When have you ever allowed facts to get in your way?


----------



## editor (Nov 19, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> Let's make this very clear so you can get it.
> 
> *I have a 'no personal abuse' policy*. So that means, in general, I will not retaliate in kind to any emotional, personal attack. How does that contribute to a discussion of facts? It doesn't. And do I want to be a being of hate? No. I would rather radiate love, my spiritual beliefs hold that we are all one and the same so to hate another is to hate myself (indeed, I believe you will learn this yourself sooner or later, quite likely later).


Hi Jazzz. I've been very polite to you, yet still you rudely refuse to answer questions *directly related* to your own claims. 

If you've no interest in discussing the issues you personally introduce to the debate, then what's the point of you posting here?

Here's my post again. Please have the courtesy of answering it.



editor said:


> I am asking you come up with a remotely sane explanation of events that would make your evidence-free, gore-fest remotely possible.
> 
> You see, when you start wildly accusing people of being involved in mass murders, gross human mutilations, mass slaughters of passengers, plane disappearing tricks and cover ups involving the tacit involvement of hundreds if not thousands of people, it's up to _you_ to explain how this act may have been achieved.
> 
> ...


----------



## 8den (Nov 19, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> Let's make this very clear so you can get it.
> 
> *I have a 'no personal abuse' policy*.



I missed that press release. 



> So that means, in general, I will not retaliate in kind to any emotional, personal attack. How does that contribute to a discussion of facts?



How does telling someone to "sod off" marry to that?



> It doesn't. And do I want to be a being of hate? No. I would rather radiate love, my spiritual beliefs hold that we are all one and the same so to hate another is to hate myself (indeed, I believe you will learn this yourself sooner or later, quite likely later).



Y'know thats sort of lovely. To suggest "we are one and same" and to equate that we are equal spiritual beings, and in the next breath to suggest that I am somewhat inferior to you, man thats special. It's like saying we're all higher beings but I'm more higher than you. 

You arrogant pretentious twat. 



> However, there are rare exceptions when I might be rude. I might retaliate under intense provocation.



Yeah, cause the way you lost under the provocation of rational reasoned facts from the architect was all his fault. 



> Also, what occasionally happens is that a poster turns up who has no point to make except to play 'jeer at the heretic' and I find that they can't resist playing the game even on threads which are entirely non-controversial. So when I find I can't post on a thread about apostrophes without beanburger bringing lizards up, I tell him to 'sod off'.



Oh dear, so calling you a "fucking asshole" is wrong, but telling beanburger to "sod off" is okay. 

Hey you accuse people of being involved in conspiracies to murder thousands  on non existent evidence, but you get to be the moral judge of acceptable language. 



> I will indeed demolish your post 1555,



Post 1555, and 1556.  



> as I have done with all your other ones.



Um, wait, what?



> After that, I feel the thread is perhaps coming to an end for me, as editor's behaviour is becoming ridiculous, highly emotional and aggressive with misuse of moderation threats. The idea that he might get an independent moderator to deal with threads where he is a highly emotional and aggressive participant - well I don't have my hopes up too high.



BRAVE SIR JAZZZ RAN AWAY!!!!!


----------



## 8den (Nov 19, 2009)

editor said:


> Hi Jazzz. I've been very polite to you, yet still you rudely refuse to answer questions *directly related* to your own claims.
> 
> If you've no interest in discussing the issues you personally introduce to the debate, then what's the point of you posting here?
> 
> Here's my post again. Please have the courtesy of answering it.



Seriously Editor it's been what 8 years since 9/11. 

Since then no one has offered a single coherent alternative theory to the 9/11 attacks. 

In fact when Jazzz was pushed on this matter he could not offer a single piece of evidence that could convince him that 9/11 wasn't a "inside job".


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 19, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> Let's make this very clear so you can get it.
> 
> *I have a 'no personal abuse' policy*. So that means, in general, I will not retaliate in kind to any emotional, personal attack. How does that contribute to a discussion of facts? It doesn't. And do I want to be a being of hate? No. I would rather radiate love, my spiritual beliefs hold that we are all one and the same so to hate another is to hate myself (indeed, I believe you will learn this yourself sooner or later, quite likely later).
> 
> ...



You pompous, delusional prick.

Get help.


----------



## Corax (Nov 19, 2009)

When you get down to it, the problem is a linguistic one.

We use the term 'discussion' board.

It should be a 'vent and then fuck off to the pub and then vent some more when you've come back pissed' board.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 19, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> So when I find I can't post on a thread about apostrophes without beanburger bringing lizards up, I tell him to 'sod off'.


Actually, Mr Love, that was a friendly, tongue-in-cheek comment. You'll notice I'm not in the habit of going around calling you names at every opportunity. You've probably got an easier time off me than most other people in this thread. 

Oh, and you told me to "sod off" in this thread too, IIRC. 



> misuse of moderation threats.


Fuck me, have you actually _read _the original post? You've participated in the hijacking and derailing of this thread (almost single-handedly), dragged it way off topic, used it as another platform for pursuing your own personal crusade, and you're whining about the moderation policy? 

You _seriously _have nothing to complain about. I could pick you out five forums off the top of my head that would've banned you for what you've done to this thread.


----------



## toblerone3 (Nov 19, 2009)

8den said:


> Seriously Editor it's been what 8 years since 9/11.
> 
> Since then no one has offered a single coherent alternative theory to the 9/11 attacks.
> 
> In fact when Jazzz was pushed on this matter he could not offer a single piece of evidence that could convince him that 9/11 wasn't a "inside job".



Well we could ask him again.

Jazzz    -    what single piece of evidence would convince you that 9/11 wasn't an inside job?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 19, 2009)

toblerone3 said:


> Well we could ask him again.
> 
> Jazzz    -    what single piece of evidence would convince you that 9/11 wasn't an inside job?


evidence? he doesn't need your stinking evidence


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 19, 2009)

toblerone3 said:


> Jazzz    -    what single piece of evidence would convince you that 9/11 wasn't an inside job?


----------



## toblerone3 (Nov 19, 2009)

No need for insults. Just a simple question for Jazzz.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 19, 2009)

toblerone3 said:


> No need for insults.


It's not an insult - it's humour. In case it's not clear, I don't actually believe that Jazzz needs sectioning. Although I do believe in all sincerity that he might benefit from a little counselling.


----------



## toblerone3 (Nov 19, 2009)

I wonder if there is a single piece of evidence that would convince the bulk of the posters on this thread (ie non-9/11 CT posters) that 9/11 was in indeed an inside job?


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 19, 2009)

toblerone3 said:


> I wonder if there is a single piece of evidence that would convince the bulk of the posters on this thread (ie non-9/11 CT posters) that 9/11 was in indeed an inside job?


I really doubt it. The mindset is similar to religious fanatics. They don't follow where the evidence leads - they drag the evidence to where they _want _it to lead. I mean you'd think dinosaur fossils would've been the clincher with christian fundies, but they still manage to twist it to fit their beliefs.... "god planted the bones to test our faith". Similarly, whatever evidence emerges to "prove" the official version of 9/11, the conspiraloons will regard it as falsified or otherwise irrelevant. They've decided what they want to believe, and they'll continue believing it because they want to.


----------



## 8den (Nov 19, 2009)

toblerone3 said:


> I wonder if there is a single piece of evidence that would convince the bulk of the posters on this thread (ie non-9/11 CT posters) that 9/11 was in indeed an inside job?



A confession from someone involved on a practical level on the conspiracy. 

A credible peer reviewed study that cast doubt on the official reports. 

A coherent rational alternative theory that tied together all the conspiracy theories together.


----------



## 8den (Nov 19, 2009)

Beanburger said:


> I really doubt it. The mindset is similar to religious fanatics. They don't follow where the evidence leads - they drag the evidence to where they _want _it to lead. I mean you'd think dinosaur fossils would've been the clincher with christian fundies, but they still manage to twist it to fit their beliefs.... "god planted the bones to test our faith". Similarly, whatever evidence emerges to "prove" the official version of 9/11, the conspiraloons will regard it as falsified or otherwise irrelevant. They've decided what they want to believe, and they'll continue believing it because they want to.



Bean you completely missed the thread of his point.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 19, 2009)

8den said:


> Bean you completely missed the thread of his point.


Doh. He confused me by changing tack. 

It would take a pretty big smoking gun to convince me that it was an inside job, purely because the alleged conspiracy doesn't make any sense.



Why blow the pentagon up with a cruise missile when a perfectly good jumbo jet would have avoided a whole load of awkward questions?


Why demolish the towers when the planes had already done a good job of trashing them?


If you can pull of such a stunning conspiracy, why not plant some WMD in Iraq?


Why bother crashing a plane into a field? Who the fuck even remembers that?


Why stop at the pentagon? Wouldn't the white house have been a better target for a false flag op?

The whole thing is nonsensical and riddled with holes.


----------



## toblerone3 (Nov 19, 2009)

toblerone3 said:


> I wonder if there is a single piece of evidence that would convince the bulk of the posters on this thread (ie non-9/11 CT posters) that 9/11 was in indeed an inside job?





Beanburger said:


> I really doubt it. The mindset is similar to religious fanatics. They don't follow where the evidence leads - they drag the evidence to where they _want _it to lead. I mean you'd think dinosaur fossils would've been the clincher with christian fundies, but they still manage to twist it to fit their beliefs.... "god planted the bones to test our faith". Similarly, whatever evidence emerges to "prove" the official version of 9/11, the conspiraloons will regard it as falsified or otherwise irrelevant. They've decided what they want to believe, and they'll continue believing it because they want to.



 You misunderstood me completely.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 19, 2009)

toblerone3 said:


> You misunderstood me completely.


See preceding post.


----------



## 8den (Nov 19, 2009)

Beanburger said:


> Doh. He confused me by changing tack.
> 
> It would take a pretty big smoking gun to convince me that it was an inside job, purely because the alleged conspiracy doesn't make any sense.
> 
> ...



Yeah but his point was, what would be the thing that would convince you that it was an inside job, not the major flaws in the conspiracy theories


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 19, 2009)

8den said:


> Yeah but his point was, what would be the thing that would convince you that it was an inside job, not the major flaws in the conspiracy theories


Fuck knows. Bush admitting it in public? It's so utterly unlikely, it's like asking what would convince me that jesus died and rose again and ascended into heaven.


----------



## 8den (Nov 19, 2009)

Beanburger said:


> Fuck knows. Bush admitting it in public? It's so utterly unlikely, it's like asking what would convince me that jesus died and rose again and ascended into heaven.



I know, you should see Jazzz wriggle when the opposite question was put to him. It's fucking hilarious.


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 19, 2009)

8den said:


> No, _it's precisely the point_. The forensic evidence is something you dismiss because it's in the public domain. You start screaming about serial numbers because it's something you can't have.


It is perfectly valid to point out the lack of formal identification of any plane part: this is irrelevant to what I may or may not believe in different circumstances. For your information, with many formally identified parts I would certainly accept the planes were there.



> You're like a screaming child.


Alas, I could only dream of your levels of mastery in this department.



> Do you have basis to support this puerile conjecture and speculation. Do you really think that thousands of FBI agents, Flight Crash Investigators, and Federal Employees are just going to destroy evidence, ignore evidence, just because they're _told to_?


It's called 'following orders'. There is the famous example of the destruction of the crucial air traffic controllers tape - made while the events of the day were fresh in their minds of the six. It was cut up into small pieces and deposited in multiple bins. No-one has been held accountable for the criminal destruction of crucial evidence. Why is that?



> The engine was found outside the pentagon Jazzz.


Okay. But of course, your piece has not been formally identified as being part of flight 77. Moreover, it does not even constitute one engine, let alone two.

Several of the pieces you earlier show - well the same applies to them. There has been much discussion of them and many doubts raised which I shall not repeat here but can be easily on the internet.



> OH OF ALL THE CHRIST ALMIGHT STUPID.....
> 
> Jazzz would you fucking listen to yourself? How. the. fuck. would. the. terrorists. know. where. the. top. brass. was? Before. The. Attack.
> 
> Of all the sunday fucking morning quaterbacking.


erm, one the one hand you say how the hijackers were capable of carrying out a sophisticated operation and on the other say they couldn't possibly know where Rumsfeld and Cheney would hang out?

which brings us to the Pentagon Financial Irregularities	



> Rumsfeld said nothing of the sort. And even if he did, do you not think that gosh the greatest fraud in history, an amount of money that dwarves the financial collapse, might. I don't know. Just. Maybe. Maybe. Have. Been. Picked. Up again. At SOME POINT IN THE FOLLOWING 8 YEARS!
> 
> Here's what he actually said.
> 
> ...


You are in cloud cuckoo land! Do you really take that rubbish at face value? *You don't just lose $2.3 trillion dollars down the back of the sofa*, which is basically what Rumsfeld is saying. It's pure nonsense. The money has NOT been accounted for. Wasn't it handy of the terrorists to blow up the auditing department?



quotes:

_"We know it's gone, but we don't know what they spent it on."_ - Jim Minnery, Defence Finance & Accounting

_"Those numbers are pie in the sky! The books are cooked. Routinely, year after year after year."_ Franklin Spinney, Dep. Defense Analyst

Also do watch this and note the squirming.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 19, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> You are in cloud cuckoo land!



lol 

Where have you been all day Jazzz, out hassling pregnant women with your misinformation about the swine flu vaccine?


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 19, 2009)

Beanburger said:


> Fuck me, have you actually _read _the original post? You've participated in the hijacking and derailing of this thread (almost single-handedly), dragged it way off topic, used it as another platform for pursuing your own personal crusade, and you're whining about the moderation policy?


Actually I think you will find that editor introduced the topic of 9/11, demanding answers from me about the phone calls. Perhaps you would better blame him?


----------



## 8den (Nov 19, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> It is perfectly valid to point out the lack of formal identification of any plane part: this is irrelevant to what I may or may not believe in different circumstances. For your information, with many formally identified parts I would certainly accept the planes were there.



No thats a lie. The identification is there. Much in the same way the identification of body parts, and the the path of finding a body part to, to, the lab, to the DNA, to a family member's satisfaction has been achieved. 

You pathetic truthers just demand that evidence needs to be publicaly available to you, despite the fact that this evidence is part of an ongoing murder trial. 



> It's called 'following orders'. There is the famous example of the destruction of the crucial air traffic controllers tape - made while the events of the day were fresh in their minds of the six.
> It was cut up into small pieces and deposited in multiple bins. No-one has been held accountable for the criminal destruction of crucial evidence. Why is that?


And yet I can listen to all the NORAD and FAA controllers communications recorded via this 

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608

vanity fair article. 



> Okay. But of course, your piece has not been formally identified as being part of flight 77. Moreover, it does not even constitute one engine, let alone two.



MUST BACK PEDDLE FASTER. Its an engine dickface. It directly contradicts your claim. 



> Several of the pieces you earlier show - well the same applies to them. There has been much discussion of them and many doubts raised which I shall not repeat here but can be easily on the internet.



Well if the internet says so...



> erm, one the one hand you say how the hijackers were capable of carrying out a sophisticated operation and on the other say they couldn't possibly know where Rumsfeld and Cheney would hang out?



Yes. Yes you fucking moron. Do you think the pentagon tour tells you where the secret areas where the top brass are? How the fuck would you know where the offices of senior department of defence are bases. Ask? Expect them to be highlighted in neon? Are you fucking moron? 



> which brings us to the Pentagon Financial Irregularities
> 
> You are in cloud cuckoo land! Do you really take that rubbish at face value? *You don't just lose $2.3 trillion dollars down the back of the sofa*, which is basically what Rumsfeld is saying. It's pure nonsense. The money has NOT been accounted for. Wasn't it handy of the terrorists to blow up the auditing department?
> 
> ...




Jazzz you're ignoring the whole point of my quote. Fuck the right off. 

It wasn't about a bunch of cash going missing it was about a massive bureaucracy bloated. 

You claimed it was a massive financial fraud, and are now back peddling.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 19, 2009)

Jazzz said:
			
		

> I feel the thread is perhaps coming to an end for me, as editor's behaviour is becoming ridiculous, highly emotional and aggressive with *misuse of moderation threats*. The idea that he might get an independent moderator to deal with threads where he is a highly emotional and aggressive participant - well I don't have my hopes up too high.



You thing the editor was wrong to tell dwyer to stop disrupting this thread?

Have you actually *read* pages 63 and 64 (especially  )?

You may have decided to sack me (   ) but it would *really* be in your own interest if you stopped imagining that dwyer either meant anything he said or that he was in any way helping you. He wasn't.


----------



## Beanburger (Nov 19, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> Actually I think you will find that editor introduced the topic of 9/11, demanding answers from me about the phone calls. Perhaps you would better blame him?


Bullshit. You were hijacking the thread and spreading JFK and Diana conspiracy theories pages before he'd even posted.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 19, 2009)

Beanburger said:
			
		

> It would take a pretty big smoking gun to convince me that it was an inside job, purely because the alleged conspiracy doesn't make any sense.
> 
> Why blow the pentagon up with a cruise missile when a perfectly good jumbo jet would have avoided a whole load of awkward questions?
> 
> ...



This is a pretty good summary IMO of just some of the questions '9/11 truthers' never, ever answer convincingly concerning their 'theories'.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 19, 2009)

Beanburger said:
			
		

> The mindset is similar to religious fanatics. They don't follow where the evidence leads - they drag the evidence to where they want it to lead. I mean you'd think dinosaur fossils would've been the clincher with christian fundies, but they still manage to twist it to fit their beliefs.... "god planted the bones to test our faith". Similarly, whatever evidence emerges to "prove" the official version of 9/11, the conspiraloons will regard it as falsified or otherwise irrelevant. They've decided what they want to believe, and they'll continue believing it because they want to.



And that mindset is why they don't and can't answer them ...


----------



## 8den (Nov 19, 2009)

Oh and Jazzz post 1556? Y'know the "no one saw a plane?"


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 19, 2009)

8den said:


> Oh and Jazzz post 1556?



I don't think he saw it.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Nov 19, 2009)

toblerone3 said:


> I wonder if there is a single piece of evidence that would convince the bulk of the posters on this thread (ie non-9/11 CT posters) that 9/11 was in indeed an inside job?


I really doubt it. This isn't science where a single experiment can disprove a theory, the way to do it would be with a lot of supporting evidence of a low grade that directly contradicts the commonly held theory, a coherent alternate theory that is self consistent and logical and quite possibly a member of the conspiracy admitting to it and detailing HOW it was done.

A single piece of evidence? That'd have to be some amazing evidence, I can't think of anything that would be convincing enough on it's own to convince me that it was a deliberate conspiracy. Not because a confession from whatever mastermind did it wouldn't be sufficent, but because it's hard to justify putting that much reliance on a single source.

The key thing is that it's easy to disprove a theory. If the CT'ers had done that then their alternatives might get a bit more attention. 8 Years on and no alternate theory that even gets close to being plausible.


----------



## editor (Nov 19, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> Actually I think you will find that editor introduced the topic of 9/11, demanding answers from me about the phone calls. Perhaps you would better blame him?


Hi Jazzz. I've been very polite to you, yet still you rudely refuse to answer questions *directly related* to your own claims. 

If you've no interest in discussing the issues you personally introduce to the debate, then there's no point in allowing you to keep shovelling up wild unsubstantiated claims accusing people of committing  mass murder.

Here's my post again. Please have the courtesy of answering it.



editor said:


> I am asking you come up with a remotely sane explanation of events that would make your evidence-free, gore-fest remotely possible.
> 
> You see, when you start wildly accusing people of being involved in mass murders, gross human mutilations, mass slaughters of passengers, plane disappearing tricks and cover ups involving the tacit involvement of hundreds if not thousands of people, it's up to _you_ to explain how this act may have been achieved.
> 
> ...


----------



## editor (Nov 19, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> Actually I think you will find that editor introduced the topic of 9/11


As for this witless claim, you'll  find you've just revealed your lamentable research skills to be as hopeless as ever.

I did not introduce 911 to this thread. 8den did in post #17, followed by Beanburger in #60 and then WoW in #70, followed by a ton of others. 

I didn't even join the thread until it was way over 500 posts long and didn't even mention 911 then, or in the first batch of subsequent posts.

If you can't get simple, easy-to-check facts like this right, what hope is there of you uncovering a cunning global conspiracy of deception, hi-tech wizardry and mass murder?


----------



## 8den (Nov 20, 2009)

editor said:


> As for this witless claim, you'll  find you've just revealed your lamentable research skills to be as hopeless as ever.
> 
> I did not introduce 911 to this thread. 8den did in post #17, followed by Beanburger in #60 and then WoW in #70, followed by a ton of others.
> 
> I didn't even join the thread until it was way over 500 posts long and didn't even mention 911 then, or in the first batch of subsequent posts.



Look Editor, no one likes you introducing facts into this sort of business.


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 20, 2009)

editor said:
			
		

> I am asking you come up with a remotely sane explanation of events that would make your evidence-free, gore-fest remotely possible.
> 
> You see, when you start wildly accusing people of being involved in mass murders, gross human mutilations, mass slaughters of passengers, plane disappearing tricks and cover ups involving the tacit involvement of hundreds if not thousands of people, it's up to you to explain how this act may have been achieved.
> 
> ...



I dealt with your main question ages ago.

I'm sorry if the answer was not what you were looking for, but that's your tough titty. Kindly stop spamming your post over and over again.

As for Calum Douglas and Pilots for 9/11 Truth why not do your own research, and draw your own conclusions. I am not here to hold your hand, sorry.

Good Evening.


----------



## 8den (Nov 20, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> As for Calum Douglas and Pilots for 9/11 Truth why not do your own research, and draw your own conclusions. I am not here to hold your hand, sorry.
> 
> Good Evening.



So ah you rely on them but, expect others to check out why. 

Fucking pathetic.


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 20, 2009)

8den said:


> Oh and Jazzz post 1556? Y'know the "no one saw a plane?"


Oh yes. Well that one was totally ridiculous, because I never said "no one saw a plane", except in your grasping imagination.


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 20, 2009)

8den said:


> So ah you rely on them but, expect others to check out why.
> 
> Fucking pathetic.


It's just an editor thing.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Nov 20, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> I dealt with your main question ages ago.
> 
> I'm sorry if the answer was not what you were looking for, but that's your tough titty. Kindly stop spamming your post over and over again.
> 
> ...



You mean you refused to give an answer. As you are doing for Calum Douglas.

This is a discussion board not a cryptic clue board.


----------



## editor (Nov 20, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> As for Calum Douglas and Pilots for 9/11 Truth why not do your own research, and draw your own conclusions. I am not here to hold your hand, sorry.


It's become obvious by your painful wriggling that Calum Douglas has zero relevant qualifications and his claims have not been properly researched or peer reviewed. Yet you choose to believe them. That speaks volumes of your near-religious _need_ to believe.

As for the future of your conspiracy claims here, I'll make it simple.

If you refuse point blank to entertain reasonable and related questions concerning the provenance, credibility and integrity of the sources you're entirely basing your wild claims on, then any future threads will be binned without warning.

This is not a place for you to continuously slap up evidence-free accusations of mass murder and hideous body mutilation without any debate. We are not a handy free billboard for your bonkers beliefs, and I'm not willing to see urban75 provide a platform for your own-way conspiraloon proclamations or give publicity to the sick sites that you constantly reference.

We made our policy clear on 911 threads some time ago: if there is no credible, new evidence being presented, the threads will be binned. It appears you have zero credible, new evidence. Again.


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 20, 2009)

8den said:


> Y'know thats sort of lovely. To suggest "we are one and same" and to equate that we are equal spiritual beings, and in the next breath to suggest that I am somewhat inferior to you, man thats special. It's like saying we're all higher beings but I'm more higher than you.


Is the child 'inferior' to the old man?


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 20, 2009)

editor said:


> It's become obvious by your painful wriggling that Calum Douglas has zero relevant qualifications and his claims have not been properly researched or peer reviewed. Yet you choose to believe them. That speaks volumes of your near-religious _need_ to believe.



So I take it you don't accept the NIST computer models into the collapses of the towers then, since they are not peer-reviewed. Interesting.

Game Set and Match to me, I believe


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Nov 20, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> So I take it you don't accept the NIST computer models into the collapses of the towers then, since they are not peer-reviewed. Interesting.
> 
> Game Set and Match to me, I believe


Sorry, the NIST authors had no qualifications and who only carried out the most cursory research? Nor has their work been scrutinised by anyone at all?

You're migrating from pet lunatic to troll.

Yes, we know you haven't read much, if any of the report. We all remember when you said that they hadn't taken thermal conduction into account when it was not only there but easy to find.


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 20, 2009)

Bob_the_lost said:


> Sorry, the NIST authors had no qualifications and who only carried out the most cursory research? Nor has their work been scrutinised by anyone at all?


The computer models haven't. At least no-one can properly check them because they aren't releasing the details. It seems they reverse engineered the model to get the results they wanted.

With Calum Douglas and Pilots for 9/11 Truth, they are positively inviting others to do their own analysis and explain how the data in the FDR works when plainly doesn't follow the right trajectory. The FBI refuses to do so or make any comment.

To put it another way - _there is no analysis of the data from the FDR which correlates with the impact of flight 77_.

Another problem which I haven't mentioned is that the data file on the FDR was created four hours before it was supposed to have been discovered! Was there any time stamp which actually worked properly on 9/11? Because this one is wrong. The pentagon security camera was wrong. The Portland video which filmed Atta was wrong. I think all the others had something wrong with them too.


----------



## editor (Nov 20, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> So I take it you don't accept the NIST computer models into the collapses of the towers then, since they are not peer-reviewed. Interesting.
> 
> Game Set and Match to me, I believe


You're even more deluded than I ever thought possible, and here you are engaging the classic _conspiraloon topic shift_ back to something that was discussed to death years ago. I feel sorry for you to be honest. 

You can't even see how desperately tragic you've become, posting up any old garbage from any old DVD shifting nutter, and constantly scrambling around for microscopic 'irregularities' while ignoring the overwhelming body of hard evidence that's all around you.

I've asked you this endlessly but I'll ask one more time in the hope of a reply: you've had eight years here to freely post up all the damning proof and evidence you believe proves 911 an inside job.

You've been at total liberty to use these boards to state your case and post up quotes and links over tens of thousands of posts, yet less and less people bother paying attention to you now. I doubt if even 0.1% of active members believe you now.

Why is that do you think? Are we stupid sheeple too dumb to see the 'truth' that you insist is so obvious?


----------



## editor (Nov 20, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> Another problem which I haven't mentioned is that the data file on the FDR was created four hours before it was supposed to have been discovered!


*bangs head

Is that _it._ A _fucking Windows file attributes screengrab?_ For fuck's sake. It's embarrassing. 

Anyway, it's not credible new evidence, so this thread is warming up for the bin, as will any future ones spouting the same stuff that has already been discussed to death.


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 20, 2009)

editor said:


> You've been at total liberty to use these boards to state your case and post up quotes and links over tens of thousands of posts, yet less and less people bother paying attention to you now. I doubt if even 0.1% of active members believe you now.


I seriously doubt that 99.9% of active posters still believe the official story straight. We could have a poll if you like.


----------



## editor (Nov 20, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> I seriously doubt that 99.9% of active posters still believe the official story straight.


I don't care what you believe, but the hard fact of the matter is that in all the time you've been freely posting up your 'proof' here, you've only managed to alienate posters to the point where barely a soul now believes in any of the tripe you post.

Usually, the more someone explains their case and produces their evidence, the more people who agree with them. 

In your case, it's been the reverse. Again, why is that do you think?


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 20, 2009)

editor said:


> Anyway, it's not credible new evidence, so this thread is warming up for the bin, as will any future ones spouting the same stuff that has already been discussed to death.



As I predicted, this would be your reaction when I refused to answer your incessant questioning. Toys out of the pram!

I was tempted to retire from the thread anyway once phildwyer was banned from it, while far more abusive posters like 8den were allowed to remain. Ridiculous.

Anyway, I shall retire from this thread with my head held high. I have patiently rebutted vast streams of nonsense from all comers especially 8den and editor.

*The official story lies totally discredited*. _It just doesn't add up_.

That is emotionally difficult to deal with for some, but it is nevertheless true.

*We had better start getting over it*.


----------



## editor (Nov 20, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> Anyway, I shall retire from this thread with my head held high. I have patiently rebutted vast streams of nonsense from all comers especially 8den and editor.


You're either deluded or a liar because a fair bit of this thread is all about people patiently trying to get a straight answer out of you - something you consistently refuse to do.

Just like now. I've asked you a question and you're running off again. It's gone beyond a joke now.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 20, 2009)

Jazz/Editor:


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 20, 2009)

editor said:


> *bangs head
> ...so this thread is warming up for the bin, as will any future ones spouting the same stuff that has already been discussed to death.



Dont see the need for the bin and would ask to reconsider that.

For some time I think this was one of the better CT threads - the thread is specficially supposed to about the amount of interest in CTs and not individual CTs themselves which have, as too often, dragged things down somewhat. The internet especially has given rise to a large increase in alternative world views /  narratives. It is a phenomena worthy of discussion regardless of how credible one thinks a paticular world view or CT might be. Some are more or less credible / plausible than others.

We have endless circular discussions on lots of things, especially socialism, fascism and aspects of direct action. I dont see why this should be treated differently. Sometimes those discussions do make progress. If you think these threads are mostly garbage then they only conform to the standard ratio of stuff on the net and one might wonder why you spend so much time on them yourself.

Finally, it is the nature of things that these issues will crop up no matter how many threads you consign to history. 68 pages in a fairly short time speaks to that, even if it would only be 50 pages once we knock out 8dens naughty words. Having 1 or 2 places where CTs can be discussed is pretty healthy and probably prevents other threads being derailed into the squabbles that can just take place on threads like this instead.

Cheers.


----------



## Yossarian (Nov 20, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> Anyway, I shall retire from this thread with my head held high.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Nov 20, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> The computer models haven't. At least no-one can properly check them because they aren't releasing the details. It seems they reverse engineered the model to get the results they wanted.
> 
> With Calum Douglas and Pilots for 9/11 Truth, they are positively inviting others to do their own analysis and explain how the data in the FDR works when plainly doesn't follow the right trajectory. The FBI refuses to do so or make any comment.



Jazzz I'm tired.

I've got work.

And one thing that you have shown comprehensively is that you get things wrong. Over the years I've been beating you over the head with reality that is the only thing you have convinced me of.

Sometimes it takes a long time to find the source that refutes you and frankly I don't see the point. The chances of your complaints having any basis in reality is so small that it's not worth looking into.

Now, a question for you: You've been trying to convince me for going on five years, where have you been going wrong? Why have you failed to convince me that you have a point.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 20, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> Anyway, I shall retire from this thread with my head held high.



Massive lol.   Delusional twat. 



Bob_the_lost said:


> And one thing that you have shown comprehensively is that you get things wrong. Over the years I've been beating you over the head with reality that is the only thing you have convinced me of.
> 
> Sometimes it takes a long time to find the source that refutes you and frankly I don't see the point. The chances of your complaints having any basis in reality is so small that it's not worth looking into.
> .



And this is the biggest problem with Jazzz, he constantly gets it wrong, he regularly demands others disprove his claims and after they spend a long time doing so he will just ignore it and either disappear off the thread completely or pop-up again later, or on another thread, repeating the same old claptrap again. 

In Jazzz’s world he is right and no amount of evidence or facts are allowed to get in the way of that delusion.


----------



## Corax (Nov 20, 2009)

claphamboy said:


> In Jazzz’s world he is right and no amount of evidence or facts are allowed to get in the way of that delusion.



see also: GMart, THINK!


----------



## editor (Nov 20, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Having 1 or 2 places where CTs can be discussed is pretty healthy and probably prevents other threads being derailed into the squabbles that can just take place on threads like this instead..


But it's not about discussion with Jazzz. 

It's all about him propogating his latest 'theory' which inevitable involves accusing untold amounts of people of having complicit invovement in mass murder and then refusing to engage in any critique or analysis of his 'theory.'

His latest yarn was the final straw because it was frankly obscene.

He suggested that the passengers of the Pentagon plane were taken off somewhere, methodically slaughtered en masse, and then had their bodies sliced, diced, burnt and mutilated down to near-microscopic slices which were then smuggled into a forensics lab.

Naturally, there's not a shred of proof to support this disgusting fantasy and I see no reason why he should be allowed to continue to post up his ghoulish fantasies without offering anything approaching proof.

It's more than distasteful. It's sick.





claphamboy said:


> And this is the biggest problem with Jazzz, he constantly gets it wrong, he regularly demands others disprove his claims and after they spend a long time doing so he will just ignore it and either disappear off the thread completely or pop-up again later, or on another thread, repeating the same old claptrap again.
> .


Yep.


----------



## kyser_soze (Nov 20, 2009)

I just want to share this with the group, as the thread was closed before I could post this:



> But corporate capitalism essentially is a conspiracy--a conspiracy by bankers to invent fictional money and use it to control the world. I have come to the conclusion that by opposing conspiracies carte blanche and in general, and by demonizing conspiracy theorists as nutters, organized capital is attempting to make any opposition to its reign literally unthinkable.



The difference being we're all willing (even the lefties) participants in the creation and continuation of it - a conspiracy, by it's very nature, is something hidden, something that cannot be seen, whereas capitalism and the creation of money (as a part of it) can be seen everywhere.

The other difference, of course, is that analysis of capital is far from the evidence free extrapolations of Alex Jones and his ilk - and also that ultimately, it's the current manifestation of a hierarchical system that has been in place since humans aggregated in large numbers coupled with agriculture (and I suspect even before then that the tribal groups that were most successful when life was a mix of h-g and primitive agri were the ones who established clear orders of hierarchy based around imminent and guessed/predicted future needs because they had grown beyond the optimum group size of 150, after which flattened, distributed systems fail, because that's the limit on immediate human trust boundaries.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Nov 20, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> I just want to share this with the group, as the thread was closed before I could post this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




 This sort of thoughtful, intelligent  answer is wasted on conspiracy threads. And that makes me


----------



## editor (Nov 20, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> I just want to share this with the group, as the thread was closed before I could post this:


Sorry about that, but you're never going to get a decent and open discussion going while dywer's in full troll mode.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 20, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:
			
		

> *This sort of thoughtful, intelligent  answer is wasted on conspiracy threads*. And that makes me



I don't think it was completely ....


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 20, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> Game Set and Match to me, I believe








That crystal meth sure is a powerful drug.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 20, 2009)

toblerone3 said:


> I wonder if there is a single piece of evidence that would convince the bulk of the posters on this thread (ie non-9/11 CT posters) that 9/11 was in indeed an inside job?



Yep. A chain of alternative evidence that can't be set aside through reference to scientific procedure and/or rationality.
That's the big problem with the sort of credulity that enables you to speak of "nano-thermite residues". The rational comparison of building materials used within the WTC complex in its' construction, with the constituents of "nano-thermite" show that all constituents are common to steel-skeleton multi-storey construction.


----------



## kyser_soze (Nov 20, 2009)

> I wonder if there is a single piece of evidence that would convince the bulk of the posters on this thread (ie non-9/11 CT posters) that 9/11 was in indeed an inside job?



No not a single piece, but the same kind of evidence that exposes all conspiracies - accounts, memos, aide-memoirs, emails that all combine to provide multiple, interlocking connections that show who, how and why something was done. 

See: Watergate & Iran Contra. Actual evidence of wrong doing, rather than assertion, supposition, extrapolation and bullshit that masquearades as science. Also, an aggregator who has no prior agenda on this issue so they aren't out to show one result or another, but construct a narrative based on the evidence.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 20, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> No not a single piece, but the same kind of evidence that exposes all conspiracies - accounts, memos, aide-memoirs, emails that all combine to provide multiple, interlocking connections that show who, how and why something was done.
> 
> See: Watergate & Iran Contra. Actual evidence of wrong doing, rather than assertion, supposition, extrapolation and bullshit that masquearades as science. *Also, an aggregator who has no prior agenda on this issue so they aren't out to show one result or another, but construct a narrative based on the evidence*.



Exactly -- no preset conspiracist agenda, and/or to be fair no establishment one either .


----------



## laptop (Nov 22, 2009)

Wa-hey! A brand-new (to me) conspiraloon theory!



> The people at Northwestern University who ran the cap-and-trade simluation which demonstrated the profits possible with a 350ppm cap, also partnered with Boeing and Honeywell to guide the planes on 9/11 and sabotage the evacuation of their number one rival CO2e.com from the North Tower.
> 
> The ADT dispatcher told everyone in the Twin Towers to return to their offices on 9/11 where Honeywell / Vulcain ventilation systems were rigged to kill them with a toxic/explosive mix of gases
> 
> ...



Can't exclude the possibility that sarcasm is present in the above...


----------



## Mungy (Nov 22, 2009)

Just got this link from a friend on facebook. It's a claim for a scientific link to autism.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/scientific-link-to-autism-identified-70354482.html



> ...They found unique corollary relationships between various brain chemicals (neurohormones, neurotransmitters, etc.). This apparent pattern led to a new path of research for the team outside of business. By looking at extensive scientific literature they discovered a cascade of hormones that emanate from the brain (hypothalamus). This same pattern of correlations was again apparent throughout the cascade. The group added a research biologist and started to test the pattern on genes (proteins). It remained consistent. The Center then called upon advisors from chemistry and physics to see if the pattern would apply in physical sciences.
> 
> To the amazement of the group, it became apparent that this pattern of corollary relationships could be applied to scientific processes for maintaining equilibrium (homeostatic relationships) throughout all of science; from subatomic particles to chemistry as well as between biological substances.
> 
> ...



The article goes on much more. I read it. I don't really understand it, its way above my head. I've added it here, cos I don't know if it's bollocks or not and it would be a shame to start another thread that was complete bollocks.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Nov 23, 2009)

Mungy said:


> Just got this link from a friend on facebook. It's a claim for a scientific link to autism.
> 
> http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/scientific-link-to-autism-identified-70354482.html
> 
> ...


It's bollocks.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 29, 2010)

*Interesting poll of 'conspiraloons'*

They either don't vote or they vote UKIP or BNP.

http://www.david icke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=109010

Link broken for obvious reasons.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 29, 2010)

sihhi said:


> They either don't vote or they vote UKIP or BNP


You're right about UKIP. Look at this.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2010)

> Labour 1 0.93%
> Conservative 2 1.87%
> Liberal democrat 3 2.80%
> UKIP 32 29.91%
> ...




That is interesting. Surprised at not a single green vote. I wonder if there's any mileage in having a look at the social composition of the loons given that they seem to be hard-righters.


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 29, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> You're right about UKIP. Look at this.



That's properly fucking mental, altho it's always reassuring to see that Alex Jones, whom Jazz is a big fan of, is happy to invite any old rwing nutter onto his show.


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 29, 2010)

*From that link*

"Lord Monckton -- champion of truth and freedom"


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 29, 2010)

Jazzz has been a useful idiot for the right for a while now.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 29, 2010)

The UKIP thing doesn't suprise me, a predictable reaction to the venal CT hatred of the EU as a percieved arm of NWO.

The fascist thing does worry me - I think there will be 2 camps: 1 will be the raving anti-semites, nationalists and racists using an agenda they have some amount in common with to suck in dupes (anti globalisation or "globalism" as they call it).
They may have packed what is a small and thus highly riggable poll.

The other lot will be the dupes, many of them clearly won't be aware of  NG's father's role as a very prominent mason.

I'm suprised Greens scored zero, that is probably due to association with climate change politics.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2010)

Or the consipraloons could be a bunch of hard-right types.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 29, 2010)

I'm also surprised greens scored 0%, especially given the links between environmentalism and fascism


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 29, 2010)

sihhi said:


> They either don't vote or they vote UKIP or BNP.
> 
> http://www.david icke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=109010
> 
> Link broken for obvious reasons.



Oh that *is* interesting ... Well spotted.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 29, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> I'm also surprised greens scored 0%, especially given the links between environmentalism and fascism



They think climate change is a global conspiracy, so they probably reckon the greens are run by the same lizard-loving Mi5 guys who bumped Diana off etc.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 29, 2010)

Bernie Gunther said:


> They think climate change is a global conspiracy, so they probably reckon the greens are run by the same lizard-loving Mi5 guys who bumped Diana off etc.



 heh, that talking clock site is proper mental, all about diana. 


I never got loons' obsession with diana - i mean don't they hate muslims and immigration, despite thinking that diana was murdered because her boyrfiend was muslim


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 29, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> heh, that talking clock site is proper mental, all about diana.
> 
> 
> I never got loons' obsession with diana - i mean don't they hate muslims and immigration, despite thinking that diana was murdered because her boyrfiend was muslim



Seeing as how they are constantly saying that muslims aren't primarily responsible for organising high profile attacks they might well be less frothing and lunatic than neo cons et al. Anyone in favour of freedom should not have a problem with migration.

The support for Palestine is often big among these people, though it could be transmuted anti-semitism.

What worries me is that "truthers" pride themselves (believe it or not) on being somehow discerning and intelligent. That so many would be apparently dim enough to endorse fascism just makes me hope they are fascists who are using the truth movement rather than truthers being used by fascists.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2010)

There's another option - the 'truthers' being hard righters.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 29, 2010)

Reading through that thread, there's a fair bit of:

anti-globalisation, NWO etc. = nationalism 

... from several of the posters who explain why they're going BNP/UKIP.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 29, 2010)

Why do they support palestine though? Is it because of a network of evil jews controlling the world or because they have actually studied the issue in depth?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 29, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> There's another option - the 'truthers' being hard righters.



I don't see why a person who comes across some aspect of the "truth" movement and finds something in it would be anymore inclined to being of the right than of anywhere else. (Someone who is already of the hard right will find what they are looking for, anyone can find what they are looking for if they look hard enough)

What might be common with the general example is an anti-establishment sentiment. This would obvioulsy be ill channeled by going down reactionary avenues but perhaps those are the avenues that are seen to be there. Elsewhere on these boards the failures of the left to fill the anti-establisment vacuum is one of the main topics of discussion.

A person (say) in their twenties who is one of the growing number of people who knows exactly what international banking elites are about, the extent of CIA black-ops, Operation Paperclip and all the rest of it...they are hardly likely to vote Labour, Conservative or Liberal. Green might have been on the list once but the fundemental CT error on climate theory puts paid to that 

(the error is a half truth - that human caused climate change is a scam to tax and control us. In fact we do impact the environment massively in a way that is used to tax and control us. Carbon trading etc. will be used by the banks to appropriate wealth, spin new derivatives and have greens take the blame)

There is no strong left of labour party to speak of and no one on the left is making a strongly heard anti banker case. The fascists appear to have made more of anti banking sentiment than the left have, that is dismal.

When you consider how big the anti global capitalist left used to appear to be in this country,it is a big failing that we are not attracting the massive amount of people who daily realise that the global political scene is an elitist stitch-up.


----------



## elbows (Mar 29, 2010)

I think you are likely to get a fair mix of different sorts of people who feel disenfranchised in one way or another and fall under the spell of conspiracy theorists. There are plenty of paranoid people, nationalists, libertarians and right-wingers of other flavours, but I dont think that poll tells us much. I dont frequent those forums but I did just skim through many pages of the poll thread and there are several people who say they will probably vote green. There are plenty who dont think there is a point in voting, some people passionately disagreeing with them. 

There are some overtly pro-BNP or UKIP people on the thread, but there are also people complaining that every election the BNP target their forum and start posting a load of BNP propaganda so I think its quite possible the poll has been distorted.

It doesnt surprise me that the BNP would target conspiracy theorists as potential BNP voters, for numerous reasons. Not least it highlights something that I am always keen to harp on about - be careful with cynicism because it can be exploited.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 29, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Why do they support palestine though? Is it because of a network of evil jews controlling the world or because they have actually studied the issue in depth?



There's no need for it to be Jew-hating, though some probably is.

I think the truthers are a bit more used to frothing loons and hard-rightists being among them and can very often discern the bullshit.

You don't have to study I/P  in depth to see the injustice or the place of the issue in global politics and supposed "end time" scenarios.

From a US isolationist POV I don't think they like the fact that one government (Israel) appears to have so much influence over the US and take so much money in military aid to essentially function as a proxy state. The rhetoric that "conspiracy theorists" employ against any attack on Iran would be at home in any more leftist meeting.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 29, 2010)

"international banking elites" is code for "jews". Taffboy is another useful idiot.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 29, 2010)

plus the far right has always loved a good conspiracy - zog etc


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I don't see why a person who comes across some aspect of the "truth" movement and finds something in it would be anymore inclined to being of the right than of anywhere else. (Someone who is already of the hard right will find what they are looking for, anyone can find what they are looking for if they look hard enough)
> 
> What might be common with the general example is an anti-establishment sentiment. This would obvioulsy be ill channeled by going down reactionary avenues but perhaps those are the avenues that are seen to be there. Elsewhere on these boards the failures of the left to fill the anti-establisment vacuum is one of the main topics of discussion.
> 
> ...



That' doesn't really deal whether the consipraloons are right-wingers or not. And by that  don't mean being manipulated by the hard right, i mean just be hard-right in their right with no string pulling. I can see why you'd shy away from reaching that conclusion because it will in part reflect back upon you in some ways - but i've seen more idelogical racism or hard-right stuff (holocaust denial for example) on those icke boards and the other popular ones than i've ever seen on EDL forums or sites like that - and i've seen it put out there not by shadowy string pullers but by very prominent and respected (in the loon community) people. The Kollerstrom incident brought a lot of that to light.

You suggest that "Someone who is already of the hard right will find what they are looking for", i'm suggesting that they might have done just that in this community. 

You're more clued about this than me, what's your impression of the social composition of the 'truthers' or other conspiracy types?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 29, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> "international banking elites" is code for "jews". Taffboy is another useful idiot.



This is utter bollocks. Though common utter bollocks.

There is such a thing as international banking elites, if you have watched the news since late 2008 you may have a vague idea of the fraud and blackmail they have been up to.

the phrase was long-since appropriated as code-word for "jews" by the far right, but when one faction co-opts a phrase it shouldn't blind us to the true and less nefarious simple meaning of it.

I have no idea how many of them are jewish and I dont care. Authentic jewish law forbids usery anyway. To think that people cant discern between an accurate description and hard right code-word propaganda is pretty insulting.

How else is one to refer to elites who involved in banking at an international level? 

Should we let rigged casino capitalism continue the confiscation of wealth just in case anyone constructs some sense of being offended by a possible interpretation of the terminology used? That indeed would be useful idiocy.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 29, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You're more clued about this than me, what's your impression of the social composition of the 'truthers' or other conspiracy types?



Increasingly I would say that social composition tends towards the random - anyone who might stumble over something down the back of the internet and follow it up - curious, mistrusting and that kind of thing.

That doesnt suggest to me one type of social composition in terms of class or ethnicity etc.

Politically there probably is a pull towards libertarianism, some people actually think UKIP speak to this (strange but true) There is no reason to me why this shouldnt be a left libertarianism, but the non anarchist left hasn't spoken enough to those issues. 

One aspect of "anti globalised" politics is the perception that the nation state can provide a bulwark against the development of it. The nation state can be presented as more democratic and accountable, it is depressing indeed that some people have contrived to come up with something LESS democratic and accountable. Thus anti-global sentiment can feed and be fed on by petty isolationist nationalism

OTOH - a truly libertarian approach would call for localised self rule and seek to dissolve all levels of hierarchy and discrimation, not just swap one for another  (hence UKIPs claim for our indepence is absurd because they would have us as under the control of international capitalists as anyone else)

In summary: I dont detect disproportionate bias for social class or ethnicity, but the movement can be pulled to the right for some small reasons. The real reason why it would drift that way though would be a failure of the left to be engaged in the dialectic and thus pull it back.

As for more holocaust denialism on Icke than on EDL boards: Kneejerk conspiracists will attack anything presented by the mainstream straight off the bat and always assume the worst. It's a real intellecutal problem in the movement. But I suspect again that this is far rightists using the CT movement rather than CTers being of the far right.

EDL are nominally somewhat pro Jewish if anything, they certainly make a point of having Israeli flags on their demos and are far more in favour of War on Terror rhetoric than the BNP. It's very possible that holacaust denial on an EDL discussion would be modded.


----------



## elbows (Mar 29, 2010)

Why do some groups become highly visible and get the labels 'truth movement' or 'conspiracy theorist' applied to them? Because it is the nature and language of their reaction and response to 'discovering the truth' which makes them highly visible in the first place, and its a reaction that tends to have far more in common with a range of right-wing positions, at least in this age.

The various conspiracy theories themselves may well have some appeal across the broader political spectrum, but the reaction wont be the same, the scapegoats & language will be different, and fuels for the flames such as nationalism, racism, and governments spoiling the free market will naturally attract those with certain views and completely repel others.

Speaking very generally I expect people of the left to be less likely to have a sudden realisation that the system which was apparently so pure and good is actually evil, and then start drooling and expressing outrage when they discover the truth. This is because they are less likely to have had faith in the systems in the first place, as opposed to those on the right who have, at least in their minds, a golden age to hark back to where their values were enshrined in institutions & laws, and where the loss of that stuff must be due to shadowy forces manipulating things. 

The nature of the hatred of the state is also likely to vary depending on whether you are left or right.  Whilst the reality may well be that states have tended to help right-wing positions become reality more than left wing ones, many of the victories the left managed in the past, much of the progress we've made on issues of equality, is bound up and enforced by state institutions. So many on the left may not be keen to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Meanwhile some on the right may be tempted to believe that they dont need the state much in order to live in a world governed by free markets, never mind the reality of what the state does for them, they dont like other forces challenging the supremacy of wealth. There is some contradiction in what Im saying in this paragraph compared to the previous one, but hey ho its messy.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 29, 2010)

> View Poll Results: Holocaust a hoax?
> Yes 		                                        29.22%
> No 		                                        27.40%
> over exaggerated but still real 		42.01%
> far larger and more widespread than we have been led to believe 1.37%



http://www.davidicke      .com/forum/showthread.php?t=102754


----------



## elbows (Mar 29, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> A person (say) in their twenties who is one of the growing number of people who knows exactly what international banking elites are about, the extent of CIA black-ops, Operation Paperclip and all the rest of it...they are hardly likely to vote Labour, Conservative or Liberal. Green might have been on the list once but the fundemental CT error on climate theory puts paid to that
> 
> (the error is a half truth - that human caused climate change is a scam to tax and control us. In fact we do impact the environment massively in a way that is used to tax and control us. Carbon trading etc. will be used by the banks to appropriate wealth, spin new derivatives and have greens take the blame)



Im not convinced that people in their twenties have a better understanding of banking elites now than in the past. There is greater outrage about bankers at the moment for obvious reasons, and there are a range of  unenlightening theories full of little else than emotion, which is not a great replacement for proper institutional analysis, analysis which may have been more likely in the past when there was a more functional left.

If theyve been lapping up the words of Alex Jones and Mr Icke then your assumption that they wont vote Labour, Liberal or Tory might be safe, but again I think there are plenty of people who will not have been sent to such extremes by the scandals and quackery of the day, and may hold their nose and vote for a mainstream party.

The assumption that the climate change errors will put many people who would ever have seriously considered voting green off from doing so is flawed if you ask me, as those most easily swayed by these climate change message scandals were largely looking for an excuse not to believe in that stuff in the first place. 

Your comments about it being a tax scam are things I would expect from a right winger, not to say that some people on the left do not also have such suspicions, but the way you express them smells right-wing to me. On a related note the not-fully-mainstream theory that I most subscribe to is that of peak oil, I wonder if this one attracts more left-wingers than right-wingers because it fits the left better in all sorts of ways and has some serious incompatibilities with the right?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 29, 2010)

elbows

Excellent post overall.

_Why do some groups become highly visible and get the labels 'truth movement' or 'conspiracy theorist' applied to them? Because it is the nature and language of their reaction and response to 'discovering the truth' which makes them highly visible in the first place, and its a reaction that tends to have far more in common with a range of right-wing positions, at least in this age._

Good point. I would prefer to see the movement portray itself as "anti-lies" if anything.

_The various conspiracy theories themselves may well have some appeal across the broader political spectrum, but the reaction wont be the same, the scapegoats & language will be different, and fuels for the flames such as nationalism, racism, and governments spoiling the free market will naturally attract those with certain views and completely repel others.
_

True. Though it doesn't and shouldn't rule out the left from participating in the debate and leaving a rich seam of debate open to the right to co-opt, which in some way is clearly happening.

_Speaking very generally I expect people of the left to be less likely to have a sudden realisation that the system which was apparently so pure and good is actually evil, and then start drooling and expressing outrage when they discover the truth. This is because they are less likely to have had faith in the systems in the first place, as opposed to those on the right who have a golden age to hark back to where their values were enshrined in institutions & laws..._

Important point well made. There are many "revalations" of the CT movement that people like Zinn, Pilger and countless more have been on about for decades. There are other areas, like "Club of Rome" documents and Codex Alimentarius where the left are far less critical (though CA is a common bugbear for greens) 

_and where the loss of that stuff must be due to shadowy forces manipulating things. _

The loss of "golden age" values doesn't much bother me because most of it is founded on reactionary myth. Many changes are due to welcome liberalism and social democracy which then get scapegoated by the right as associated with the shadowy forces. Liberalism can be used as cover by the elite though which makes things more confusing. the EU could never be sold as an anti-democratic neo-liberal project. It has to use social liberalism and fluffy stuff to sell the rhetoric.

 But the fact that there are manipulating forces are not remotely in doubt. The banking heist and bailouts, the increasing marriage of corporation and state demonstrate this strongly. These are partly rooted in the same forces alluded to by Eisenhower in his MIC speech as well as Kennedy. There are aspects of occultism which are hard to refute. The left doesn't tend to go there because they are often scoffing of anything smacking of religious or spirutual discourse. The irony regarding the pupported occult preoccupancies among some aspects of the elite is that much of it is in common with the nazi occult obsession. The Bush link to nazis is very strong. Any anti neo-con anti NWO type should be scathing of the far right, and very many actually are.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 29, 2010)

elbows said:


> Your comments about it being a tax scam are things I would expect from a right winger, not to say that some people on the left do not also have such suspicions, but the way you express them smells right-wing to me. On a related note the not-fully-mainstream theory that I most subscribe to is that of peak oil, I wonder if this one attracts more left-wingers than right-wingers because it fits the left better in all sorts of ways and has some serious incompatibilities with the right?




I dont call it a tax scam because I am a right winger who distrusts the principles of taxation per se.

I call it a tax scam because climate-criminal politicians are clearly ready to use green issues as cover for their own agenda. Carbon trading, for one example, threatens to be the foundation for a future derivatives bubble, marketising the licence to pollute is about as ungreen as it gets.

Human damage to the planet is irrefutable. The Club of Rome documents explicitly state that green issues would be used to build an agenda for more global governence. If there had been a green result of that I wouldnt be half so pissed off, but the deforestation, depletion of the seas and other eco crimes of the capitalists continue unabated. Ringfenced taxes for green causes would be fine, but genuine ringfencing is a very rare thing. 

So CTers say human caused climate change is bollocks. Despite some nuances beyond the standard "debate", it isn't bollocks.

CTers say climate change is being used by the elite for an agenda beyond that which is pupported. This appears to be true. 

They are perpetuating a half-truth - often as dangerous as a lie. 

As corporation and state are increasingly wedded it becomes less traditionally "right wing" to oppose tax anyway. Our taxes now go increasingly to privateers, warmongers and bankers. There's bugger all that is left wing about that.


----------



## elbows (Mar 29, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> elbows
> 
> Excellent post overall.



Cheers



> Good point. I would prefer to see the movement portray itself as "anti-lies" if anything.





> True. Though it doesn't and shouldn't rule out the left from participating in the debate and leaving a rich seam of debate open to the right to co-opt, which in some way is clearly happening.



Dont expect them to debate on the same sites, under the same figureheads/movements, focussing on the same scapegoats or using the same language as the conspiracy theorists we are generally referring to here. Why would they when they can debate the issues they feel important to them, in the manner of their choosing, elsewhere. The left have enough trouble with factionalism at the best of times, when only dealing with people on their part of the spectrum.



> Liberalism can be used as cover by the elite though which makes things more confusing. the EU could never be sold as an anti-democratic neo-liberal project. It has to use social liberalism and fluffy stuff to sell the rhetoric.
> 
> But the fact that there are manipulating forces are not remotely in doubt. The banking heist and bailouts, the increasing marriage of corporation and state demonstrate this strongly. These are partly rooted in the same forces alluded to by Eisenhower in his MIC speech as well as Kennedy.



Well this is where discussions between us on these subjects usually gets stuck. Powerful forces exercising their power in many ways is not in doubt, has never been in doubt, is not something new, is only thinly disguised, and is at the heart of politics, the way humans organise. The thin pretences that seek to dress everything up in noble terms and to deny the failings and corruptability of man and systems are not new either. Throughout much of recorded history we can imagine people wrestling with the contradictions of their belief systems, states, movements. To paint ones will as the best way, the natural way, the liberal way, progress, or the preservation of common decency is not new either.

Its messy and complicated not just because of the games that power players engage in, be they state, corporate or other, but because of the duality of things, the difficulty of making any sort of practical reality from notions of good and bad. The black & white nature of most conspiracy theories is the ultimate turnoff for me, makes a mockery of any truth they stumble upon along the way.



> There are aspects of occultism which are hard to refute. The left doesn't tend to go there because they are often scoffing of anything smacking of religious or spirutual discourse. The irony regarding the pupported occult preoccupancies among some aspects of the elite is that much of it is in common with the nazi occult obsession. The Bush link to nazis is very strong. Any anti neo-con anti NWO type should be scathing of the far right, and very many actually are.



Symbolism goes down well with people, as does a good story with clearly defined sides. This fact is well known and is used to bind people all the time, be it to a state institution, a religion, a cult, a gang of truthseekers. So the occult stuff spices up the crusade against the NWO no end, and also plays to a potential audience who have been indoctrinated with a religious sentiment.  And it does seem that in the USA some of those on the left who end up going for the right-wing conspiracy theories are brought there by way of some new age traditions from Americas not too distant past which have been siezed upon. It can also be seen as a way of coming to terms with and expressing in language the feeling of disenfranchisement. Really helps turn up the emotional fuel for the scapegoating too - dehumanise the opponents.

The far right get some hate from more moderate anti-NWOers because of the usual repulsion to some of their extreme views. However a good deal of the hate for Bush could be explained as simple factionalism, or the usual story where someone of the right gets into power but they still go along with the supposed 'NWO agenda' so they must be declared evil and a sham. The actual realities require more political analysis and an acceptance that even those in power have to take account of other powers, an eternal struggle we witness all the time, a balancing act rather than one omnipotent force having complete control over the storyline.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 29, 2010)

Just found a priceless bit of dialogue on the Climate Research Unit hacked e-mail thread on those forums. 

"Uh guys, why are we suddenly believing what _Fox News_ says?"

... a bit of uncomfortable umming and ahhing takes place, then someone comes up with the following resolution for the poor chap's cognitive dissonance ... 

"It's like this see ... 

Our Rothschild lizard overlords control *both* the Bush-Murdoch neo-Nazi and the socialist-green-UN factions within the NWO and right now the minions of each faction are at war with each other. So we can believe the Murdoch press on this subject, because they're attacking the socialist-green NWO minions."


----------



## Sgt Howie (Mar 29, 2010)

Since when has it been news that a paranoid mindset is most likely to be prevalent among those whose interests steer them to the right?


----------



## existentialist (Mar 29, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> The UKIP thing doesn't suprise me, a predictable reaction to the venal CT hatred of the EU as a percieved arm of NWO.
> 
> The fascist thing does worry me - I think there will be 2 camps: 1 will be the raving anti-semites, nationalists and racists using an agenda they have some amount in common with to suck in dupes (anti globalisation or "globalism" as they call it).
> They may have packed what is a small and thus highly riggable poll.
> ...


Who's NG?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 29, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> Since when has it been news that a paranoid mindset is most likely to be prevalent among those whose interests steer them to the right?



Is that what's happening though? Or is it that a bunch of alienated citizens are latching on to some vaguely plausible sounding, easily digested, and in some ways thrillingly exciting ('We know what's *really* going on') alternative interpretations of the modern world, some of which are coming from the right.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 29, 2010)

existentialist said:


> Who's NG?



The Cyclops Fuhrer himself.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 29, 2010)

To be honest I know plenty of relatively apolitical people who've adopted these views not because they think lizards control the world or anything but because it's what's on offer, it's relatively common place type of conspiracy theory without having to think too much about class analysis or anything of that sort. 

I might make another animation soon about conspiracy theories lol.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 29, 2010)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Is that what's happening though? Or is it that a bunch of alienated citizens are latching on to some vaguely plausible sounding, easily digested, and in some ways thrillingly exciting ('We know what's *really* going on') alternative interpretations of the modern world, some of which are coming from the right.



Yes.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Mar 29, 2010)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Is that what's happening though? Or is it that a bunch of alienated citizens are latching on to some vaguely plausible sounding, easily digested, and in some ways thrillingly exciting ('We know what's *really* going on') alternative interpretations of the modern world, some of which are coming from the right.



The stoners tend to drop out somewhere in between spotting the implicit and explicit racism.


----------



## elbows (Mar 29, 2010)

Another reason it attracts certain shades of right-wingers is because it fills a gap that was previously occupied by paranoia about communists and the soviet union during the cold war.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 29, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> The Cyclops Fuhrer himself.


Oh, right. So what's this about his grandad?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 29, 2010)

existentialist said:


> Oh, right. So what's this about his grandad?



His father. Long standing and high up in the masons.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 29, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> His father. Long standing and high up in the masons.



You're speaking in riddles. I've had two glasses of red (Lidl, boxed - I shouldn't bother, if I were you) and my brane is racked by tooth pain and rosacea. I have managed to figure out that NG the Cyclops Fuehrer is Nick Griffin (ithangyew *bows*), but WTF does what his dad does in his spare time have to do with the price of fish?

My missus-to-be's matron of honour's husband is, by common repute, both long standing (fnar) AND high up in the masons, but I still call him Harry and spit in his beer.


----------



## Combustible (Mar 29, 2010)

There is clearly quite a strong authoritarian streak amongst many conspiracy theorists.  You certainly get the impression that despite their protestations to the contrary they take secret comfort from the fact that the world is not chaotic and unpredictable but everything is under the control of the NWO/Lizards.  However maleovent they might appear to be they will not let the world slide into total chaos which would be their worst fear.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 29, 2010)

Combustible said:


> There is clearly quite a strong authoritarian streak amongst many conspiracy theorists.  You certainly get the impression that despite their protestations to the contrary they take secret comfort from the fact that the world is not chaotic and unpredictable but everything is under the control of the NWO/Lizards.  However maleovent they might appear to be they will not let the world slide into total chaos which would be their worst fear.


What I don't get is that they're well big on this " warning, the New World Order is taking over", but whenever you say "Nooooo! What shall I do! Here, I have my own AK47 and bullets and everything!!!1!!!", all they ever say is "psssst  watch this interminable sequence of 10 minute YouTube clips, and don't tell anyone I told you".

As if some overarching government conspiracy, propped up with all the resources of the most powerful nations in the world - plus the Illuminati and assorted plenipotentiary space aliens - somehow has managed to fall victim to a bunch of blowhards on the Internet, who have been able to spout this garbage with impunity while organisations whose capacity for causing sudden and totally deniable death would leave even Uncle Joe Stalin's eyes watering conspicuously fail to catch, silence or "disappear" a single one of them, or any of their "useful idiots".

If credulity wasn't stretched enough by the plots they're "uncovering", it certainly is by the implausibility of their continued survival...


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 29, 2010)

existentialist said:


> <snip> If credulity wasn't stretched enough by the plots they're "uncovering", it certainly is by the implausibility of their continued survival...



Well, one way to look at this is that they're enormously useful to people who are actively pursuing real conspiracies. 

This thought hit me one day when I was reading about the US stealth fighter. It was developed in the deep black, even to the point where it was operational in squadron strength before Reagan finally announced it. Some US military planners were apparently scared that the Soviets might be provoked into a first strike if they knew the US was developing planes that could breeze through their air defence network like it wasn't there. So the need for secrecy was intense. 

They developed the plane at the air base which is home to Area 51, near Roswell New Mexico 

By an odd coincidence, they were doing this around the time all those alien autopsy videos appeared.

What do you think happened to all the stories about funny looking aircraft that didn't show up on radar?


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 30, 2010)

> By an odd coincidence, they were doing this around the time all those alien autopsy videos appeared.



You sure about that? The B2 and F-117 were both developed and went into active service in the 1970s/early 80s, and I'm pretty sure that the alien autopsy video stuff didn't surface until the early 90s...

*yup, according to Wiki the 'footage' was first screened in 1995. By this time Roswell were practically doing guided tours to the land around A51 to gain views of the Skunnkworks...altho the 1990s were the period when Project Aurora was being developed (before possibly being cancelled - again, blacker than black build project, altho it was carried out under the relatively declassified umbrella of FALCON (Force Application and Launch from Continental United States...)


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 30, 2010)

Bob Lazar's 'reverse engineering a saucer' stories, surfaced the year after the F-117 was announced and the Santelli 'Alien Autopsy' videos, as you rightly say, appeared a few years after that, but still ... 



> Rather than acknowledgeing the existence of the top-secret flights or saying nothing about them publicly, the Air Force decided to put out false cover stories, the C.I.A. study says. For instance, unusual observations that were actually spy flights were attributed to atmospheric phenomena like ice crystals and temperature inversions.
> 
> ''Over half of all U.F.O. reports from the late 1950's through the 1960's were accounted for by manned reconnaissance flights'' over the United States, the C.I.A. study says. ''This led the Air Force to make misleading and deceptive statements to the public in order to allay public fears and to protect an extraordinarily sensitive national security project.''
> 
> The study, ''C.I.A.'s Role in the Study of U.F.O.'s. 1947-90,'' was written by Gerald K. Haines and appears in Studies of Intelligence, a secret Central Intelligence Agency journal. Five years ago, the agency began releasing unclassified versions of the journal yearly. The 1997 edition, with the study on unidentified objects, is at http://www.odci. ogv/csi/studies/97unclas/ on the World Wide Web.


 http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/03/us/cia-admits-government-lied-about-ufo-sightings.html

The F-117 was announced in 1988, having been in development since the mid 70's. 

In the late 70's UFO buffs became enthused about an alleged 'saucer crash' back in 1947 in the Roswell area and the first major book on the subject was published in 1980. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roswell_UFO_Incident

So yes, I'm mixing two different lots of UFO stories a couple of hundred miles and a few years apart up here, but I think the point still stands (particularly as the CIA have apparently since openly admitted it)


----------



## smokedout (Mar 30, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> In summary: I dont detect disproportionate bias for social class or ethnicity, but the movement can be pulled to the right for some small reasons. The real reason why it would drift that way though would be a failure of the left to be engaged in the dialectic and thus pull it back.



can you name one prominent CTer with left wing views?


----------



## smokedout (Mar 30, 2010)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Is that what's happening though? Or is it that a bunch of alienated citizens are latching on to some vaguely plausible sounding, easily digested, and in some ways thrillingly exciting ('We know what's *really* going on') alternative interpretations of the modern world, some of which are coming from the right.



science may have killed god, but it didn't kill the need for god


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 30, 2010)

smokedout said:


> can you name one prominent CTer with left wing views?



Left wing theory tends to gravitate around CTs of it's own which both carry water and have large parallels with more contemporary CTs. Marxists, anarchists and more besides  theorise that a capitalist class is constantly engaged in exploiting the masses and that nationhood is a ruse to divide those masses.

However, textbook CTers dislike formalised communism because (they say) it was bankrolled by the likes of the Rothschilds in the same way as the French revolution was a masonic gig. 


As for a more standard reading of 'conspiracy theory' 3 things come to mind straight away: Mckinny's questions on 911. Kuccinich and Sanders on the banks and none other than Comrade Chavez postulating that the US is using earthquake causing technology.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2010)

That's none then.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 30, 2010)

An alternative explanation here 



> In his book “The Conspirator’s Hierarchy,” Dr. John Coleman named Chomsky as a deep cover CIA agent working to undermine social protest groups. Certainly Dr. Coleman’s claims appear validated by an honest review of Chomsky’s role as a Left gatekeeper.
> 
> Since 9-11, he has steadfastly refused to discuss the evidence of government complicity and prior knowledge. Furthermore he claims that the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Bilderberg Committee, and Trilateral Commission are “nothing organizations.” When critiquing poverty, he never mentions the Federal Reserve and their role in manipulating the cycle of debt.
> 
> ...



source


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 30, 2010)

I think there's some strange stuff about 9/11, am I a conspiracy theorist then? 

BTW marxism isn't a conspiracy theory, I can understand how it could appear that way if it hasn't been explained very well though, but there is theory and critique behind marxism, and there isn't behind tales of lizards running the world.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 30, 2010)

not to mention that much 2012 stuff is infused with hippy values that are certainly more green/anarcho skewed. but in terms of orthodox Marxism - I repeat that it has it's own well founded CTs which are echoed in more modern ones, distorted sometimes by paranoia and sometimes by the fact that the elites  can be even more devious.

Butchers - is Chavez not a formal leftist in any regard?


----------



## xes (Mar 30, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> I think there's some strange stuff about 9/11, am I a conspiracy theorist then?



'fraid so  

What in particular do you think is strange about 9/11? (if you don't mind me asking )


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2010)

Oddly enough, there was an article by the fraud Chris Knight running across the prominent pages of the Weekly Worker a few weeks back arguing something rather similar.



> Extraordinary double-act of Noam Chomsky
> 
> When the brain reached a certain level of complexity or when a mutation took place in the genetic instructions it received, the facility for language was installed. This is the myth which suited both the US military-industrial complex and Chomsky’s anarcho-syndicalism. Chris Knight examines the paradox


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Butchers - is Chavez not a formal leftist in any regard?



Is he a prominent conspiracy theorist - or a prominent populist politician with his own agenda. Prominent CT'ers were what you were tasked to find.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 30, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> I think there's some strange stuff about 9/11, am I a conspiracy theorist then?
> 
> BTW marxism isn't a conspiracy theory, I can understand how it could appear that way if it hasn't been explained very well though, but there is theory and critique behind marxism, and there isn't behind tales of lizards running the world.




Marxism does have theory, you've said so yourself, and the theory includes the fact that capitalists will organise to exploit. To so organise they must communicate, and not too openly. Ergo they conspire. Marxism is much more than a conspiracy theory, it is an analysis of commodity exchange, production etc. but it does contain, IMO, one mighty and true conspiracy theory that is strikingly similar to the idea that an elite is enslaving the masses for their own ends (post industrial-revolution and social struggle the elite tend to go in more for 'free range serfdom').

The confusion regarding reptillians is important to set out because most CTers IME dont go along with it. You yourself say you find something fishy about 911. Some would indeed call you a CTer and laugh a squillion times and say you believe in lizard rulers. It's used as a strawman distraction to divert from some genuinelly concerning issues around black ops and the MIC.

As for reptillians in the planets history - they are a suprisingly common theme among worldwide folklores of people who, according to conventional history, would never have had the opportunity to confer.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2010)

You miss the whole central point of the laws of competition - they organise the capitalists themselves, they dictate what they need to do to defend or extend their interests and they act on individual and associations. They're not the result of the capitalists getting together and deciding to follow them.They're the result of capitalists being capitalists. The various conjunctural actions and plans are neither here nor there. You reduce the theory to the level of the CTers and kill it with this approach.

I like how theory now becomes, by default, conspiracy theory here as well.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 30, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Is he a prominent conspiracy theorist - or a prominent populist politician with his own agenda. Prominent CT'ers were what you were tasked to find.



There's a guy called Freeman whose background is with Rainbow Tribe. His politics are hippy anarchist leaning, he's more into occult ritualism and goings on in space.

Webster Tarpley is something of a centre-leftist, fond of union power and stuff like the tobin tax.

Other than that I am struggling a bit, as you can surely tell, to find a prominent CT analyst from a solid left background, but I see no reason why it would be logically precluded. I certainly know a fair few rank and file GP members who are left wing and interested in CTs.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 30, 2010)

Oh yeah, the guy behind Zeitgeist is clearly more of the green / left school than the right wing school. He and Alex Jones had a right old ding dong which you will be glad to have been spared Butchers.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 30, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> There's a guy called Freeman whose background is with Rainbow Tribe. His politics are hippy anarchist leaning, he's more into occult ritualism and goings on in space.
> 
> Webster Tarpley is something of a centre-leftist, fond of union power and stuff like the tobin tax.
> 
> Other than that I am struggling a bit, as you can surely tell, to find a prominent CT analyst from a solid left background, but I see no reason why it would be logically precluded. I certainly know a fair few rank and file GP members who are left wing and interested in CTs.



We can't have la Rouche types (Webster Tarpley) as left wing can we?

Struggling you are!


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 30, 2010)

An old (pre 911 I think) article from Michael Albert echoing Chomsky's views on CT and how it differs from institutional analysis 





> Conspiracy Theory
> 
> A CONSPIRACY THEORY is a hypothesis that some events were caused by the intractable secret machinations of undemocratic individuals. A prime example is to explain Irancontra as the secret rogue actions of Oliver North and co-conspirators. Likewise, another conspiracy theory explains the hostage-holding in Carter's last presidential year as the machinations of a "secret team" helping Reagan win the presidency. A conspiracy theory of Karen Silkwood's murder would uncover the names of people who secretly planned and carried out the murder. Bending usage, we could even imagine a conspiracy theory of patriarchy as men uniting to deny women status, or a conspiracy theory of the U.S. government as competing groups seeking power for their own ends.
> 
> ...


 source


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 30, 2010)

Now what I think is kind of interesting is that what we're usually calling "conspiraloonery" on urban goes beyond old fashioned conspiracy theory which concerns itself with the alleged clandestine machinations of real individuals and concerns itself also with entirely imaginary institutions and personalities, superintelligent lizards, satanic child molesting mind control cults and so on.


----------



## elbows (Mar 30, 2010)

CT attitudes towards Chomsky tend to be quite revealing. They have numerous reasons to turn their hate towards him; he doesnt come out and support their views using their language and logic, he's Jewish, an intellectual, on the left, and better known than any of their pathetic figureheads.

If they really cared about the truth they would try to understand some of what he says, it wouldnt take long to realise that their version of the truth gives him nothing useful to work with. He can, and probably has, look at how the 9/11 attacks compare to other historical events, the underlying causes, the reaction and language used, and how the attacks were used to further certain agendas.


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 30, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> I think there's some strange stuff about 9/11, am I a conspiracy theorist then?
> 
> BTW marxism isn't a conspiracy theory, I can understand how it could appear that way if it hasn't been explained very well though, but there is theory and critique behind marxism, and there isn't behind tales of lizards running the world.





xes said:


> 'fraid so
> 
> What in particular do you think is strange about 9/11? (if you don't mind me asking )



Depends what you mean by 'strange stuff', and whether or not it's already been debunked.

If you mean by strange stuff 'Why did C. Rice sideline the CIA Director-in-Chief and place the emphasis of the NSA and US foreign policy on the Russians when it was clear from the mid 1990s that radical Islamicists were the real issue?' you're asking a sensible question about administration policy.

If your asking 'How do you make nano-thermite' you're asking a dim question.


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 30, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> I think there's some strange stuff about 9/11, *am I a conspiracy theorist then?*
> .



No, as kyser explains above.

The real trouble though, the real obstruction getting in the way of real, rational doubts (such as yours?) being taken seriously, is that such an overwhelmingly high proportion of 9/11 'troofers'/obsessives really are demonstrable conspiracy theorists. And in all but a few cases , 9/11 banger-onners suffer from (at best) terminal irrationality and obliviousness to the real nature of evidence. And at worst, out and out insanity.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 30, 2010)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Well, one way to look at this is that they're enormously useful to people who are actively pursuing real conspiracies.
> 
> This thought hit me one day when I was reading about the US stealth fighter. It was developed in the deep black, even to the point where it was operational in squadron strength before Reagan finally announced it. Some US military planners were apparently scared that the Soviets might be provoked into a first strike if they knew the US was developing planes that could breeze through their air defence network like it wasn't there. So the need for secrecy was intense.
> 
> ...




"useful idiots". It's a good phrase.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 30, 2010)

I'm still slightly confused as to why Nick Griffin's antecedents are at all relevant. Is the implication that his dad's some kind of tool of the Illuminati or something?

I think I'm just trying to get a handle on whether we're merely in conspiracy theorist territory, or full-on, balls-out, honk-the-red-nose-and-get-squirted-by-the-buttonhole conspiraloonery...


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 30, 2010)

existentialist said:


> I'm still slightly confused as to why Nick Griffin's antecedents are at all relevant. Is the implication that his dad's some kind of tool of the Illuminati or something?
> 
> I think I'm just trying to get a handle on whether we're merely in conspiracy theorist territory, or full-on, balls-out, honk-the-red-nose-and-get-squirted-by-the-buttonhole conspiraloonery...



It may be relevant, it may not. The point is that many a CTer froths about the Masons and might thus be uncomfotable with backing Griffins nasty party, which is comming 2nd in a poll on Icke's website (probably packed and targetted by the fash I daresay)

To have a father high up is a close enough connection to raise eyebrows.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 30, 2010)

existentialist said:


> "useful idiots". It's a good phrase.



To be fair, I got some facts mixed up there (being lazy and not checking beforehand like I usually do, I got my UFO nuts mixed up) 

I think the basic point is still solid though (as do the CIA apparently, see post above)


----------



## existentialist (Mar 30, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> It may be relevant, it may not. The point is that many a CTer froths about the Masons and might thus be uncomfotable with backing Griffins nasty party, which is comming 2nd in a poll on Icke's website (probably packed and targetted by the fash I daresay)
> 
> To have a father high up is a close enough connection to raise eyebrows.


I did google Nick Griffin's name and "masons", but what came back was the most ludicrous collection of OTT speculation and random fact-assembling. I assumed that it was all coming from some hysterical backwater of the Internet, given that the terminology they were using to describe Pa Griffin's masonic connections was pretty inaccurate, and even at face value seemed to imply that the most significant thing about his masonic career was that it had lasted a long time.

Well, I suppose st*rmfront counts as a "hysterical backwater"


----------



## smokedout (Mar 30, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> There's a guy called Freeman whose background is with Rainbow Tribe. His politics are hippy anarchist leaning, he's more into occult ritualism and goings on in space.



no, he's hippy bollocks leaning, there's a big difference


----------



## existentialist (Mar 30, 2010)

smokedout said:


> no, he's hippy bollocks leaning, there's a big difference


Well, *I* laughed


----------



## elbows (Mar 30, 2010)

I think the whole UFO thing was connected to many different aspects of important stuff that was going on at the time. There are likely some military uses but beyond that in wider society the whole lot got mixed in with the space race, march of progress, cold war fears, propaganda & escapism, uncertainty & hope that comes from change, the promise of a life of leisure, the yearning for new frontiers, with sci-fi in general capturing the popular imagination. Also a nice modern twist for an age where religion sits uncomfortably in the presence of scientific knowledge, the heavens have a different meaning now.

Not that humanity is actually managing to keep up with the future it imagined for itself 60 years or more ago. As Paul Merton would say, where's my jetpack?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 30, 2010)

existentialist said:


> I did google Nick Griffin's name and "masons", but what came back was the most ludicrous collection of OTT speculation and random fact-assembling. I assumed that it was all coming from some hysterical backwater of the Internet, given that the terminology they were using to describe Pa Griffin's masonic connections was pretty inaccurate, and even at face value seemed to imply that the most significant thing about his masonic career was that it had lasted a long time.
> 
> Well, I suppose st*rmfront counts as a "hysterical backwater"



Better to google for his father's name. There is stuff there far beyond St*rmfront. Not just a long time, but pretty high up. I don't care much, you might care less. But if it puts some people off voting for them I'm all for highlighting it to those people.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 30, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Better to google for his father's name. There is stuff there far beyond St*rmfront. Not just a long time, but pretty high up. I don't care much, you might care less. But if it puts some people off voting for them I'm all for highlighting it to those people.


Hmm. The old "enemy of my enemy" gambit, then?

All strikes me as a little naive - if there's really such a good case for not voting BNP (and there is), is it really necessary to resort to picking up silly titbits like this to bolster the argument? Aren't there far better reasons for opposing the BNP than the fact that the head dude's dad happens to spend his Tuesday afternoons with his trouser leg rolled up and a pinny on?

ETA: I see he got promoted.






(el Griffin is in the middle)

He's now a "Past Grand Junior Overseer", as of 2008. Source: http://www.northwalesmark.co.uk/news.html


----------



## elbows (Mar 30, 2010)

If you are trying to stop those sort of conspiraloons from voting BNP then it would make sense to give them the kind of useless, misleading 'evidence' that they thrive on. Its some of the most dumbed down politics you can find, its Duplo compared to the Lego Technics of real politics.


----------



## smokedout (Mar 30, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Oh yeah, the guy behind Zeitgeist is clearly more of the green / left school than the right wing school. He and Alex Jones had a right old ding dong which you will be glad to have been spared Butchers.



having a bit of a scrap with alex jones does not make you left wing either, particularly when your main political achievement is producing a film which is little more than thinly disguised anti-semetism

20 years ago the argument of leftist conspiracy theory would have been ludicrous, one thing thwe CTers pretty much agreed on was a communist conspiracy, usually controlled by the Jews

conspiracy theory has always been reactionary, a tool used by authoritarians to belittle or demonise progressive ideas and forces

this was true with the suppression of the Bavarian illuminati, the baby eating jewish commies of the 20s and 30s, mcCarthyism after the war and the whole gay mafia, feminazi bullshit that is still around today

and if you look at most CT it's attacks on the left continue to this day, with the denunciation of the green movement, the maastrict conspiracy, the reaction to universal healthcare in the states and the accusations that the anti-capitalist protests in the late 90s were some kind of illuminati front to spread disorder

its not just a western thing, conspiracy theories about the jews, rothschilds and americans are just as prevalent in the middle east as conpiracy theories about secret plots to instill sharia in the UK - wherever you find strict authroritariansim then conspiracy theories about 'the others' will be one of the tools propping it up

so its really not surprinsing that most CTers lean towards authoritarian parties like UKIP and the BNP


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 30, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> There's a guy called Freeman whose background is with *Rainbow Tribe*. His politics are hippy anarchist leaning, he's more into occult ritualism and goings on in space.
> 
> Webster Tarpley is something of a centre-leftist, fond of union power and stuff like the tobin tax.
> 
> Other than that I am struggling a bit, as you can surely tell, to find a prominent CT analyst from a solid left background, but I see no reason why it would be logically precluded. I certainly know a fair few rank and file GP members who are left wing and interested in CTs.



lol, political they ain't


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 30, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> lol, political they ain't


they should hurry up.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 30, 2010)

hurry up and do what?


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 30, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> hurry up and do what?


It's true that 'the left' - or at least its intellectual protagonists - seem particularly resistant to the notion that the beast they consider themselves opposed to plays us all for fools. They should hurry up and get over it.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 30, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> It's true that 'the left' - or at least its intellectual protagonists - seem particularly resistant to the notion that the beast they consider themselves opposed to really plays them for fools. They should hurry up and get over it.



What does this mean?


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 30, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> What does this mean?



I don't see anything challenging to understand in my post


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 30, 2010)

You have no answer as to what you mean.  As per.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 30, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> It's true that 'the left' - or at least its intellectual protagonists - seem particularly resistant to the notion that the beast they consider themselves opposed to plays us all for fools. They should hurry up and get over it.



no Jazz. WTO, IMF, G20 et al are trampling on rights and destroying the planet. Their opponents are noble comrades in the struggle.

Bildeberg is just a bunch of bankers, aristos, politicians and media heads on a jolly. Nothing to see there. Their opponents are frothing lunatics wot believe in lizards.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 30, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> no Jazz. WTO, IMF, G20 et al are trampling on rights and destroying the planet. Their opponents are noble comrades in the struggle.
> 
> Bildeberg is just a bunch of bankers, aristos, politicians and media heads on a jolly. Nothing to see there. Their opponents are frothing lunatics wot believe in lizards.



Are you on crack?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 30, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> I don't see anything challenging to understand in my post



Well, it's not clear to me how you believe that the left are 'played for fools' or why they might want to 'get over it' 

I mean I could speculate, but when I try I don't find the results terribly convincing, so it seems unfair to assume that you mean what I'm guessing.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 30, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> I don't see anything challenging to understand in my post



Ahhhh, you edited your reply. 

Pretend I'm stupid.  Spell it out to me what you mean.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 30, 2010)

smokedout said:


> having a bit of a scrap with alex jones does not make you left wing either, particularly when your main political achievement is producing a film which is little more than thinly disguised anti-semetism
> 
> 20 years ago the argument of leftist conspiracy theory would have been ludicrous, one thing thwe CTers pretty much agreed on was a communist conspiracy, usually controlled by the Jews
> 
> ...



There's a lot in that, certainly the right try and hijack CT movements. It doesnt mean that a given CT itself is automatically founded on nothing or that the left shouldn't be involved if appropriate.

Reactionaries can rant about "conspiracies" - that is mostly what your point demonstrates. It doesnt deal with the fact that radicals and progressives also can and do.

Please also specify the "anti-semite" charge against the Zeitgeist maker, my assessment of him as left-green tilted didn't come from his row with jones but from his call for a "resoure based economy" and support of the Venus Project (which Freeman has amusingly criticised for the distinct lack of people in much of the graphic visioning)


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 30, 2010)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Well, it's not clear to me how you believe that the left are 'played for fools' or why they might want to 'get over it'
> 
> I mean I could speculate, but when I try I don't find the results terribly convincing, so it seems unfair to assume that you mean what I'm guessing.



I think it's 'cos Jazzz is going further and further to the right.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 30, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> There's a lot in that, certainly the right try and hijack all CT movements. It doesnt mean that the CT itself is founded on nothing or that the left shouldn't be involved if appropriate.
> 
> Reactionaries can rant about "conspiracies" - that is mostly what your point demonstrates. It doesnt deal with the fact that also can and do.
> 
> Please also specify the "anti-semite" charge against the Zeitgeist maker, my assessment of him as left-green tilted didn't come from his row with jones but from his call for a "*resoure based economy*" and support of the Venus Project (which Freeman has amusingly criticised for the distinct lack of people in much of the graphic visioning)



Which no one has ever been able to explain what it means.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 30, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Are you on crack?



Are you going to deal with the inherent contradictions of how the left react so differently these institutions or is insulting people just easier? To make this post more effective in the eyes of some I will say "nobcheese".


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 30, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Are you going to deal with the inherent contradictions of how the left react dso differently these institutions. Or is insulting people just easier? To make this post more effective in the eyes of some I will say "nobcheese".



What you posted made little sense to me, hence my response.

Can you clarify it?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 30, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Which no one has ever been able to explain what it means.



Explain what what means sorry?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 30, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Explain what what means sorry?



The bit I bolded, a "resource based economy".  What is it?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 30, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> What you posted made little sense to me, hence my response.
> 
> Can you clarify it?



When G20 or something like that comes to town the activists are all encouraged to get along and protest.

When Bildeberg is doing the rounds we are all told it is only right wing frothers who oppose them.

It's weird because they both so clearly represent elite interests. Can you explain, cos I cant.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 30, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> When G20 or something like that comes to town the activists are all encouraged to get along and protest.
> 
> When Bildeberg is doing the rounds we are all told it is only right wing frothers who oppose them.
> 
> It's weird because they both so clearly represent elite interests. Can you explain, cos I cant.



Who encourages activists to protest against G20?  All of the left?  You sure about that?


----------



## smokedout (Mar 30, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Please also specify the "anti-semite" charge against the Zeitgeist maker, my assessment of him as left-green tilted didn't come from his row with jones but from his call for a "resoure based economy" and support of the Venus Project



film split into three parts

1st - religion is evil, all descended from an evil old religion, evil, evil, evil

2nd - money changers - evil, really bad, scretive, trying to control the world evil, turned into bankers, evil, evil, evil

3rd - bombed our towers, killed innocents, bankers you know, came from money changers you know, probably follow evil religion, control the world you know, insert favourite blood libel here

we need a solution to this evil, a final solution

get the subtext now


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 30, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> When G20 or something like that comes to town the activists are all encouraged to get along and protest.
> 
> When Bildeberg is doing the rounds we are all told it is only right wing frothers who oppose them.
> 
> It's weird because they both so clearly represent elite interests. Can you explain, cos I cant.



That seems a very odd assertion. Here's Chomsky on the Trilateral Commission. 



Now I can certainly see an argument saying that e.g. effective opposition to the WTO is more important than protesting either the G20 or Bilderberg (in the unlikely event they organised a Bilderberg conference anywhere protesters could get near it) but that's because the WTO (or the IMF or whatever) is the direct instrument for enforcing the neo-liberal capitalist order rather than a place where the ruling class sustained by that order are chilling out and plotting.

So it's not like stuff like Bilderberg, CFR, Trilateral Commission or whatever aren't potentially interesting and its not like (well I for one anyway) wouldn't cheer if a horde of CT'rs stormed Bilderburg and strung up the participants from nearby trees. It's just that in the general scheme of things, the specifics of ruling class plots, no matter how thrilling it would be to speculate about them, are generally far less significant than the structural tendencies of neo-liberal capitalism in terms of causing harm.

Edited to add: the stuff with the lizards though, does strike me as pointless, if not actively counterproductive.


----------



## smokedout (Mar 30, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> There's a lot in that, certainly the right try and hijack CT movements. It doesnt mean that a given CT itself is automatically founded on nothing or that the left shouldn't be involved if appropriate.
> 
> Reactionaries can rant about "conspiracies" - that is mostly what your point demonstrates. It doesnt deal with the fact that radicals and progressives also can and do.



the radicals and progressives who do ime are rarely radical and progressive once you scratch the surface


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 30, 2010)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Well, it's not clear to me how you believe that the left are 'played for fools' or why they might want to 'get over it'
> 
> I mean I could speculate, but when I try I don't find the results terribly convincing, so it seems unfair to assume that you mean what I'm guessing.


It seems you understood my post entirely. We may not agree, that's fine, but there is no communication issue.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 30, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> It seems you understood my post entirely. We may not agree, that's fine, but there is no problem with comprehension of my post.



Can you clarify Bernie's point "how you believe that the left are 'played for fools' or why they might want to 'get over it'" please?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 30, 2010)

smokedout



"1st - religion is evil, all descended from an evil old religion, evil, evil, evil" 

It is mostly about "solar messiah" cults. Doesn't single out jews remotely, doesnt attack jews. 

2nd

""money changers - evil, really bad, scretive, trying to control the world evil, turned into bankers, evil, evil, evil"

Focuses on demonstrable fraudulent practices of financeers. Doesn't single out jews remotely, doesnt attack jews. Are all critics of capitalism anti-jewish? Was Marx? Is Chomsky? 

3rd

 "bombed our towers, killed innocents, bankers you know, came from money changers you know, probably follow evil religion, control the world you know, insert favourite blood libel here"

Pupports that the official story is riddled with holes. Doesn't single out Jews, doesn't attack Jews. 

You are as bad as any conspiracy theorist, summising something from nothing and assuming people are too dim to see a truth that is plain to your eyes.

Get your head round the fact that most of the time people are slagging off bankers it is bankers they are slagging off. Who kicked the money changers out of the temple? A jewish guy. Who banned usury long before Islam was on the scene? You guessed it.

CTers have a range of targets for often misplaced ire: Masons, The Vatican, Aliens, different categories of Illuminati. I have very rarely heard the Jews in that mix, zionists yes but Jews no. Or is zionism is another subtext code word in your conspiracy theory that conspiracy theorists are anti-semites? 

"we need a solution to this evil, a final solution"

You need to stop making stuff up and being offensive.


----------



## smokedout (Mar 30, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> CTers have a range of targets for often misplaced ire: Masons, The Vatican, Aliens, different categories of Illuminati. I have very rarely heard the Jews in that mix, zionists yes but Jews no. Or is zionism is another subtext code word in your conspiracy theory that conspiracy theorists are anti-semites?
> 
> "we need a solution to this evil, a final solution"
> 
> You need to stop making stuff up and being offensive.



if you havent noticed by now that the new age/conspiracy theory/occult/wibble scene isn't riddled with crypto (and often quite blatant) anti-semetism then you really havent been paying attention


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 30, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> The bit I bolded, a "resource based economy".  What is it?



Anyone?


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 30, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Can you clarify Bernie's point "how you believe that the left are 'played for fools' or why they might want to 'get over it'" please?



No


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 30, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> No



As I thought, it was a meaningless soundbite.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 30, 2010)

The anti-Semitism is structural. It is an essential part of it. They just use different words, but the structure of anti-Semitism is there plain as day.


----------



## smokedout (Mar 31, 2010)

Dillinger4 said:


> The anti-Semitism is structural. It is an essential part of it. They just use different words, but the structure of anti-Semitism is there plain as day.



precisely, in the case of zeitgeist, why link those things, what has (nonsense) ideas about sunworshippers got to do with bankers and 911?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 31, 2010)

smokedout said:


> precisely, in the case of zeitgeist, why link those things, what has (nonsense) ideas about sunworshippers got to do with bankers and 911?



The stuff about sunworshippers has next to bugger all to do with Judaism, not that we should let facts get in the way of gibbering paranoia. I saw Vince Cable have a go at the banks the other day. He must hate the Jews. It's in the subtext.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 31, 2010)

His website is no doubt riddled with links to far right ant anti smite stuff.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 31, 2010)

Dillinger4 said:


> The anti-Semitism is structural. It is an essential part of it. They just use different words, but the structure of anti-Semitism is there plain as day.



anti-semitism is in the structure?

We can't suspect a clandestine group is trying to stitch things up or that people are misled without it being anti-semite / Jewish? Leaving aside the obvious mis-use of the term "anti-semite", that's just bizzare.

Or are you saying that is an anti-semite case with stuff built around it to mislead us into thinking it is anglo american empire, skull and bones, MIC, masons or some other unJewish entity. Clever disguise stuff,  like something could be something it isn't so long as some one says so, or it is alledged to be in the subtext. Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. Seeing as a lot of the occult stuff goes back to ancient Sumeria I suppose they were really jews and I should pretend to hate them and then cover it up (apart from in the subtext of course).

Most of the first part of that film targets the iconography of orthodox "Christianity". But christians are jews, everyone knows that. It's in the subtext. 

Obviously no one can comment on banking without it being a subtextual attack on the Jews, Marx especially hated Jews. That was in the subtext too.

The banks do nothing wrong and anyone who says different hates Jews. That's good to know.

911 - none of the CTers ever cite Masonic stuff, MIC or various intelligence agencies. They may say that stuff but actually they mean Jews. They say something very different from what they mean and expect us all to pick up on it.

Obviously any criticism of the Israeli state or Mossad is almost as bad as wanting to do the holocaust over again. Milliband the jew hater, that's what we should call him after he told them off over the assassination / passports thing. 

People who sympathise with Palestinians - they hate Jews too, especially in the subtext. They dont have to say it when someone else can make it up  on their behalf.

A very common theme of CTers is the link between nazis and aspects of modern US government via Paperclip etc and behaviour in South America through The School Of The Americas. What they must really mean is that the nazis were jews. in the subtext. 

I used to think "10 steps to a fascist America" by Naomi Wolf and "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein were among the best and most accessible of anti-right wing texts of the last few years. That was before people here helped me see the light. As attacks on statists clampdowns and capitalist exploitation they are probably just another bunch of sub-text attacks on Jews. Oh how Ms Wolf and Ms Klein must hate Jews, maybe even as much as Chomsky.

Icke and others seem to think Queen Elizabeth is a shape shifting lizard or something. Must mean "jewish" - could be the German blood I suppose. Yeah - the queen is actually Jewish, anyone will tell you that.

Gosh this is fun, we can make up any amount of unmitigated paranoid horseshit.


----------



## audiotech (Mar 31, 2010)

Threads on here speculating on whether 'conspiraloons are in the ascendancy' cause me some concern, otherwise the conspiraloons are of no concern to me whatsoever.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 31, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Anyone?


Heh, I'm having a similar exchange on another site where someone's chosen to refer to those who don't swallow his line as "sheeple", but has suddenly become extremely coy when asked to explain what he means by that.

I think these people are sometimes too happy to throw the epithets around without thinking, and then become slightly embarrassed when they're asked to clarify their position.


----------



## smokedout (Mar 31, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Gosh this is fun, we can make up any amount of unmitigated paranoid horseshit.



something you seem quite fond of

and you've missed the point completely btw, but never mind eh, lets keep things simple


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 31, 2010)

'Resource based economy' lol. I remember the last mega thread by some eejit talking about the Venus project and how we'd all be rescued by something good happening, done by some people.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2010)

So, those prominent left-wing CTers. How many have qe come up with? None isn't it?

BTW Naomi Wolf wannabe queen of the Tea Party, puts the leading CTers very clearly on the right.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 31, 2010)

smokedout said:


> something you seem quite fond of
> 
> and you've missed the point completely btw, but never mind eh, lets keep things simple



The point is that you think people can be accused of anti-semitism with no evidence, and if there's no evidence it can just be summised out of nothing and put down to "subtext" or "structure". 

"we need a solution...a final solution" you indicated was the underlying message - an absolutely disgusting slur and more OTT than anything in my last wibble saga.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 31, 2010)

Blagsta

The "resource based economy" as put forward in Zeitgeist and Venus Project films is Utopian indeed, not a million miles from some optimistic socialist models. But at least it's an attempt to move away from increasingly asbstracted and silly incarnations of capitalism which represent ever more serfdom for the majority of the global population.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> The point is that you think people can be accused of anti-semitism with no evidence, and if there's no evidence it can just be summised out of nothing and put down to "subtext" or "structure". Yuck.



Well here's a more fleshed out examination of the use of classical anti-semitic tropes etc in the three parts of the film.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Blagsta
> 
> The "resource based economy" as put forward in Zeitgeist and Venus Project films is Utopian indeed, not a million miles from some optimistic socialist models. But at least it's an attempt to move away from increasingly asbstracted and silly incarnations of capitalism which represent ever more serfdom for the majority of the global population.



Is it heck - there's no model actually put forward. It could not be more abstract.  That's the entirety of its content - the phrase itself. It's totally apolitical.


----------



## smokedout (Mar 31, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> The point is that you think people can be accused of anti-semitism with no evidence, and if there's no evidence it can just be summised out of nothing and put down to "subtext" or "structure". Yuck.



did david icke never say that a jewish cabal instigated world war two?

were the protocols of zion mnot used as anti-semetic propaganda?

is icke's book The robot Rebellion not based almost entirely on the protocols?

does fritz springmeier not claim that the illuminati are headed by the Rothschilds?

does alex jones not repeatedly babble on about the Rothschild/Warburgs?

is there no similarity between the baby eating bankers of Icke and the blood libels used by antisemites throughout history?

have kollerstrom and many others attempted to deny the holocaust as part of a great conspiracy?

conspiracy theory is riddled with classic anti-semetism, that doesnt mean everyone believing it or even espousing it is an anti-semite, and those that are have got much better at hiding it behind israel, zionism etc

that doesnt mean if you dig a little, or meet and talk to some of your gurus you wont find some very nasty stuff


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 31, 2010)

Your froth was againt Zeitgeist. It was bollocks. I'll answer the rest of your post later. You have no idea who my "gurus" are or aren't. You are making up shite again and I don't need patronising lectures on anti-semitism.


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 31, 2010)

Stop being so bloody defensive taffboy. 

You yourself have at times acknowledged, quite sensibly, that the more 'eccentric'  espousers of some of the wilder conspiracy theories are a liability to those theories you see as justified being taken seriously. 

You'd be doing yourself a much better favour by accepting that some CTers are anti semitic or come close to it, and that Icke has made dodgily borderline anti semitic references.

It's not accusing *you personally* of being anti semitic to point this out, and you're doing yourself no favours by reacting as if people are making such accusations. They're not.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 31, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Blagsta
> 
> The "resource based economy" as put forward in Zeitgeist and Venus Project films is Utopian indeed, not a million miles from some optimistic socialist models. But at least it's an attempt to move away from increasingly asbstracted and silly incarnations of capitalism which represent ever more serfdom for the majority of the global population.



But no one can say what it actually is or how it will operate.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 31, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> But no one can say what it actually is or how it will operate.



Blagsta and Butchers. I'm going from memory here, but I recall that it was not utterly devoid of substance - rather merely flimsy in substance. Central planning comes into it, I'm sure the advocates would aspire to this being democratic and to some degree consensual and I'm not sure how administrative regions would break down. However, the resource based economy is hardly a new proposal - it is this basis of many alternatives to modern capitalism, I seem to recall it also was the basic proposal in Ragged Trousers Philanthropists and in as much presumably drew on early socialism.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 31, 2010)

William of Walworth said:


> Stop being so bloody defensive taffboy.
> 
> You yourself have at times acknowledged, quite sensibly, that the more 'eccentric'  espousers of some of the wilder conspiracy theories are a liability to those theories you see as justified being taken seriously.
> 
> ...



I know it's not aimed at me personally WoW, but the accusation against Zeitgeist is still utterly groundless. I have listened to way too many hours of Alex Jones and never once heard him say anything anti-jewish, if any of his callers phones up to say something like "it's all the jews / masons / vatican" or whatever he cuts them off and gives them short shrift. What was interepreted as Icke being anti-semitic when he talked about lizards was pretty much shown in the John Ronson film (where he was banned from some Canadian broadcast) to be Icke really meaning lizards, and we've all been round this a million times.

Anti-semitism does exist in conspiracy theory historically, but I think historically is the watchword and it is fading out. Anti-semitism is irrational and irrelevant, I think it is increasingly seen as such. What is far more prevalent (though not among conventional CTers) is Islamaphobia.

The pages of our scum tabloid press are replete with conspiracy theories about some Sharia takeover or plot by evil immigrunts, but they would be told by their editors to scoff at any idea that (for instance) secret services sometimes engage in false flag attacks.

So it bothers me that people see anti-semitism where it almost certainly isn't, it stifles debate. 

There is plenty to criticise banking practices for and it's complete hogwash to have to look over ones shoulder for fear of being accused of hating Jewish people.

Blagstas attack on Zeitgeist was groundless. The firsrt 2 original themes of the films are relgion and finance  are totemic in what had influenced society and it's workings over hundreds and thousands of years. 

The last part, 911, is totemic in defining much of this century so far. That is almost certainly why these topics were chosen, not some weird and expensive way of crowbaring in an attack on Jewish people without hardly mentioning them. Blagsta's charge is founded on little more than paranoia.

ETA: I have mixed feelings about the film btw, I am not mounting some defence of it because I consider it immensly important or anything.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 31, 2010)

smokedout

"did david icke never say that a jewish cabal instigated world war two?"

Honestly don't know. Got a link? I know there's a theory that WW2 was a set-up and guess that some would happily impose anti-semitism on to it whether it was there or not. 


"were the protocols of zion mnot used as anti-semetic propaganda?"

Over 100 years ago a bunch of fake documents were used as anti semite propaganda, yes. What does this prove? Very little really, except that some people long ago were gullible.

"is icke's book The robot Rebellion not based almost entirely on the protocols?"

Don't know, not read it. He's sillier than I thought if it is.


"does fritz springmeier not claim that the illuminati are headed by the Rothschilds?"

Springmeier, from what I have seen, is a fundie Christian loon. Some of them hate jews, some of them love 'em. I don't know who, if anyone, heads the illuminati, or indeed which definition of the illuminati is the most useful. Lots of people say it's the Vatican - does that mean they want to stick Catholics in gas ovens or something?

I do know that the Rothschilds figure fairly prominently, that is not a comment on their faith or ethnicity. To treat it as such would be fairly Macarthyite.

"does alex jones not repeatedly babble on about the Rothschild/Warburgs?"

Ditto. What has their faith / ethnicity got to do with it. He babbles on about Bush and Obama - he babbles on about all sorts of people. The vast majority aren't Jewish. 

"is there no similarity between the baby eating bankers of Icke and the blood libels used by antisemites throughout history?"

Icke doesnt especially ascribe "baby eating" to bankers. And I'm not defending him or his viewpoints, I just find the anti-semite charge to be a diversion. 

"have kollerstrom and many others attempted to deny the holocaust as part of a great conspiracy?"

holocaust denial is bollocks. What does this tell us? next to fuck all. 

Instead of always fighting the last war we should focus on today's myths surrounding faith and ethnicity. As I say, Islamaphobia is rampant while anti-semitism has generally and thankfully abated in our society in recent generations (despite some disturbing "blip" increases here and there)

ETA: Much of the venal hatred of modern banking in the US stems from the rigged formation of the Federal Reserve in 1913. The involvement of certain families in that is indisputable and their faith / ethnicity need neither be here nor there. One of the most well known films covering this is "Freedom to Fascism" by Aaron Russo. I know he's jewish and that, but he must MUST be an anti-semite, in the subtext at least. Possibly as bad as Marx, especially as he is clearly not fond of fascism.

 Some people have gone very far through one looking glass while accusing others of going through another one.


----------



## editor (Mar 31, 2010)

Icke and Jones are fucking idiots and you've got to have several screws loose in the head to swallow any of their lunatic claims.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 31, 2010)

editor said:


> Icke and Jones are fucking idiots and you've got to have several screws loose in the head to swallow any of their lunatic claims.



Generalised attacks are lunatic. Jones claims the banks have ripped us off.
Are you going to launch a defence of the banks ed? 

Oh hang on, you'd have to have a screw loose to swallow a lunatic claim - that makes sense. Are you saying all their claims are lunatic, or just the ones you disagree with?  Plenty i&J say is certainly lunatic. That is not what is being discussed in recent posts. What is being discussed is alledged anti-semitism.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Mar 31, 2010)

Conspiracy theories are what happens when a bunch of sad sacks sit about in their bedrooms all day and their only tenuous connection to the outside world is through the internet. Icke and Jones and co understand this process and have made good livings exploiting it.

If these sad sacks all got girlfriends tomorrow the troof movement would vanish like a hologram plane on 9/11.


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 31, 2010)

Anyone who criticises banking is borderline anti-semitic IMO.


----------



## audiotech (Mar 31, 2010)

editor said:


> Icke and Jones are fucking idiots and you've got to have several screws loose in the head to swallow any of their lunatic claims.



Icke comparing himself to Jesus on Wogan some years ago tells you all you need to know about this idiot. He should have stuck to presenting snooker programmes.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 31, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> Anyone who criticises banking is borderline anti-semitic IMO.



Vince Cable hates jews. Spread the word.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 31, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> Conspiracy theories are what happens when a bunch of sad sacks sit about in their bedrooms all day and their only tenuous connection to the outside world is through the internet




No one conspires in the real world. That's a relief. Anti CT rhetoric is as likely to be founded on arbitary cod psychology as much CT rhetoric.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Mar 31, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> No one conspires in the real world. That's a relief. Anti CT rhetoric is as likely to be founded on arbitary cod psychology as much CT rhetoric.



Come on, I've had a look on the David Icke forum. Do you honestly believe the overwhelming majority of its posters ever get any?


----------



## existentialist (Mar 31, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> No one conspires in the real world. That's a relief. Anti CT rhetoric is as likely to be founded on arbitary cod psychology as much CT rhetoric.


Bollocks.

Unless we're going to start getting into hair-splitting about what constitutes a conspiracy theorist, it's pretty bloody evident that 99.9% of the criticisms of CTers are nothing to do with "arbitrary cod psychology" and everything to do with seeing something that walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, and calling it a duck.

I have to say that this post is itself a classic example of the CT modus operandi: ignore all the glaring idiocies - total absence of evidence for the claims, ridiculous appeals to authority at the same time as the CTer is calling his protagonists "sheeple" for following the "authority" of non-conspiraloon sources, instant recourse to ad hominem the minute the argument looks like it's not going the CTer's way, etc - and focus on some tiny speck of information that's at best tangential to the debate.

And that, I'm afraid, is what I think your "arbitrary cod psychology" remark is: even if someone IS looking for a psychological basis for conspiraloon behaviour, that's never the main thrust of the debate about CT ideas. In fact, rather than sneering at it, you should perhaps be applauding the efforts of some to try and get a better understanding of a mindset which yields some pretty peculiar behaviours.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 31, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> If these sad sacks all got girlfriends tomorrow the troof movement would vanish like a hologram plane on 9/11.



That's quite a big "if", though, isn't it? 

Could it be that the situation actually works the other way around - conspirary theories as substitute for non-existent (hey, hologram!) girlfriends...?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Blagsta and Butchers. I'm going from memory here, but I recall that it was not utterly devoid of substance - rather merely flimsy in substance. Central planning comes into it, I'm sure the advocates would aspire to this being democratic and to some degree consensual and I'm not sure how administrative regions would break down. However, the resource based economy is hardly a new proposal - it is this basis of many alternatives to modern capitalism, I seem to recall it also was the basic proposal in Ragged Trousers Philanthropists and in as much presumably drew on early socialism.



No, there is nothing. Nothing.

This is madness.



> I seem to recall it also was the basic proposal in Ragged Trousers Philanthropists and in as much presumably drew on early socialism.


----------



## editor (Mar 31, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Generalised attacks are lunatic. Jones claims the banks have ripped us off.


Anyone who takes the unmitigated drivel that dribbles out of the mouths of loons like Jones and Icke seriously needs their head examined.

If you really want to find out what's really going on in their world, they're just about the_ last_ people to ask.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 31, 2010)

maybe the CTists are Jews deliberately making absurd borderline anti-semitic claims to throw people off the scent


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 31, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Blagsta and Butchers. I'm going from memory here, but I recall that it was not utterly devoid of substance - rather merely flimsy in substance. Central planning comes into it, I'm sure the advocates would aspire to this being democratic and to some degree consensual and I'm not sure how administrative regions would break down. However, the resource based economy is hardly a new proposal - it is this basis of many alternatives to modern capitalism, I seem to recall it also was the basic proposal in Ragged Trousers Philanthropists and in as much presumably drew on early socialism.



Yes, but what *is* it?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 31, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I know it's not aimed at me personally WoW, but the accusation against Zeitgeist is still utterly groundless. I have listened to way too many hours of Alex Jones and never once heard him say anything anti-jewish, if any of his callers phones up to say something like "it's all the jews / masons / vatican" or whatever he cuts them off and gives them short shrift. What was interepreted as Icke being anti-semitic when he talked about lizards was pretty much shown in the John Ronson film (where he was banned from some Canadian broadcast) to be Icke really meaning lizards, and we've all been round this a million times.
> 
> Anti-semitism does exist in conspiracy theory historically, but I think historically is the watchword and it is fading out. Anti-semitism is irrational and irrelevant, I think it is increasingly seen as such. What is far more prevalent (though not among conventional CTers) is Islamaphobia.
> 
> ...



You might want to re-read btw.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 31, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Generalised attacks are lunatic. Jones claims the banks have ripped us off.
> Are you going to launch a defence of the banks ed?
> 
> Oh hang on, you'd have to have a screw loose to swallow a lunatic claim - that makes sense. Are you saying all their claims are lunatic, or just the ones you disagree with?  Plenty i&J say is certainly lunatic. That is not what is being discussed in recent posts. What is being discussed is alledged anti-semitism.



You still don't get it.  It's not specifically the banks.  You're putting the cart before the horse.  Unless you think the banks can be reformed to be "nicer" and everything will be hunky dory?


----------



## existentialist (Mar 31, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Yes, but what *is* it?


He _could_ tell you, but he'd have to kill you afterwards...


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 31, 2010)

It's more likely he'll tell me to watch a 45 minute video, after which I'll be none the wiser.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Mar 31, 2010)

articul8 said:


> maybe the CTists are Jews deliberately making absurd borderline anti-semitic claims to throw people off the scent


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 31, 2010)

There's a good reason why anti-semitism has been decribed as "the socialism of fools" and it isn't because the people believing in it are fools. It's precisely because of this elevation of bankers as a great evil above everything else


----------



## smokedout (Mar 31, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> No one conspires in the real world. That's a relief. Anti CT rhetoric is as likely to be founded on arbitary cod psychology as much CT rhetoric.



so who do you think is secretly controlling everything and how are they linked?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 31, 2010)

I wrote an essay when I was at uni which covered exactly this subject and the fact that far-right conspiracy theories tend to go into a "conspiracy theory of history" which normally involves bankers as a convenient scapegoat without ever questioning the structure of capitalism or class/labour relations itself.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 31, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> I wrote an essay when I was at uni which covered exactly this subject and the fact that far-right conspiracy theories tend to go into a "conspiracy theory of history" which normally involves bankers as a convenient scapegoat without ever questioning the structure of capitalism or class/labour relations itself.



Bingo!

That's the problem with taffy's analysis.  It's all about the bankers.  What about production, private property etc?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 31, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Bingo!
> 
> That's the problem with taffy's analysis.  It's all about the bankers.  What about production, private property etc?



I think Frogwomans thesis is broadly correct, but there's more to my analysis than that to be fair, I count myself as being on the left but a discussion about CTs is far more likely to focus on their angle. Also, the scale of the 2008 banking heist makes the issue more pertinent currently.

There is plenty of room to pitch an anarchist or libertarian perspective at a textbook CTist and swing them round to a less myopic view. Socialism has more of a problem because of general and CT misconcpetions about the "s" word.


----------



## smokedout (Mar 31, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> There is plenty of room to pitch an anarchist or libertarian perspective at a textbook CTist and swing them round to a less myopic view. Socialism has more of a problem because of general and CT misconcpetions about the "s" word.



but surely you were making the case for left wing CTers just a few posts ago


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 31, 2010)

Also conspriacy theories always tend to present people like mine owners, big industrial firms and the like as more "honest" than evil evil bankers, because at least they aren't making money out of money etc


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 31, 2010)

smokedout said:


> so who do you think is secretly controlling everything and how are they linked?



I don't think any single group is controlling things. There are clearly competing elites and the anglo-american one was very dominant for a very long time. That appears to be on the wane now and Russian, Chinese and Japanese elites, secret societies etc. are just as likely to have sway now, especially in their parts of the world. They are certainly very pissed off with the US it seems.

I won't post screeds on this here and now, and apologise for being OTT in response to your (IMO OTT) accusations against Zeitgeist. But I'll give a teeny weeny example - that incident 18 months ago where Mandelson and Osborne turn out to have been on a yacht together with a Russian oligarch, A banker (I think) and Karimov's daughter (he is the Ukranian dictator who Craig Murray kicked off about, had people boiled alive) - this is the type of little gaggle who probably tries to stitch things up along the way - all the while Mandelson and Osborne will pretend to be on different "sides". They are both on the same side, the side of the elite. I see the problem as being chiefly capitalism and capitalist with all the strutural and social baggage that goes with it. I'm sure that meeting was bog standard corruption and oligarch stitch up - the fact that involved an unelected man who "runs the country" when Brown is away and the possible future chancellor should be pretty disturbing. Another thing on Mandelson: His return was hailed as mysterious after he twice resigned over sleaze. It's not so mysterious if you consider that within a few days he, as business secretary, oversaw scores of billions being spooned out to banks.

And that's small stuff. Bildeberg might get up to bigger stuff again, it's certainly less accountable than the WTO, IMF et al - and they are bad enough.

But in order to keep control the elite may have to engage in some darker deeds again. 

That false flag terror has been used by right wing authoritarians like the US Gladio stuff in 70s Italy or Russian secret services more recently is historical fact, not paranoid lizard gibber.

As with nuclear leaks, we are obviously only ever told about the ones that get discovered. It is reasonable to assume that black-ops and false flags are a phenomena that occur at least occasionally.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 31, 2010)

That's an interesting post taffboy. However the majority of conspiracy theories don't focus on the structural / side of capitalism etc, they simply sidetrack the issue by pointing out a load of irrelevant and often extremely racist and offensive crap. When they do pay lip service to "capitalism" it's normally to focus on banks and bankers rather than any sort of coherent analysis. Loads of attention seems to be paid to garish details like the idea that these "rituals" of the elite tend to involve paedophilia and child abuse, or human sacrifice, or mind control, etc etc, rather than analysis as to WHY the world runs the way it is, its just a mixture of factual and made up forms of evil.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 31, 2010)

Another problem is that 'paranoid lizard gibber' (wonderful phrase which I may steal if that's OK) acts as a fantastic smokescreen for actual conspiracies. 

I recall once describing the Gladio false-flag thing to an intelligent but not particularly political friend and he simply assumed I'd gone nuts and bought into a conspiracy theory because a) there was a structural similarity and b) he hadn't heard about the court cases in Italy where all that stuff came out. I've no doubt that the same thing could easily happen to evidence of any contemporary and politically significant actual ruling-class conspiracies for the same reasons.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 31, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> It's more likely he'll tell me to watch a 45 minute video, after which I'll be none the wiser.



When have I told you to watch  a video? Is this the first time you've made something up from zero evidence on the thread?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 31, 2010)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Another problem is that 'paranoid lizard gibber' (wonderful phrase which I may steal if that's OK) acts as a fantastic smokescreen for actual conspiracies.
> 
> I recall once describing the Gladio false-flag thing to an intelligent but not particularly political friend and he simply assumed I'd gone nuts and bought into a conspiracy theory because a) there was a structural similarity and b) he hadn't heard about the court cases in Italy where all that stuff came out. I've no doubt that the same thing could easily happen to evidence of any contemporary and politically significant actual ruling-class conspiracies for the same reasons.



Yep. This is exactly the thing. People like Icke are a god send to these people (and if you look at the people who promote these kind of conspiracy theories, including pat robertson ffs), they could frequently be classed as being in "the elite" themselves. 


It wouldn't surprise me if someone was being paid millions by Mossad or whoever to write this shit. Seriously.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 31, 2010)

Well, people *are* being paid millions by Exxon to come up with climate change conspiracy theories, so I guess it's possible that funding is involved someplace along the line, but to some degree I think it's self-sustaining. Icke clearly makes fuckloads of money from what he does, so no doubt do his US brethren. If I had the stomach for it I'd be tempted to have a go myself, as I reckon I could do a better job and the hours probably aren't all that long.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 1, 2010)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Well, people *are* being paid millions by Exxon to come up with climate change conspiracy theories



millions?

source eh


----------



## ernestolynch (Apr 1, 2010)

smokedout said:


> millions?
> 
> source eh



And Bern was one of the more credible ones, too.


----------



## Yossarian (Apr 1, 2010)

smokedout said:


> millions?
> 
> source eh



$16 million between 1998 and 2005 according to one account : http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
Although Exxon's spending on "climate skepticism" was dwarfed by that of Koch Industries:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j6UBV-TNcMO9trEK-2CB0FfYbOQw


----------



## ernestolynch (Apr 1, 2010)

And ACT ON CO2 is the result of £15 million of tax payers money given to some toffs in Brighton.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 1, 2010)

Yossarian said:


> $16 million between 1998 and 2005 according to one account : http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
> Although Exxon's spending on "climate skepticism" was dwarfed by that of Koch Industries:
> 
> http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j6UBV-TNcMO9trEK-2CB0FfYbOQw



so energy companies give money to right wing thing tanks and scientific organisations

who'd of thunk it


----------



## smokedout (Apr 1, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> But I'll give a teeny weeny example - that incident 18 months ago where Mandelson and Osborne turn out to have been on a yacht together with a Russian oligarch, A banker (I think) and Karimov's daughter (he is the Ukranian dictator who Craig Murray kicked off about, had people boiled alive) - this is the type of little gaggle who probably tries to stitch things up along the way - all the while Mandelson and Osborne will pretend to be on different "sides". They are both on the same side, the side of the elite.



they are on the side of capitalism i'll grant you that, but just because they went to the same party doesn't really offer much

do you really think they are secretly plotting together to protect 'the elite'

and who are the elite?


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 1, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I won't post screeds on this here and now, and apologise for being OTT in response to your (IMO OTT) accusations against Zeitgeist. But I'll give a teeny weeny example - that incident 18 months ago where Mandelson and Osborne turn out to have been on a yacht together with a Russian oligarch, A banker (I think) and *Karimov's daughter (he is the Ukranian dictator who Craig Murray kicked off about, had people boiled alive)* -



Islam Karimov was the dictator of *Uzbekhistan*, not the Ukraine. HTH ...


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 1, 2010)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> Well, people are being paid millions by Exxon to come up with climate change conspiracy theories






			
				smokedout said:
			
		

> millions?
> 
> source eh





ernestolynch said:


> And Bern was one of the more credible ones, too.



But on climate change generally, and about Exxon (and other corporate) funding of CC  denial 'theories', he *is* more credible (to anyone objective and sensible, anyway  ). The Exxon funding thing has actually been very credibly and reliably documented. Bernie's far better informed about the details of all that than most. 

To write climate change denial off as nothing more than a mad conspiracy theory** (a la 9/11 'troof' type theories) while at the same time elevating AGW itself as a conspiritorial scam is scientifically ignorant/contrarian and ignores the actual evidence. Gets the real situation absolutely 180 degrees arse about tit in fact -- see multiple other CC threads for details.

**Personally I'd prefer to avoid the erm 'conspiracy theory' in relation to *any* aspect of climate change though, just muddies the waters ... 

I think Bernie's real point here was that the more obvously insane and fantasy based (lizardesque) conspiracy theories *get in the way* of real, evidence supported 'conspiracies' (ones that really *are* corporate/ruling class backed) being properly exposed.




			
				Bernie Gunter said:
			
		

> Another problem is that 'paranoid lizard gibber' (wonderful phrase which I may steal if that's OK) acts as a fantastic smokescreen for actual conspiracies.



As I (and Bernie) said, the real point.


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 1, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I think Frogwomans thesis is broadly correct, but there's more to my analysis than that to be fair, I count myself as being on the left but a discussion about CTs is far more likely to focus on their angle. Also, the scale of the 2008 banking heist makes the issue more pertinent currently.
> 
> There is plenty of room to pitch an anarchist or libertarian perspective at a textbook CTist and swing them round to a less myopic view. Socialism has more of a problem because of general and CT misconcpetions about the "s" word.



Point is, the "banking heist" is a structural problem, it's not 'cos the banks are particularly irresponsible, it's that they can't really behave in many other ways.


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 1, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> When have I told you to watch  a video? Is this the first time you've made something up from zero evidence on the thread?



It's a reference to the usual source of these things, some shite video on You Tube.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 1, 2010)

Yossarian said:


> $16 million between 1998 and 2005 according to one account : http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
> Although Exxon's spending on "climate skepticism" was dwarfed by that of Koch Industries:
> 
> http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j6UBV-TNcMO9trEK-2CB0FfYbOQw



Quite and if you check the appendices of the UCS report you actually get the specific details (thanks to US accounting law) of monies paid by Exxon to assorted PR front-groups and right-wing think-tanks who are actively promoting the idea that thousands of climate scientists are deceiving the public for reasons typically alleged to involve 'socialist' political views and a desire to implement a world government (aka "NWO")

To pick a single example, the Heartland Institute, directly sponsored by Exxon until a couple of years ago, still sponsored by them via intermediate organisations. Can I show that they promote conspiracy theory? You bet I can ... 

Here's Lord Monckton's keynote speech from their last conference. 



> Let me ask you this question--and it is not a rhetorical question, I want to hear your answer loud and clear. Do we want to be governed not by representatives whom we elect and hold to account, but by the technocratic-centralist wannabe-world-government of the IPCC? <snip>
> 
> Do we want to see the bed-wetting liars, hucksters, shysters, fraudsters, and racketeers ever-more-extravagantly rewarded with honors and prizes for their ever-more-extravagant falsehoods, fables, and fictions? <snip>
> 
> ...



http://www.heartland.org/full/24881/Great_Is_Truth_and_Mighty_Above_All_Things.html

There's plenty more stirring stuff like that, I urge you to read the entire article as it's absolutely fucking mental in a highly amusing way ...  

Or if you prefer video, we have his Lordship expounding similar shit below ... 


Now compare his Lordship's theories with those of Alex Jones and David Icke below ... 



I think it's quite fair to describe each of them spouting essentially similar conspiracy theory and as I have shown above that at least one of them was spouting it at a Heartland Institute conference, I think my point is proven.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Apr 1, 2010)

Koch Industries are well sinister in my mind.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 1, 2010)

Ah, interesting new report from Greenpeace on the 20 year campaign to pretend that climate change isn't happening, which as there isn't any science showing that and there hasn't been any science that looked like showing that for a while, increasingly means promoting climate conspiracy theories of the sort linked to in my previous post. 



> In March 2008, the Heartland Institute organised the first of its climate sceptic conferences in New York, offering $1000 to anyone who wanted to speak at it.
> 
> The climate scientists at RealClimate, some of whom were invited, posted a blog entitled ‘What if you held a conference and no (real) scientists came?’ ‘Normal scientific conferences have the goal of discussing ideas and data in order to advance scientific understanding. Not this one. The organisers are surprisingly open about this in their invitation letter to prospective speakers, which states: 'The purpose of the conference is to generate international media attention to the fact that many scientists believe forecasts of rapid warming and catastrophic events are not supported by sound science, and that expensive campaigns to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are not necessary or cost-effective’
> 
> ...



http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/dealing-in-doubt.pdf

(the original report is heavily referenced if you want to check the sources the stuff above is based on)


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 1, 2010)

What I think is interesting about this stuff in the general context of conspiracy theories is that it's an absolutely clear case of toxic corporations promoting conspiracy theories to mislead the public. 

When we consider the other point I was making on the previous page, about the general usefulness of conspiracy theories as a _smokescreen _for anti-social activity by corporations and governments, one has to wonder are there any other conspiracy theories that are receiving funding, covert or otherwise? 

My own inclination is to believe that Icke, Jones et al are kind of self-sustaining, but happily tolerated by governments and corporations as an essentially harmless distraction away from any actual effective political dissent.


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 1, 2010)

Bernie Gunther said:


> What I think is interesting about this stuff in the general context of conspiracy theories is that it's an absolutely clear case of toxic corporations promoting conspiracy theories to mislead the public.
> 
> When we consider the other point I was making on the previous page, about the general usefulness of conspiracy theories as a _smokescreen _for anti-social activity by corporations and governments, one has to wonder are there any other conspiracy theories that are receiving funding, covert or otherwise?
> 
> *My own inclination is to believe that Icke, Jones et al are kind of self-sustaining, but happily tolerated by governments and corporations as an essentially harmless distraction away from any actual effective political dissent*.



^
this

Although I do wonder of the CIA co-intelpro programme still exists.


----------



## elbows (Apr 1, 2010)

Well its certainly one of the battlefields in the complex information wars that take place today. Different sorts of people and institutions will be able to harness such things to their advantage sometimes, other times particular rumours & their promoters could be seen as more of a threat. Sometimes a state may promote a rumour about another country that would be written off as a conspiracy theory if it was about our country, sometimes it will actually be true, othertimes a lie with specific intent. Sometimes its easy to unweave the web and sometimes it isnt. And there are so many belief systems other than those which we label conspiracy theories, whether extreme or not, that can be manipulated to an extent by a variety of players.

Its probably slightly easier to untangle historical examples, for example I wonder what some theories about the USA could have been part of soviet propaganda in the past, though as its pre-internet I dont have any potential examples to hand.

I would expect that some things are tolerated now because the stakes are not always that high. In times where there was more unrest, at home & between nations, we might expect some peddlars of irresponsible rumour to face greater pressure to stop. I would guess that there may have been some concern in the UK about certain conspiracy theories undermining the war on terror, or even helping the enemy, and on a broader level Rumsfeld & others since have complained about the way media audiences are being fragmented, 'a loss of quality news', the 24 news cycle and the reduced effectiveness of a valuable weapon in the battle for hearts and minds.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 1, 2010)

Excellent posts Mr Gunther ..


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 1, 2010)

Well, I wasn't going to say stuff like that if I couldn't back it up. Thanks though WW.


----------



## teqniq (Apr 2, 2010)

Good stuff.


----------



## Meltingpot (Apr 24, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> Chris French is a dude. He was my ex's psychology tutor, and he was excellent at debunking stuff...very funny man too...



'Fraid I'm not a member of his fan club, though I respect the work he does.

He marked my work at uni, when he was a postgrad and I an undergrad (Leicester, late '70s). He was notorious for his rude and insulting comments - one girl (Pam, are you posting here?) put her essay up on the notice board to say his comments made her feel like she'd just been run over by a No. 10 bus and gave the impression that he thought doing prac writeups only took 10 minutes.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 29, 2010)

Here's a real babbling conspiraloon candidate, very fringe though. In Totnes.




			
				Stephen Morris's Totnes constituency profile said:
			
		

> Stephen Hopwood, another independent candidate, does have many axes to grind. *A complementary medicine practitioner, his literature declares: "I will be standing on the single issue of Truth." *(His capital letter.)
> 
> "Only independents can truly represent the people," he says. "Any politician signed up to a party by definition has greater allegiance to the party and the whip rather than the people. If people want democracy they have to vote for an independent, otherwise you get party whips and party politics and the influence of the bankers that dictate party policy."
> 
> *As he talks on the balcony of his home on the edge of Dartmoor, the MI5 renegade David Shayler wanders out. It turns out he is helping Hopwood's campaign. Local issues are not foremost in either man's mind – rather, the "truth" about bankers, globalisation, 9/11 and the assassination of JFK*.



Vote for the Troof, Devonians ....


----------



## chazegee (Apr 29, 2010)

I've got to say, Noam Chomsky's  take on the 9/11 has pretty much shut my paranoid brain up. 

They say we don't respect our elders any more, but that's not really true, it's just that we've only got one elder for about a billion people.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 29, 2010)

Links's broken I think chazegee ...


----------



## TitanSound (Apr 29, 2010)

Link fixed


----------



## sihhi (Jun 9, 2010)

Anti-semitism among pro-Ickers discussing the Labour Party leadership election.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=116711

What proportion of 'conspiraloons' _in Britain_ are antisemitic?


----------



## claphamboy (Jun 9, 2010)

sihhi said:


> Anti-semitism among pro-Ickers discussing the Labour Party leadership election.
> 
> http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=116711
> 
> What proportion of 'conspiraloons' _in Britain_ are antisemitic?



Fuck me. 

And Jazzz worships the fruitloon ideas of Icke.


----------



## editor (Jun 9, 2010)

Sick fuckers.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Jun 9, 2010)

sihhi said:


> Anti-semitism among pro-Ickers discussing the Labour Party leadership election.
> 
> http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=116711
> 
> What proportion of 'conspiraloons' _in Britain_ are antisemitic?



Fucking hell, I thought even they had the sense to use code words.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 9, 2010)

sihhi said:


> What proportion of 'conspiraloons' _in Britain_ are antisemitic?


The vast majority of them. And not just here but in the USA and pretty much everywhere in Europe. 




> It's one of those nightmare scenarios you can see coming a mile off.
> 
> Isn't there some edict from 1231 that forbids jews from holding official positions?
> 
> If not it's time we made one up.



There is a massive overlap between conspiraloonery and the fringes of the far right with many of the same people who are involved in the far right also being involved in this. And it's certainly not by coincidence.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 9, 2010)

The problem with this sort of stuff is that any criticism of Israel, and especially analyses of the power of the israeli lobby in the US, the uss liberty, the vast amounts of aid given to the country, etc, becomes *very* easy for zionists and others to paint as anti-semitism. It also continues the pro-Israeli narrative of zionism and support for Israel being what Judaism is and all about what being a Jew is about. The one "sensible" poster on there who mentions zionists and not Jews proceeds to go into a rant about "zionists" in the banks and the rothschild family which is simply saying, guys use code words instead, rather than offering any actual analysis of events. 

Not only that, but imo there are unanswered questions about 9/11. If we ever discover the truth about 9/11 it won't IMO be until long after this stuff has ceased to become relevent. It won't have anything to do with dancing israelis or black helicopters or holographic planes or any of the other nonsense they keep going on about.


----------



## Belushi (Jun 10, 2010)

sihhi said:


> Anti-semitism among pro-Ickers discussing the Labour Party leadership election.
> 
> http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=116711
> 
> What proportion of 'conspiraloons' _in Britain_ are antisemitic?



FFS this shit never dies does it.


----------



## sihhi (Jun 10, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> The vast majority of them. And not just here but in the USA and pretty much everywhere in Europe.



Is the ratio of antisemite to non-antisemite equal?

From the USA, some bring a whole new level of antisemitism, almost justifying Hitler and the Nazis. 

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread580476/pg1



> Hitler was not only a good leader but a great leader like anyone ever walked this planet. He was as much bad or you can say evil as any common leader like George Washington, Winston Churchill or Edward II not more or less.





> Originally posted by I_am_Spartacus
> A holocaust will happen again, and when it does people like you will be to blame for it.
> ---------------
> Well thats what they want.
> But in about 40 years with the German birthrate at 1.3, Germany will have a Muslim Arab majority. That will be their holocaust.



In the 'real world' of current politics they tend to come down in favour of hard-right policies like those in Arizona: 

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=167997.0
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=167997.40


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 10, 2010)

sihhi said:


> Is the ratio of antisemite to non-antisemite equal?
> 
> From the USA, some bring a whole new level of antisemitism, almost justifying Hitler and the Nazis.
> 
> ...



The "ratio" certainly isn't equal. I'd say the majority, if not almost all "conspiracy theorists" have anti-semitic views and I think from what I've seen and observed anti-semitism is an essential part of the majority of conspiracy theories. Even the ones in favour of zionism. I'd break those links if I were you as well .. seriously


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 10, 2010)

Its like Dillinger4 says, the words change a bit but the structure of anti-semitism is still there.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 11, 2010)

German neo-nazis protest. Have a look at their banner.


----------



## Combustible (Jun 11, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> The problem with this sort of stuff is that any criticism of Israel, and especially analyses of the power of the israeli lobby in the US, the uss liberty, the vast amounts of aid given to the country, etc, becomes *very* easy for zionists and others to paint as anti-semitism.



Part of the difficulty seems to come from whether you believe that Israel controls the US or whether Israel is essentially a tool of the US. Tbh whilst I don't believe that those who follow the former are all anti-semitic by any means, it is easy to see why it can lead to anti-semitism.  After all if you believe that the world's largest superpower is controlled either by a small country in the Middle East or by a small minority of it citizens, then it can inevitably lead to conspiracy theories about Jewish manipulation.  So focusing the talk on the Israeli lobby opens up accusations that you believe that a shadowy cabal of zionists rather than the more realistic prospect that the US supports Israel because it believes that its in its interests to do so.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 11, 2010)

if you believe that the US is "controlled" and the government has effectively been highjacked by a "shadow government" of jews, then im sorry but you are an anti-semite yes. 


sorry. 

and btw, i am an anti-zionist, you'll get no argument from me about the disproprortionate (and usually harmful) influence that the zionist lobby exerts on american foreign policy, although other pressures also exert similar influence and in recent years with obama the power of AIPAC etc has started (or seemed to start) to decline. if zionist interests were that substantially opposed to "american" ones then america would not give israel nearly the support that it has, although it is arguable that some people have persuaded policy makers to go in a certain direction. 

if you read kathleen christison's book "perceptions of palestine" however, it points out that the reason zionist lobbyists have been so successful isn't a result of a conspiracy but because to a large extent american elites felt closer to them culturally and religiously, and also because until relatively recently, the palestinians didn't really "get" lobbying and PR, let alone have the funds to do so.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 15, 2011)

*Examinining the 'conspiraloons'*

Amongst all the other crap polls about repitilians and the NWO, there are some polls with a largeish sample to help decide whether the politics is hard-rightist or not.

76% believe "Holocaust was mostly or completely a contrivance to benefit Zionism."
http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=146992

In a separate, poll 27% believe Holocaust was a hoax and didn't happen, 40% that it was "over exaggerated".
http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=102754

51% don't see neo Nazism in Germany as a problem
http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=133086


----------



## claphamboy (Apr 15, 2011)

sihhi said:


> *Examinining the 'conspiraloons'*
> 
> Amongst all the other crap polls about repitilians and the NWO, there are some polls with a largeish sample to help decide whether the politics is hard-rightist or not.
> 
> ...



Jazzztastic!


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 16, 2011)

sihhi said:


> *Examinining the 'conspiraloons'*
> 
> Amongst all the other crap polls about repitilians and the NWO, there are some polls with a largeish sample to help decide whether the politics is hard-rightist or not.
> 
> ...


 
Yep.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 16, 2011)

yep alex jones etc are the real fash. 

i despise them.


----------



## Belushi (Apr 16, 2011)

I've never seen a conspiracy theory that didnt end up blaming the red sea pedestrians in the end.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 16, 2011)

They all do. And scum like jones is helping to keep it "popular". the ironic thing is that these guys are multi millionaires and as much a part of a "system" as those they claim to despise


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 16, 2011)

It's not a coincidence that pat robertson etc are all into this stuff as well.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 16, 2011)

sihhi said:


> *Examinining the 'conspiraloons'*
> 
> Amongst all the other crap polls about repitilians and the NWO, there are some polls with a largeish sample to help decide whether the politics is hard-rightist or not.
> 
> ...


 
It seems to be a topic thats discussed with some frequency on that site. Says it all really.


----------



## nino_savatte (Apr 16, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> They all do. And scum like jones is helping to keep it "popular". the ironic thing is that these guys are multi millionaires and as much a part of a "system" as those they claim to despise


 
Yep. Our very own right wing loon and conspiracy theorist, James Delingpole often appears on Jones' programme as a 'freedom fighter' of sorts. I reckon the whole climate change denier lobby is a merely a cloak to hide all manner of other unspeakable views.


----------



## stuff_it (Apr 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> These people aren't growing. They pretend that they are.


 
They spend a lot of time on the internet, they probably *are* 'growing'...

And yes it's very sad, loads of people I knew of old seem to fall for this shit.


----------



## 8den (Apr 16, 2011)

My current favourite trend is the denial of anti Semitism, with the claim "I'm certainly not anti Semitic, I'm anti Zionist! _There is a difference y'know_"


----------



## claphamboy (Apr 16, 2011)

8den said:


> My current favourite trend is the denial of anti Semitism, with the claim "I'm certainly not anti Semitic, I'm anti Zionist! _There is a difference y'know_"


 
TBF, there is. 

Zionism is viewed by many as a system of apartheid and racism.


----------



## 8den (Apr 16, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> TBF, there is.
> 
> Zionism is viewed by many as a system of apartheid and racism.


 
Yes but masquerading traditional anti Semitism as anti Zionism is the new trick. 

For example, saying Larry Silverstein was in on the Sept 11th attacks because he's one of the Zionists. The only evidence that's offered that Silverstein is a Zionist is the fact that he's jewish.


----------



## claphamboy (Apr 16, 2011)

Yeah, I know what you mean and it needs addressing, but it's made difficult by the fact there is a different.  

I am anti-Zionist and I get pissed-off with being accused of being an anti-Semite.


----------



## 8den (Apr 16, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Yeah, I know what you mean and it needs addressing, but it's made difficult by the fact there is a different.
> 
> I am anti-Zionist and I get pissed-off with being accused of being an anti-Semite.


 
Yup it's weird trying to explain how differing yourself from anti Israeli policy, mean you are neither a Anti Semite, nor are you some deranged version of a Anti Semite masquerading as a anti Zionist. 

Re reading this thread brought up a lot of laughs. Myself and Pickmans on the same side. Dwyer describing Jazzz as "even tempered and a good researcher" and watching Trev try and wade in talk about a '22 calibre mind in a '357 debate.


----------



## claphamboy (Apr 16, 2011)

8den said:


> Dwyer describing Jazzz as "even tempered and a good researcher"



Did he? 

Fuck me, I missed that or somehow forgot about it, classic.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 16, 2011)

8den said:


> My current favourite trend is the denial of anti Semitism, with the claim "I'm certainly not anti Semitic, I'm anti Zionist! _There is a difference y'know_"


 
Anyone with even a remote grounding in the subject can fairly easily discern a plastic anti-Zionist (and anti-Semite couching his anti-Semitism in the language of anti-Zionism) from a convinced one. The only people who don't appear to be able to tell the difference are the media and politicians (who invariably have an interest in misrepresentation).


----------



## stuff_it (Apr 16, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Did he?
> 
> Fuck me, I missed that or somehow forgot about it, classic.



Please someone find the link....


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 16, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> TBF, there is.
> 
> Zionism is viewed by many as a system of apartheid and racism.


 
^^^^Here is one of the problems.

The language isn't accurate enough. When people talk about Zionism they invariably mean the particular *variant* of Zionism that has taken root in Israeli politics, which is more properly called nationalist-Zionism, and aggressive politics that sees a secure and expanded Jewish state of Israel as of primary importance.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 16, 2011)

8den said:


> Yes but masquerading traditional anti Semitism as anti Zionism is the new trick.
> 
> For example, saying Larry Silverstein was in on the Sept 11th attacks because he's one of the Zionists. The only evidence that's offered that Silverstein is a Zionist is the fact that he's jewish.


 
TBF, you have to be an ignorant donkey of a person to equate "Jewish" with "Zionist".


----------



## 8den (Apr 16, 2011)

stuff_it said:


> Please someone find the link....






			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> When I read threads like this, I see Jazzz: obviously an intelligent, well-read bloke who sincerely believes what he says, expresses himself without abusing his opponents or losing his temper, and is prepared to stand up for his beliefs in the face of raging tirades of abuse.



post 1143


----------



## 8den (Apr 16, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> TBF, you have to be an ignorant donkey of a person to equate "Jewish" with "Zionist".


 
TBF the sort of people who do this would be be ranting about the "holohoax" on a different forum. 

This thread is a gem btw, I've found trev's defence of his Diana conspiracy theories particularly refreshing (according to Trev anyone who doesn't believe Diana conspiracy theories, is a "establishment whore")

I love a middle aged punk who buys the Express.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Apr 16, 2011)

8den said:


> post 1143


 
that doesn't seem very outrageous.


----------



## 8den (Apr 16, 2011)

Dillinger4 said:


> that doesn't seem very outrageous.


 
I never said it was

There's also




			
				Jazzz said:
			
		

> And phildwyer doesn't? Seems to me he is just about the only other person with a genuine interest in the discussion.



Post :1508


----------



## kavenism (Nov 6, 2011)

Perhaps this is a spurious bump, but does anyone else here think that there is considerable conspiraloon presence within the Occupy movement, to a much greater extent than these people usually venture out? If so this seems to be a bit of a departure for them as they ordinarily shun direct action, viewing it as doing just what THEY want. 
David Icke is appearing at Wembley arena next year, a considerable step up from his previous big day out at Brixton academy. His loon factory is now even pumping out kids books. 
http://www.amazon.co.uk/David-Truth-Seeker-Timely-Adventure/dp/1463773889/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1320597609&sr=1-1
Hmm.. David the Truth Seeker.. catchy. I can’t imagine that name sticking with a five year old but it’s still fucked up.

But anyway even though this seems to have been covered a fair bit before, does anyone actually have a notion as to when this stuff would legitimately become a concern for the organised left. I mean when might the organisation and propagation of this stuff actually be worth taking seriously and organising against? They shun political action and generally just constitute an annoyance, but their stupidity can have effects in the real world even if it’s just at the level of making rational debate a lot harder. And that’s before you even consider the anti-Semitism implicit in a lot of NWO/Illuminati crap. How many people does Icke have to get into a stadium before we get worried?


----------



## BigTom (Nov 6, 2011)

In Birmingham at least there is a considerable presence of this in the occupy movement, so much so that many activists will not have anything to do with the Birmingham camp.
I'm not sure it's ever really worth organising against.  I've tried discussing this stuff with those who believe it and can get nowhere. you can't reason with insanity.
I guess the point would be to try to show others just how wrong it is. Half the time I think the conspiraloons do that all on their own, especially when they go on about flouridation/chem trails being mind control, or the NWO trying to wipe out most of the population.. or of course the shape-shifting reptilian overlords..


----------



## Roadkill (Nov 6, 2011)

Sadly I do think this conspiraloon shit is gaining some traction.  It's mainy impressionistic, but reading comments on newspaper articles on the occupations (not least on the _Daily Mail_ site) I couldn't help but be struck by how many people were talking about the 'New World Order' and how people should read David Icke.  Could be some kind of organised trolling campaign I suppose, but I doubt it.  It's worrying.

More flippantly, given that many of these people seem to think next year is when the lizards will move into the open*, when the world is the same in twelve months' time as it is now, perhaps they'll start to realise there is no grand conspiracy but simply the workings of class and power, which can be understood and fought without need to resort to fantasies about Freemasons and owls.

(* Some time ago I clicked on a friend of a friend's facebook profile.  His political views said: 'New World Order 2012: 9/11 They Did It Themselves.'  Well it rhymes, I suppose!  But you do see other references to 2012 as some kind of starting date.  What the significance of it is I've no idea.  Anyone...?)


----------



## Superdupastupor (Nov 6, 2011)

2012 is the end of the long cycle mayan ( or aztec  ) calendar of 15,000 yrs. It has been adopted as the end date for eschatologists that are "non"-religious

eta : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_phenomenon


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 6, 2011)

kavenism said:


> Perhaps this is a spurious bump, but does anyone else here think that there is considerable conspiraloon presence within the Occupy movement, to a much greater extent than these people usually venture out? If so this seems to be a bit of a departure for them as they ordinarily shun direct action, viewing it as doing just what THEY want.
> David Icke is appearing at Wembley arena next year, a considerable step up from his previous big day out at Brixton academy. His loon factory is now even pumping out kids books.
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/David-Truth-Seeker-Timely-Adventure/dp/1463773889/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1320597609&sr=1-1
> Hmm.. David the Truth Seeker.. catchy. I can’t imagine that name sticking with a five year old but it’s still fucked up.
> ...



The occupations are in public spaces and people can say and do what they like so long as they do not conflict with the law, such as via hate speech.

I still maintain there can be common ground sought and that the left can convert some of the conspiranoids to an overtly anti capitalist viewpoint. This is despite all the people calling me an anti semite apologist loon from one side and an eco nazi MK Ultra dupe from the other.

So, the conspiraloons, for all good and bad points are gaining traction a bit. To be honest, it is nowhere near the level of traction that toxic reactionary and consumerist politics  / culture have reached. The real issue for many on the left in this regard is their dismal failure to gain meaningful traction beyond very many of the usual suspects. In the market place of ideas the left's goods still have a severe branding issue. I think we should focus on this rather than prioritising slagging off the other guys.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2011)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I still maintain there can be common ground sought and that the left can convert some of the conspiranoids to an overtly anti capitalist viewpoint.


i don't think that being anti-capitalist is, on its own and taken in isolation, necessarily a sign of good politics. i hope i need not mention the strasser brothers in this regard.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 6, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> Sadly I do think this conspiraloon shit is gaining some traction. It's mainy impressionistic, but reading comments on newspaper articles on the occupations (not least on the _Daily Mail_ site) I couldn't help but be struck by how many people were talking about the 'New World Order' and how people should read David Icke. Could be some kind of organised trolling campaign I suppose, but I doubt it. It's worrying.
> 
> More flippantly, given that many of these people seem to think next year is when the lizards will move into the open*, when the world is the same in twelve months' time as it is now, perhaps they'll start to realise there is no grand conspiracy but simply the workings of class and power, which can be understood and fought without need to resort to fantasies about Freemasons and owls.
> 
> (* Some time ago I clicked on a friend of a friend's facebook profile. His political views said: 'New World Order 2012: 9/11 They Did It Themselves.' Well it rhymes, I suppose! But you do see other references to 2012 as some kind of starting date. *What the significance of it is I've no idea. Anyone...?*)



Some bollocks that Terrence McKenna came up with.


----------



## Roadkill (Nov 6, 2011)

Superdupastupor said:


> 2012 is the end of the long cycle mayan ( or aztec  ) calendar of 15,000 yrs. It has been adopted as the end date for eschatologists that are "non"-religious
> 
> eta : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_phenomenon



Oh God, there's loads of the silly buggers.

I wonder what they'll all say when 21 December 2012 turns out to be just another dreary, chilly winter Friday in the middle of a recession....


----------



## 8ball (Nov 6, 2011)

BigTom said:


> In Birmingham at least there is a considerable presence of this in the occupy movement, so much so that many activists will not have anything to do with the Birmingham camp.



I think the Nottingham camp is going the same way, having been down there today.


----------



## kavenism (Nov 6, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> Oh God, there's loads of the silly buggers.
> 
> I wonder what they'll all say when 21 December 2012 turns out to be just another dreary, chilly winter Friday in the middle of a recession....



I hope 'The End of Days' happens the week before the Olympics. I'd love to see Seb Coes' face, I'd fucking love it!


----------



## Superdupastupor (Nov 6, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> Oh God, there's loads of the silly buggers.
> 
> I wonder what they'll all say when 21 December 2012 turns out to be just another dreary, chilly winter Friday in the middle of a recession....



recalibrations of the calculations is the stock response.

It's not like i'm not pessimistic about the future and y'know the world will end at somepoint, but I guess people are just attracted to the idea of being part of a cosmic scheme.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2011)

Superdupastupor said:


> recalibrations of the calculations is the stock response.
> 
> It's not like i'm not pessimistic about the future and y'know the world will end at somepoint, but I guess people are just attracted to the idea of being part of a cosmic scheme.


they are part of a cosmic scheme, and with luck they'll be part of another when a large meteorite smacks the earth hopefully incinerating them.


----------



## Roadkill (Nov 6, 2011)

Superdupastupor said:


> It's not like i'm not pessimistic about the future and y'know the world will end at somepoint, but I guess people are just attracted to the idea of being part of a cosmic scheme.



Oh aye.  Just like that bloke who predicted the rapture a few months ago, then decided he'd just made a small calculation error when it never happened.  As you say, some folk like the idea of being part of some greater plan they can't influence.  I suppose you could argue that that's the great underlying attraction of faith of all kinds, actually: it doesn't matter what you do and your own actions will change nothing - it will happen anyway, for better or worse.  Predestination is a horrible idea really, but it's not hard to see why it has its adherents.


----------



## Superdupastupor (Nov 6, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> they are part of a cosmic scheme, and with luck they'll be part of another when a large meteorite smacks the earth hopefully incinerating them.



are you talking about humanity??


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2011)

Superdupastupor said:


> are you talking about humanity??


i wouldn't go so far as to describe conspiraloons as humanity, but we are talking about humans.


----------



## Superdupastupor (Nov 6, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> .... I suppose you could argue that that's the great underlying attraction of faith of all kinds, actually: it doesn't matter what you do and your own actions will change nothing - it will happen anyway, for better or worse. Predestination is a horrible idea really, but it's not hard to see why it has its adherents.



I think in terms of grand historical terms the social success of religion can be understood as coming from getting people to " sing of the same hymn sheet"  - you have you have, and that is how it is


----------



## Superdupastupor (Nov 6, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> i wouldn't go so far as to describe conspiraloons as humanity, but we are talking about humans.



well they'd all need to be in roughly the same location to be wipped out by death from above........

the "man"free land of IKEopia ??


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2011)

Superdupastupor said:


> well they'd all need to be in roughly the same location to be wipped out by death from above........
> 
> the "man"free land of IKEopia ??


they are part of 'a cosmic scheme': they contain parts of dead stars, for example, and they live in a universe which will die in a few trillion years; while we can differ about the size of the catastrophe which removes them from existence, i hope we can agree that in many important ways conspiraloons do more to foster dissent and strife where there need be neither than contribute towards amity or the furtherance of any important human endeavour.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 6, 2011)

is it the case then that, rather than engaging with "truthers" about common ground and trying to win them round on disagreements people are preferring to pack up and bugger off?

"We are the 99%"  *

_* Excludes people we disagree with._


----------



## Roadkill (Nov 6, 2011)

Superdupastupor said:


> I think in terms of grand historical terms the social success of religion can be understood as coming from getting people to " sing of the same hymn sheet" - you have you have, and that is how it is



Yes ... and no.  Religion can be politically useful, hence:



> The rich man in his castle
> The poor man at his gate
> God made them, high or lowly,
> And ordered their estate.


But it appeals to something rather more primeval than that.  it explains the inexplicable - which is why, in the 'enlightened' world at least, the role of god(s) has shrunk as the boundaries of the inexplicable have been pushed back.  Nevertheless, much that is inexplicable remains, hence its continuing appeal.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 6, 2011)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> "We are the 99%" *
> 
> _* Excludes people we disagree with._



Shite slogan, anyway.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 6, 2011)

8ball said:


> Shite slogan, anyway.



Yep, only 1% away from 'We are the world, we are the children'


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 6, 2011)

8ball said:


> Shite slogan, anyway.



Agreed. But it seems to have stuck.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 6, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> Yep, only 1% away from 'We are the world, we are the children'



On one of the 'occupy' facebook pages earlier, one of the happy campers (of the 'slightly conspiraloon' persuasion) was referring to the drunken 'sheeple' in the square over Saturday night.  I innocently asked whether 'sheeple' was a synonym for 'the 99%'.

Original comment plus replies was gone from the thread after five mins or so.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 6, 2011)

8ball said:


> On one of the 'occupy' facebook pages earlier, one of the happy campers (of the 'slightly conspiraloon' persuasion) was referring to the drunken 'sheeple' in the square over Saturday night. I innocently asked whether 'sheeple' was a synonym for 'the 99%'.
> 
> Original comment plus replies was gone from the thread after five mins or so.



So engagement works after all


----------



## Superdupastupor (Nov 6, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> Yes ... and no. Religion can be politically useful, hence:
> 
> But it appeals to something rather more primeval than that. it explains the inexplicable - which is why, in the 'enlightened' world at least, the role of god(s) has shrunk as the boundaries of the inexplicable have been pushed back. Nevertheless, much that is inexplicable remains, hence its continuing appeal.



a man's a man for all that... 

I've been talking to my bro recently about the spread of monotheism in the roman imperium as being partly to do with having the feeling of having a personal connection to the "allmighty" that could only come along with the sense of the self that occurred with the rise of a stable, reliable societies as opposed to the whims and vagaries of a naturalistic and animistic pantheon.

"why something instead of nothing" indeed


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 7, 2011)

8den said:


> TBF the sort of people who do this would be be ranting about the "holohoax" on a different forum.
> 
> This thread is a gem btw, I've found trev's defence of his Diana conspiracy theories particularly refreshing (according to Trev anyone who doesn't believe Diana conspiracy theories, is a "establishment whore")
> 
> I love a middle aged punk who buys the Express.



there's so much shite in that post i don't know where to start but....

Not even i can prove Diana was murdered, all i said was she probably WAS given the fishy circumstances and hysterical reaction from the media to anyone questioning their version of events . But those who tell us it definately was an accident , aye well feel free to call THEM establishment whores.

I have never bought the Express!! Although judging by the odd front cover i've seen in shops , they are the only ones with the balls to deviate from establishment thinking on this (which is odd given that with other things they are exactly that)

The term 'conspiracy theory' should only be used when someone makes a barking comment about lizards or something, NOT when it concerns something that looks very fishy indeed.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 7, 2011)

and i admit to have abused students in the past but it is typical of Urban to have a go at those who do something constructive. These "Occupy" (insert town here) movements certainly mean students have gone up in my estimations and if some of them are young and naive or get the odd fact wrong , then so fuck at least they are doing something.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 7, 2011)

trevhagl said:


> there's so much shite in that post i don't know where to start but....
> 
> Not even i can prove Diana was murdered, all i said was she probably WAS given the fishy circumstances and hysterical reaction from the media to anyone questioning their version of events . But those who tell us it definately was an accident , aye well feel free to call THEM establishment whores.


Not even the famous detective trevhagl? Well then what does that tell you? If even _you_ can't prove it.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 7, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Not even the famous detective trevhagl? Well then what does that tell you? If even _you_ can't prove it.


 
aye my superpowers sadly don't stretch to that !


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2011)

i'm surprised the ruling class have any time to rule if they're so fucking busy topping has-been royal whores and scrabbling round with their media mates to cover things up


----------



## elbows (Nov 7, 2011)

One of the problems is that people confuse coming up with plausible motives, for having actual evidence that something was done as a result of those motivations.


----------



## binka (Nov 7, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> whores


really pickmans? 'whore'? you've surprised me tbh


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2011)

binka said:


> really pickmans? 'whore'? you've surprised me tbh


yes, princess diana was a whore. do you deny it?


----------



## binka (Nov 7, 2011)

i didnt intend on coming home from work this evening to spend time defending princess diana online. i just dont think its really necessary to call any woman a whore


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2011)

binka said:


> i didnt intend on coming home from work this evening to spend time defending princess diana online.


good, because you can't defend the indefensible





> i just dont think its really necessary to call any woman a whore


not even mystery, babylon the great, mother of harlots and abominations of the earth?






the whore of babylon recently


----------



## 8ball (Nov 7, 2011)

binka said:


> i just dont think its really necessary to call any woman a whore



Ok, how about 'high-class escort'?


----------



## binka (Nov 7, 2011)

well its all about context i suppose and in some biblical/religious contexts its may be an appropriate expression but the rest of the time describing a woman as a whore reeks of misogyny and anyone who uses it is to be treated with suspicion imo


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2011)

binka said:


> well its all about context i suppose and in some biblical/religious contexts its may be an appropriate expression but the rest of the time describing a woman as a whore reeks of misogyny and anyone who uses it is to be treated with suspicion imo


in the case of princess diana it was a choice between whore, harlot, tart and prostitute. if you prefer one of the other terms i'm happy to change it.

let it not be said that i did not listen to you.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 7, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> in the case of princess diana it was a choice between whore, harlot, tart and prostitute.



To be fair to the girl, she _had_ rejoined the ranks of the working.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2011)

8ball said:


> To be fair to the girl, she _had_ rejoined the ranks of the working.


so she was a working girl?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 7, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> so she was a working girl?



It does put a dampener on things if you explain the punchlines.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2011)

8ball said:


> It does put a dampener on things if you explain the punchlines.


it's for binka.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 8, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm surprised the ruling class have any time to rule if they're so fucking busy topping has-been royal whores and scrabbling round with their media mates to cover things up



covering up is what the media/politicians do , as well as ridiculing opponents of their agenda, not just so called conspiracies but everything from welfare reform to tax dodging .....  it hardly takes much effort when you're a professional


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 8, 2011)

trevhagl said:


> The term 'conspiracy theory' should only be used when someone makes a barking comment about lizards or something, NOT when it concerns something that looks very fishy indeed.



Being a little old fashioned I think the term should apply to a theory about a conspiracy.


----------



## Nigel (Nov 8, 2011)

trevhagl said:


> there's so much shite in that post i don't know where to start but....
> 
> Not even i can prove Diana was murdered, all i said was she probably WAS given the fishy circumstances and hysterical reaction from the media to anyone questioning their version of events . But those who tell us it definately was an accident , aye well feel free to call THEM establishment whores.
> 
> ...


There's the whole SCALLYWAG thing as well.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 8, 2011)

trevhagl said:


> covering up is what the media/politicians do , as well as ridiculing opponents of their agenda, not just so called conspiracies but everything from welfare reform to tax dodging ..... it hardly takes much effort when you're a professional



actually they're really fucking crap at it.  they're public schoolboys, despite what they try and teach them, their only experience of crime is raiding the tuck shop.

look at simon mann singing like a canary and dropping all his friends in it when that scheme went tits up


----------



## laptop (Nov 8, 2011)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Being a little old fashioned I think the term should apply to a theory about a conspiracy.



If you insist that phrases have no standing apart from their component words: I imagine you're now wearing woad?

E2A: "Old fashion" see?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 8, 2011)

All this talk of princess Diana's death (gawd bless 'er, England's rose!) reminds me of the condolences book they had at reception at work. I don't know where it was supposed to be sent but you entered your name and then wrote a little message of support. I wrote in my boss's name and put something along the lines of "a good start - Liz next please". I don't know if it was sent to the Royal household or the Spencers of whatever but it sometimes gives me a warm glow inside to think that they might have got all enraged about it and arranged for my boss to have an "accident" in a French tunnel.


----------



## 8den (Nov 9, 2011)

trevhagl said:


> there's so much shite in that post i don't know where to start but....



You could start by not dragging up a comment from 6 months to continue picking a argument you're clearly ill equipped to particapte in in the first place.



> Not even i can prove Diana was murdered,



"Not even i" Fuck me you have a high opinion of yourself.

Yeah you're clearly Hercule Poirot in girt. But in intellect? Fuck off.



> all i said was she probably WAS given the fishy circumstances and hysterical reaction from the media to anyone questioning their version of events .



She was killed in car crash. Driven at speed by a inebriated driver, while not wearing a seat belt. The passenger who survived? Wore a seatbelt. There are no suspicious circumstances.

No the hysterical reaction comes from conspiracy theorist.



> But those who tell us it definately was an accident , aye well feel free to call THEM establishment whores.



Who's us Trev?



> I have never bought the Express!! Although judging by the odd front cover i've seen in shops , they are the only ones with the balls to deviate from establishment thinking on this (which is odd given that with other things they are exactly that)



In Trev's mind the Daily Express, Richard Desmond's paper has "journalist balls"

You live in a sad strange world only tangentially alined with reality.



> The term 'conspiracy theory' should only be used when someone makes a barking comment about lizards or something, NOT when it concerns something that looks very fishy indeed.



Trev telling us that only certain conspiracy theorists are barking is like a Morris Dancer complaining about Lady Gaga's wardrobe.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 9, 2011)

8den, why do you bother?

Just file trev in your fuckwit folder, be amused by his posts, but don't waste your time replying.


----------



## Meltingpot (Nov 9, 2011)

8ball said:


> Ok, how about 'high-class escort'?



Princess Diana was a high-class escort? Evidence?


----------



## eoin_k (Nov 10, 2011)

I think any group of women compared to Princess Diana deserve an apology.


----------



## 8den (Nov 10, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> 8den, why do you bother?
> 
> Just file trev in your fuckwit folder, be amused by his posts, but don't waste your time replying.



This one was just weird, it was trev coming back into the pub with "and another thing", six months after the argument.....


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 11, 2011)

laptop said:


> If you insist that phrases have no standing apart from their component words: I imagine you're now wearing woad?
> 
> E2A: "Old fashion" see?



Yep, I take that point although the analogy you make has no positive or negative connotation. The use of "conspiracy theory" as pejorative is unfortunate in a lot of ways.


----------



## Meltingpot (Nov 12, 2011)

eoin_k said:


> I think any group of women compared to Princess Diana deserve an apology.



Not for me; I was something of a fan of hers. Laugh if you want.


----------



## eoin_k (Nov 12, 2011)

haha


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 12, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> Not for me; I was something of a fan of hers. Laugh if you want.


A proper lady.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 12, 2011)

Meltingpot said:


> Princess Diana was a high-class escort? Evidence?



She wasn't high-class. Couldn't even do a decent line in blow-jobs.


----------



## Meltingpot (Nov 12, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> She wasn't high-class. Couldn't even do a decent line in blow-jobs.



I give in.


----------



## Apathy (Nov 13, 2011)

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...pant-thanks-to-modern-technology-6260128.html

^^ the theorists are running rampant in the comments section below this article.  its hard to argue with these people innit they are very much like religious nutjobs in that respect


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 13, 2011)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Yep, I take that point although the analogy you make has no positive or negative connotation. The use of "conspiracy theory" as pejorative is unfortunate in a lot of ways.



Of course it's pejorative.


----------



## craphamboy (Nov 13, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> 8den, why do you bother?
> 
> Just file trev in your fuckwit folder, be amused by his posts, but don't waste your time replying.


I was just wondering... Is there ANYONE who DOESN'T think you are a cunt?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 13, 2011)

craphamboy said:


> I was just wondering... Is there ANYONE who DOESN'T think you are a cunt?



A claphamboy wannabe. That is a bit sad.


----------



## twentythreedom (Nov 13, 2011)

Icke speaking the truth on Sky channel 203 right now!


----------



## craphamboy (Nov 13, 2011)

goldenecitrone said:


> A claphamboy wannabe. That is a bit sad.


Too fucking right. Who'd wannabe anything like _that_ sad bastard?
What the fuck are you, gay boy?


----------



## Nylock (Nov 13, 2011)

Who the fuck is this bellend?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 13, 2011)

craphamboy said:


> I was just wondering... Is there ANYONE who DOESN'T think you are a cunt?



He's a cunt, but he's _our_ cunt.

Now I recommend you get the mileage out of that user account while you can - I sense that the banning fairy will be paying a visit soonly...


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 13, 2011)

craphamboy said:


> Too fucking right. Who'd wannabe anything like _that_ sad bastard?
> What the fuck are you, gay boy?



Off you fuck, nonce boy.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 13, 2011)

Nylock said:


> Who the fuck is this bellend?


Good question. Keep posting, son.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 13, 2011)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> The use of "conspiracy theory" as pejorative is unfortunate in a lot of ways.



But almost entirely self-inflicted -- I mean self-inflicted by so many theorists' complete irrationality ... they invite the perjorative reactions themselves.


----------



## teqniq (Nov 13, 2011)

8ball is spot on. 

yes ok it wasn't funny


----------



## eoin_k (Nov 13, 2011)

The problem with conspiracy theories isn't 'conspiracy' so much as 'theory'. Sure conspiracies happen and occasionally conspiracy theorists get in on the act when they do. For example some of them love a bit of Operation Gladio and the P2 Vatican masonic lodge, but that doesn't mean that Operation Gladio didn't happen and P2 didn't exist. These events are a matter of public record. The problem is to do with an uncritical theorising which places conspiracies at the centre of explaining the course of events and seems incapable of evaluating whether alleged conspiracies actually happened or not.


----------



## editor (Nov 14, 2011)

craphamboy said:


> I was just wondering... Is there ANYONE who DOESN'T think you are a cunt?


Thanks for that.

Now off you go.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 14, 2011)

William of Walworth said:


> But almost entirely self-inflicted -- I mean self-inflicted by so many theorists' complete irrationality ... they invite the pejorative reactions themselves.



Who are "they"? People who think the WMD were a phoney construct from the off? Those who questioned the Met over the killings of De Menezes, Tomlinson, Duggan?

All people with a theory about a conspiracy. All proved 100% correct. And everyone knows there are other countless instances.

What "conspiracy theory" has come to mean to too many people is "a conspiracy theory I don't agree with". It's a mis use of language and plays into the hands of orthodox narratives.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 14, 2011)

It's proven fact that 99% of narratives are produced by the MSM.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 14, 2011)

craphamboy said:


> I was just wondering... Is there ANYONE who DOESN'T think you are a cunt?



This greatly amuses me - lol 

At first I thought - I don't remember posting that.  

Just for information, I file all conspiraloons as either 'fuckwits' or 'dangerous fuckwits', it seems the best description for idiots that believe in ridiculous nonsense despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary and common bloody sense.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 14, 2011)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Who are "they"? People who think the WMD were a phoney construct from the off? Those who questioned the Met over the killings of De Menezes, Tomlinson, Duggan?
> 
> All people with a theory about a conspiracy. All proved 100% correct. And everyone knows there are other countless instances.
> 
> What "conspiracy theory" has come to mean to too many people is "a conspiracy theory I don't agree with". It's a mis use of language and plays into the hands of orthodox narratives.


No it means theories that are bonkers bruno, so bonkers bruno in fact that they have to try and cloak themselves in the exposure of real serious malpractice, corruption and so on just to gain any credibility. And you've just given a perfect example of an attempt to do that.

I'd have more respect if you didn't bother with this pretence - this keeping the wilder side of your views under wraps. Let your inner loon out, let it run free!


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 14, 2011)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Who are "they"? People who think the WMD were a phoney construct from the off? Those who questioned the Met over the killings of De Menezes, Tomlinson, Duggan?
> 
> All people with a theory about a conspiracy. All proved 100% correct. And everyone knows there are other countless instances.
> 
> What "conspiracy theory" has come to mean to too many people is "a conspiracy theory I don't agree with". It's a mis use of language and plays into the hands of orthodox narratives.



You're wildly misusing the term conspiracy theory yourself in that post -- butchers has it right.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 14, 2011)

William of Walworth said:


> You're wildly misusing the term conspiracy theory yourself in that post -- butchers has it right.



So a 'conspiracy theory' isn't actually a theory about a conspiracy, but a theory that is batshit mental.

And what term would we use for a theory about a conspiracy, then?


----------



## Jazzz (Nov 14, 2011)

8ball said:


> So a 'conspiracy theory' isn't actually a theory about a conspiracy, but a theory that is batshit mental.
> 
> And what term would we use for a theory about a conspiracy, then?


Yes, do tell!!


----------



## fogbat (Nov 14, 2011)

Jazzz is going to be _totally vindicated_ any minute now


----------



## eoin_k (Nov 14, 2011)

8ball said:


> So a 'conspiracy theory' isn't actually a theory about a conspiracy, but a theory that is batshit mental.
> 
> And what term would we use for a theory about a conspiracy, then?



Are you suggesting that everyone who believes that the events of 9/11 were caused by a conspiracy carried out by a secretive network of Wahhabist islamists should be labeled a conspiracy theorists?  Conspiracy theories aren't about conspiracies, they are about events.  Typically, they involve uncritically speculating about hypothetical conspiracies to explain these events and a reluctance to consider evidence that contradicts the conspiracy theory.

They also give a causal emphasis to conspiracies - imaginary or otherwise -  that is unhelpful, as it prevents people from looking for other wider causes.  9/11 was caused directly by a conspiracy. Everyone agrees on that, even if we disagree about who was in on it.  But, if we accept that it was a network of Islamist militants, rather than an inside job, the conspiratorial aspect is almost irrelevant to a wider discussion about why it happened.  The questions become: Why did the plot happen?  What can we learn from it?  How can we avoid this sort of situation in the future?  How should 'we' respond?

In general, conspiracy theories leads to passivity, paranoia and isolation for those who are sucked in by them.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 15, 2011)

William of Walworth said:


> You're wildly misusing the term conspiracy theory yourself in that post -- butchers has it right.



Here we go again. A "conspiracy theory" isn't a theory about conspiracies at all. Oh noes, how but could it be? It really means "A theory we deign to be stupid unless and until it actually turns out to have been true"

Butchers - thank you for the kind invitation to let my inner loon run free, but there is really no need for me to bother expressing my often vague opinions when I have you around to tell me what I think.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 15, 2011)

eoin_k said:


> Are you suggesting that everyone who believes that the events of 9/11 were caused by a conspiracy carried out by a secretive network of Wahhabist islamists should be labeled a conspiracy theorists? Conspiracy theories aren't about conspiracies, they are about events. Typically, they involve uncritically speculating about hypothetical conspiracies to explain these events and a reluctance to consider evidence that contradicts the conspiracy theory.
> 
> They also give a causal emphasis to conspiracies - imaginary or otherwise - that is unhelpful, as it prevents people from looking for other wider causes. 9/11 was caused directly by a conspiracy. Everyone agrees on that, even if we disagree about who was in on it. But, if we accept that it was a network of Islamist militants, rather than an inside job, the conspiratorial aspect is almost irrelevant to a wider discussion about why it happened. The questions become: Why did the plot happen? What can we learn from it? How can we avoid this sort of situation in the future? How should 'we' respond?
> 
> In general, conspiracy theories leads to passivity, paranoia and isolation for those who are sucked in by them.



Again, you are going along with certain types of conspiracy theory. Lordy, have we been here before. Your attempt to put it down to "events" rather than "conspiracies" doesn't hold up with regard to the organisations that are considered, rightly or wrongly, to be complicit in such events.

The last line of your post happens to be true, but is not of itself a reflection on the viability of any given CT.

As to 911,  "inside job" and "network of islamist militants" / "Make it happen on purpose" and "everything as the Commission said" stand as somewhat binary positions often advanced with some stubborness and resort to insult. But there are a vast range of possibilities in the territory between them.


----------



## editor (Nov 15, 2011)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> But there are a vast range of possibilities in the territory between them.


Most of which are completely unsupported by anything even remotely approaching credible evidence, and fail miserably to stand up to proper scientific scrutiny.


----------



## eoin_k (Nov 15, 2011)

> A conspiracy theory explains an *event* as being the result of an * alleged plot* by a covert group or organization or, more broadly, the *idea* that [actual] *important political, social or economic events* are the products of [hypothetical] secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public.


 (Source: wikipedia)

I would have gone for the OED or some other sources, but I am not at home.

Now I appreciate that dictionary deffinitions or references to wikipedia can't settle these sort of disagreements. Nor should they. But, it is interesting that this deffinition is not simply:

_conspiracy theory: a theory about a conspiracy_

Obviously the wikipedia deffinition avoids being partisan so there is less emphasis on them being batshit batshit. But, otherwise it is closer to what the rest of us are saying than your perspective. Clearly all batshit theories aren't conspiracy theories, take intelligent design as an example. Intelligent design as a pseudo scientific 'theory' in the 21st century seems pretty batshit to me but it clearly isn't a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories are theories about events that rely on hypothetical conspiracies. The point is that you don't need a conspiracy to have a conspiracy theory.

Likewise, just because you seek to explain events which involve a conspiracy it doesn't follow that you are engageing in a conspiracy theory. Nobody is suggesting that you have to be batshit to believe that anyone has ever conspired with anyone else ever. Conspiracy theorise seek to provide general explanations of social phenomena by reference to hypothetical conspiracies.  It is up to you to decide whether this is a batshit way of trying to make sense of the world.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2011)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Here we go again. A "conspiracy theory" isn't a theory about conspiracies at all. Oh noes, how but could it be? It really means "A theory we deign to be stupid unless and until it actually turns out to have been true"
> 
> Butchers - thank you for the kind invitation to let my inner loon run free, but there is really no need for me to bother expressing my often vague opinions when I have you around to tell me what I think.


Oh please,we've all seen you struggling unsuccessfully to keep it under wraps the last few years.


----------



## eoin_k (Nov 15, 2011)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> .. Those who questioned the Met over the killings of De Menezes, Tomlinson, Duggan...



you are really trying to muddy the waters here.

I was directly involved in the early days of the response to the Tomlinson killing.  I stepped back when the family got independent legal advice and broke links with the Met.  What we did was the opposite of conspiracy theory.  We avoided indulging in idle speculation about what might have happened and focused instead on calling for a transparent process and encouraging witnesses to come forward.  While we had serious doubts about how the Met were spinning things we were very careful not to attempt to construct an alternative narrative, but rather to see what came out in the wash.  This was both a practical issue in terms of keeping the campaign credible but also a matter of respect to people who had lost a loved one, especially at the stage when they family were still being sold a line by the police.


----------



## editor (Nov 15, 2011)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Who are "they"? People who think the WMD were a phoney construct from the off? Those who questioned the Met over the killings of De Menezes, Tomlinson, Duggan?


That'll be the cases that were plastered all over the newspapers from the off, and needed the input of no web-based "troof-seekers" to establish the facts.

In the case of Tomlinson, the main source that established the events of his demise came from the mobile camera of a passer by, which was then published by a national newspaper. No troof seekers required, again.

Interestingly, the guy who took the footage was an American investment fund manager. You know, the kind of person that conspiraloons are always insisting must be involved in cabals/shady deals/Illuminati/lizards/9/11 cover ups etc.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 15, 2011)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Here we go again. A "conspiracy theory" isn't a theory about conspiracies at all. Oh noes, how but could it be? It really means "A theory we deign to be stupid unless and until it actually turns out to have been true"
> 
> Butchers - thank you for the kind invitation to let my inner loon run free, but there is really no need for me to bother expressing my often vague opinions when I have you around to tell me what I think.



Deem, not deign.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2011)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Here we go again. A "conspiracy theory" isn't a theory about conspiracies at all. Oh noes, how but could it be? It really means "A theory we deign to be stupid unless and until it actually turns out to have been true"


Or..._a series of connected conclusions not supported by the evidence and not derived at by acceptable methods of inquiry._

Hows that sound taffers?[/quote]


----------



## 8ball (Nov 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Or..._a series of connected conclusions not supported by the evidence and not derived at by acceptable methods of inquiry._



Wrong on both counts.  Firstly, you don't need a series of conclusions, just one (eg. Kennedy was done in by the CIA).  Secondly, this definition would have it that homeopathy and the Loch Ness Monster are conspiracy theories.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2011)

8ball said:


> Wrong on both counts. Firstly, you don't need a series of conclusions, just one (eg. Kennedy was done in by the CIA). Secondly, this definition would have it that homeopathy and the Loch Ness Monster are conspiracy theories.


Don't agree. To be a theory you need a connected series of conclusions at each stage (who did what, why and how). Your example is just belief in one conclusion of a conspiracy theory - _it's not the conspiracy theory itself. _Secondly, my definition doesn't mean that everything that fits is a conspiracy theory, but that conspiracy theories fit that definition. You're looking at it backwards.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> To be a theory you need a connected series of conclusions at each stage (who did what, why and how).



No, that's not what a theory is. Do mean to be a _conspiracy theory _you need a connected series of conclusions at each stage (who did what, why and how). Which I don't agree with either, though it fits a lot of cases.



butchersapron said:


> Secondly, my definition doesn't mean that everything that fits is a conspiracy theory, but that conspiracy theories fit that definition.



So it's not a definition, then. Just a characteristic that the members of the set have in common with each other, which is shared by plenty of other things too. It's looks rather like saying that the definition of 'grass' is 'green'.

I think you're going to have trouble shoehorning 'conspiracy theories' into a definition simply meaning 'a subset of things which are demonstrably not true'.

If that's what you're trying to do.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2011)

8ball said:


> No, that's not what a theory is. Do mean to be a _conspiracy theory _you need a connected series of conclusions at each stage (who did what, why and how). Which I don't agree with either, though it fits a lot of cases.



I just said that to be a _conspiracy theory _you need a connected series of conclusions at each stage (who did what, why and how) 



> So it's not a definition, then. Just a characteristic that the members of the set have in common with each other, which is shared by plenty of other things too. It's looks rather like saying that the definition of 'green' is 'grass'.
> 
> I think you're going to have trouble shoehorning 'conspiracy theories' into a definition simply meaning 'a subset of things which are demonstrably not true'.
> 
> If that's what you're trying to do.



It's not a rigourous definition no, it was quick off the top of the head polemical counter-defintion (or loose set of characteristics if you prefer) to this nonsense:

_A "conspiracy theory" isn't a theory about conspiracies at all. Oh noes, how but could it be? It really means "A theory we deign to be stupid unless and until it actually turns out to have been true"._

No it's not like saying that the definition of green is grass - it's like saying that grass is often green. You're still looking down the wrong end of the telescope.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 15, 2011)

8ball said:


> Wrong on both counts. Firstly, you don't need a series of conclusions, just one (eg. Kennedy was done in by the CIA). Secondly, this definition would have it that homeopathy and the Loch Ness Monster are conspiracy theories.


whatever happened to the holy trinity of means, motive and opportunity?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I just said that to be a _conspiracy theory _you need a connected series of conclusions at each stage (who did what, why and how)


Yes - you didn't use the word 'conspiracy' at that crucial point in your original post.  So I thought I could still use the strict definitions of terms like 'conspiracy' and 'theory'.



butchersapron said:


> It's not a rigourous definition no, it was quick off the top of the head counter-defintion (or loose set of characteristics if you prefer).



Yes, not a definition.  As I said.

I agree with your feelings about conspiracy theories (using your definition for a moment), but I think using very wonky definitions makes it really easy to discredit perfectly sensible enquiry about things like the route to war in Iraq, the Government being in the pockets of big finance etc.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> No it's not like saying that the definition of green is grass - it's like saying that grass is often green. You're still looking down the wrong end of the telescope.



Indeed - I meant the other way round (edited it a while back).


----------



## laptop (Nov 15, 2011)

Conspiracy-theory is the opposite of rational-inquiry.

Rational-inquiry starts with the question: "how did this happen?"

Conspiracy-theory starts, however much its proponents may try to disguise this, with "who conspired to make this happen?"

All sorts of things follow. For example:

Rational-inquiry is perfectly happy with there being all sorts of things that we do not know - _yet_. It proceeds from the things we do know.

Conspiracy-theory is angry that what we do not know is _being kept_ a secret. It proceeds by inserting "what ifs" into the blanks.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 15, 2011)

editor said:


> That'll be the cases that were plastered all over the newspapers from the off, and needed the input of no web-based "troof-seekers" to establish the facts



Wrong. The lies appeared in newspapers from the off, it took subsequent facts and often digging to out the lies.

In the case of WMD it was the likes of Scott Ritter blowing the whistle. He had spurious sex charges put against him round about the same time. Funny that.

In the case of De Menezes the lies were propagated by senior Met sources (as with the other mentioned killings) and the press went along for the ride.

With De Menezes, Tomlinson and Duggan there were lies from the top each time. If I were to say there strongly appears to be a PR team that constructs lies for the press in the Met I would, till it were fully be proved in court, be considered and derided as a "conspiracy theorist".

But it seems by far the most rational explanation.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Or..._a series of connected conclusions not supported by the evidence and not derived at by acceptable methods of inquiry._
> 
> Hows that sound taffers?


[/quote]

A theory is not a conclusion.

People who act like it is, on either side, are kneejerkists.

There are plenty of them.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 15, 2011)

eoin_k said:


> (Source: wikipedia)
> 
> _A conspiracy theory explains an *event* as being the result of an *alleged plot* by a covert group or organization or, more broadly, the *idea* that [actual] *important political, social or economic events* are the products of [hypothetical] secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public._
> 
> ...


 
"An event as being the result of an alledged plot"

Not so different from "a theory about a conspiracy" at all really. Except the article again confuses "explanation" with "hypothesis". No one can demonstrate Conspiracy Theory X without substantial proof, anyone who says they can is arrogant and deluded. Plenty of it about. But some theories are clearly more plausible than others.

You are mixing up what I pupport to be a conspiracy theory around Tomlinson's death I think, though it is probably my fault. My pupport is related to the lie and the attempt to cover up rather than the death itself.


----------



## TruXta (Nov 15, 2011)

What exactly are you trying to argue taffboy? That sometimes a group of people will attempt to get away with stuff they've planned in secret? Welcome to the wonderful world of business and politics!


----------



## elbows (Nov 15, 2011)

Problem is that people often tend to get rather passionate with their theories, it becomes personal, and with their words they demonstrate that they have bought into the theories far too strongly given the amount of actual evidence available.

There are those who would use the negative labels of conspiracy theory to close down certain avenues of discussion and exploration. Plenty of times their actions are well justified by those who form conclusions without proper evidence. To avoid being caught in such a trap requires a sensible approach to evidence.

People with a wide variety of beliefs etc would benefit from continually challenging their own beliefs. If you like a certain theory, if it appeals and rings true, thats all the more reason to subject it to hard testing in order to safeguard against sloppy mistakes that lead you down a fruitless path.


----------



## TruXta (Nov 15, 2011)

Not everything is a theory to be put to the test, elbows.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 15, 2011)

TruXta said:


> What exactly are you trying to argue taffboy? That sometimes a group of people will attempt to get away with stuff they've planned in secret? Welcome to the wonderful world of business and politics!



That is pretty much my point. Conspiracy is highly commonplace in politics and life. So having theories about it really isn't remotely loonbat of itself. For sure, some theories are more plausible, some less. And elbows is right, people get highly passionate and perhaps don't challenge their own ideas enough.


----------



## elbows (Nov 15, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Not everything is a theory to be put to the test, elbows.



Did I say everything was? Clearly in order to think and feel there are going to be some things that we are going to consider to be facts, the only sane way to look at something, right, just, true etc.Call them what you will, Chomsky has his truisms, others have different ways describing such things.

Unfortunately a side-effect of this is that people can just use this to shield whatever they happen to not want to challenge about their own stance from scrutiny, I don't know exactly where the line can be drawn in a manner which always works. And Im certainly not suggesting that people should blow around in the wind so much that they end up standing for nothing at all. But at the very least people should acknowledge the fundamental foundations upon which the rest of their enquiries into the world and how things should be are built. Declare the areas where for you belief is strong and you will not compromise. Do not attempt to hide them and give people the opportunity to point cynically when the attempts to hide them fail, for they are not really hidden because they will colour other aspects of your worldview and attitude towards facts and evidence. Better to declare your dearly held beliefs for what they are, rather than make a mockery of the concept of evidence by relying on weak or laughable facts to backup something that was actually born from something other than specific, hard proof.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 15, 2011)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> That is pretty much my point. Conspiracy is highly commonplace in politics and life. So having theories about it really isn't remotely loonbat of itself. For sure, some theories are more plausible, some less. And elbows is right, people get highly passionate and perhaps don't challenge their own ideas enough.



How about actually _analysing_ the shenanigans people in business and political power get up to then?

Rather than _speculating_ -- so often on the basis of simply, and simplistically, putting the conclusion cart before the evidence horse?

Conspiracists come across as** complete strangers to rationality and to the true nature of evidence.

**NB I said 'come across as' -- not are++ 

++Though identifying some exceptions to 'are' in the loon spouting world would be nice .... 

Conspiraspeculators get right in the way of real analysis and real investigative enquiry and real historical research, that is the real spadework, done by by people who much more often than not, are independent minded anti establishment types.

That is the complete opposites of establishment-dupes.


----------



## elbows (Nov 15, 2011)

William of Walworth said:


> Conspiraspeculators get right in the way of real analysis and real investigative enquiry and real historical research, by people who are the complete opposites of establishment-dupes.



A straightforward and obvious example of this is when the loons attack Chomsky, someone who cares great deal about institutional analysis. Who can take 'truth seekers' seriously when they are such obvious slaves to dogma, when enquiring minds are put to such poor use. Ignore genuine enquiry in favour of sloppy accusations that are more like the Spanish Inquisition than genuine enquiry. Way to go in defeating the horrors of the state by indulging in practices which are of more use in a dictators toolbox than an arsenal that could actually free people.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 11, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Icke and others seem to think Queen Elizabeth is a shape shifting lizard or something. Must mean "jewish" - could be the German blood I suppose. Yeah - the queen is actually Jewish, anyone will tell you that.
> 
> Gosh this is fun, we can make up any amount of unmitigated paranoid horseshit.


 
taffboy gwyrdd this post of yours seems to suggest you think Icke is not anti-semitic.

Here is Icke's official unmediated statement on his own website on the David Ward affair

http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/...st-bullies-and-censors-tell-liberal-democrats

"'We're so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so sorry that one of our MPs has told the truth about you sir, please, sir, thank you, sir.'

Not good enough, not enough so's. We have to show any other MP what happens when you tell the truth about us so it won't happen again.

'Sorry sir. We are so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so sorry sir, please, sir, thank you, sir.'

Not good enough.

The arrogance of these people knows no limits. How about a response something like this Nick 'is my tongue out far enough, sir' Clegg and the Liberal Democrats:

'The man is entitled to his opinion even if you don't agree with it. Now piss off.'

There, that should do it.

'David is very, very sorry, aren't you, David?'

'If you say so, Nick.'

'But how sorry is very, very sorry, David?'

'Very, very, very, sorry, Nick.'

'But what do you mean by very, very, very sorry, David?'"

Supporting modern conspiracism in any form - even if it's of the soft 'fractional reserve banking is the enemy return to the gold standard', 'there's overwhelming evidence 9-11 was an inside job, this matters hugely' gives antisemites like Icke a sea to swim in.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Feb 11, 2013)

My mate has joined the anti vaccination brigade. She's not vaccinated her child. I have some pretty strong views about that.


----------



## 8den (Feb 11, 2013)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> My mate has joined the anti vaccination brigade. She's not vaccinated her child. I have some pretty strong views about that.


 
A few years back over christmas I spent a night in a hotel after a blazing row about vaccination with my mother in law. She was opposed. I was furious. Spent hours arguing, before calling her something unrepeatable and storming off.

Turns out she was winding me up. Yup I was trolled in IRL by my mother in law. And my wife wonders why things are awkward.


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 11, 2013)

Was idly wondering how long ago it had been since this thread was last active


----------



## sihhi (Mar 27, 2013)

sihhi said:


> taffboy gwyrdd this post of yours seems to suggest you think Icke is not anti-semitic.
> 
> Here is Icke's official unmediated statement on his own website on the David Ward affair
> 
> ...


 
taffboy gwyrdd you never responded to my simple question here 

So I'm less inclined to take your assessment of Max Keiser at face value.



taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I freely admit to being a fan, but nonetheless he does know his subject, especially on banking fraud.
> 
> He worked on the stock market in the 80s. He is a free marketer in the sense that he supports competition, but also good regulation. He also backs causes like Sea Shepherd, UK Uncut etc. His partner, Stacey Herbert, is probably a bit more towards the traditional left.
> 
> ...


 
Is all Max Keiser wants good regulation - is that it?

How will "buying silver" - assuming someone's middle-class enough to have shares/investments - help anything?


----------



## sihhi (Mar 27, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Oh ffs, don't worry about it. I'm sorry if I sounded harsh. Look, just stick with me and you'll be alright. I'll show you the ropes, introduce you around. I'll even help you pull a bird if you like. They're easy round here.


 
This kind of sexist posting is unacceptable.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 28, 2013)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> My mate has joined the anti vaccination brigade. She's not vaccinated her child. I have some pretty strong views about that.


I do hope that you respect that parents alone are responsible for the decision on whether to vaccinate or not, and that ultimately it is not anyone else's business.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 28, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> I do hope that you respect that parents alone are responsible for the decision on whether to vaccinate or not, and that ultimately it is not anyone else's business.


That wouldn't be immediately obvious from looking at your posting history on the subject. Perhaps that's only the case if they agree with you.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 28, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> I do hope that you respect that parents alone are responsible for the decision on whether to vaccinate or not, and that ultimately it is not anyone else's business.


Selfish individualism is at the root of your politics isn't it.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 28, 2013)

Vaccination is worthless unless the vast majority do it, so yes it is my fucking business whether parents vaccinate their kids or not.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Mar 28, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Vaccination is worthless unless the vast majority do it, so yes it is my fucking business whether parents vaccinate their kids or not.


It isn't worthless. It's just worth less.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 28, 2013)

Bob_the_lost said:


> It isn't worthless. It's just worth less.


OK, not absolutely worthless. But still, less vaccination means more illness means higher healthcare costs means higher taxes. So yes, it's still everyone's business.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 28, 2013)

TruXta said:


> OK, not absolutely worthless. But still, less vaccination means more illness means higher healthcare costs means higher taxes. So yes, it's still everyone's business.


I'm not sure the best argument is even the cost one.

As members of a society, it is our social responsibility to act in ways which are in the best interests of our society. Whatever Jazzz might believe, herd immunity from disease is probably one of the most effective ways we can contribute to that.

In fact, I think it is telling that so many of the causes Jazzz espouses (even the "accidental" ones, like antisemitism) seem to be so very much about distrusting, fragmenting, and undermining society. He will no doubt argue that this is about toppling the New World Order, but I suspect it wouldn't matter what it is - if something is perceived to be in the greater social interest, Jazzz and his conspiranoid cohorts will be agin it.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 28, 2013)

existentialist said:


> I'm not sure the best argument is even the cost one.
> 
> As members of a society, it is our social responsibility to act in ways which are in the best interests of our society. Whatever Jazzz might believe, herd immunity from disease is probably one of the most effective ways we can contribute to that.
> 
> In fact, I think it is telling that so many of the causes Jazzz espouses (even the "accidental" ones, like antisemitism) seem to be so very much about distrusting, fragmenting, and undermining society. He will no doubt argue that this is about toppling the New World Order, but I suspect it wouldn't matter what it is - if something is perceived to be in the greater social interest, Jazzz and his conspiranoid cohorts will be agin it.


Mightn't be the best - is there even such a thing as "the best argument"? - but it's something most people can instantly grok.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 28, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Mightn't be the best - is there even such a thing as "the best argument"? - but it's something most people can instantly grok.


Maybe. I'm just wary of everything being reduced to money, because I think there are other measures of social interest/capital that are equally relevant (not to mention the risk of playing into Jazzz loony Rothschild/Jewish Banking Hegemony stuff). Perhaps that just my philosophy showing


----------



## Random (Mar 28, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> ultimately it is not anyone else's business.


 If someone is acting in a harmful way towards their children because of lies, it's no one else's business? Whatever happened to the neverending search for TRUTH`?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 28, 2013)

The roots of jazzz's politics are in American conservatism. They're inherently individualist and anti social.


----------



## andysays (Mar 28, 2013)

Random said:


> If someone is acting in a harmful way towards their children because of lies, it's no one else's business? Whatever happened to the neverending search for TRUTH`?


 
Rightly or wrongly, we currently allow parents to act harmfully towards their children because of lies - various forms of religious indoctrination for starters.

In various forms, this also extends to acting harmfully towards the wider public or collective good, and this vaccination phobia is a prime example of that.

Personally, I'd defend to the death Jazzz's right not to vaccinate his own kids, providing he also has the courage of his convictions and lives without any sort of collective good like, oh, I don't know, clean water, public transport or road systems, the internet.

Being a selfish, anti-social individualist is one thing, but being a *hypocritical* selfish, anti-social individualist is quite another...


----------



## Random (Mar 28, 2013)

andysays said:


> Rightly or wrongly, we currently allow parents to act harmfully towards their children because of lies - various forms of religious indoctrination for starters.


 "We"?


----------



## TruXta (Mar 28, 2013)

Random said:


> "We"?


"We" still allow children to be smacked in the UK.


----------



## andysays (Mar 28, 2013)

Random said:


> "We"?


 
Yeah, we as a society.

Or are you going to argue that you or I can or should attempt to prohibit e.g. parents bringing their kids up according to their personal beliefs just because you or I don't agree with them?


----------



## TruXta (Mar 28, 2013)

andysays said:


> Yeah, we as a society.
> 
> Or are you going to argue that you or I can or should attempt to prohibit e.g. parents bringing their kids up according to their personal beliefs just because you or I don't agree with them?


Depends what kinda beliefs we're on about. If someone tries to bring up a bunch of cannibals, yes I'd try and prohibit that.


----------



## Random (Mar 28, 2013)

andysays said:


> Yeah, we as a society.
> 
> Or are you going to argue that you or I can or should attempt to prohibit e.g. parents bringing their kids up according to their personal beliefs just because you or I don't agree with them?


I reject the idea that we are some cohesive homogenous society, otherwise, as truxta points out, it leads to the ludicrous idea that "we" allow children to be hit. Or that "we" allow nuclear weapons, the sale of torture equipment and the invasion of foreign countries.

And no one's talked about "prohibiting" things. Jazz has tried to head off the idea that anyone should even take the matter up with people who've decided to believe medical lies. And I think it's equally important that anyone who's decided to harm their child based on lies should also be talked to. Unfortunately, in this atomised society, there's far too few opportunities for things like this to be discussed.


----------



## andysays (Mar 28, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Depends what kinda beliefs we're on about. If someone tries to bring up a bunch of cannibals, yes I'd try and prohibit that.


 
You don't need to prohibit that - it already has been.

I suppose the question is what we might try to prevent - are we justified in attempting to prevent anything which isn't prohibited by law, for instance?

ATM, parents have the legal right to bring up children according to their religious beliefs, as long as those don't conflict with the law, e.g. FGM. Are you suggesting we'd be justified in picketing Sunday schools because we don't agree with what's being taught in them?


----------



## TruXta (Mar 28, 2013)

andysays said:


> You don't need to prohibit that - it already has been.
> 
> I suppose the question is what we might try to prevent - are we justified in attempting to prevent anything which isn't prohibited by law, for instance?
> 
> ATM, parents have the legal right to bring up children according to their religious beliefs, as long as those don't conflict with the law, e.g. FGM. Are you suggesting we'd be justified in picketing Sunday schools because we don't agree with what's being taught in them?


Of course we would. We already are justified and entitled to do so. People mostly don't bother, which is another issue entirely.


----------



## Random (Mar 28, 2013)

andysays said:


> I suppose the question is what we might try to prevent - are we justified in attempting to prevent anything which isn't prohibited by law, for instance?


 I've already answered that question. Do you have a position? You seem to.


----------



## andysays (Mar 28, 2013)

Random said:


> I reject the idea that we are some cohesive homogenous society, otherwise, as truxta points out, it leads to the ludicrous idea that "we" allow children to be hit. Or that "we" allow nuclear weapons, the sale of torture equipment and the invasion of foreign countries.


 
I also reject the idea that we are some cohesive homogenous society, or I would if anyone was suggesting such a thing.

But "we", you and I, *do* allow children to be hit by their parents, unless you're either involved in a campaign to have the law changed or intervene physically to prevent it any time you witness it. Allowing it isn't the same as agreeing with or condoning it - I don't agree with it, but neither do I think it's for me to physically prevent it.



Random said:


> Jazz has tried to head off the idea that anyone should even take the matter up with people who've decided to believe medical lies. And I think it's equally important that anyone who's decided to harm their child based on lies should also be talked to. Unfortunately, in this atomised society, there's far too few opportunities for things like this to be discussed.


 
I agree with this 100%. Apart from anything else, selfishly refusing to have your kids immunised, for whatever reason, doesn't just harm them, it harms my kids too, it harms all of us


----------



## 8ball (Mar 28, 2013)

andysays said:


> ...selfishly refusing to have your kids immunised, for whatever reason, doesn't just harm them, it harms my kids too, it harms all of us


 
Game theory.  Best individual choice, risk-wise, is to be un-immunised and live in a population with herd immunity, thus avoiding the risks involved with both the disease and the immunisation.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 28, 2013)

8ball said:


> Game theory. Best individual choice, risk-wise, is to be un-immunised and live in a population with herd immunity, thus avoiding the risks involved with both the disease and the immunisation.


 
Good point that, but it only holds if there are non-negligible risks associated with immunisation. Interesting paper http://www.pnas.org/content/101/36/13391.abstract


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Mar 28, 2013)

andysays said:


> I agree with this 100%. Apart from anything else, selfishly refusing to have your kids immunised, for whatever reason, doesn't just harm them, it harms my kids too, it harms all of us


 
<edit cos it was stupid>If you don't vaccinate your kids, it makes you a super super extreme cunt who has no right to any form of freedom or decision making IMO.

The fact is that some people CANNOT have vaccinations, for whatever reasons, they are allergic, etc etc. These people rely on others having the vaccination in order not to die.

Imagine there is a kid in the class who is allergic to vaccines (child A), and another whose idoit parents have chosen not to immunise (child B); child B will pass on whatever disease to child A therefore compromising child A.

If child A happens to die, the parents of child B should be locked up for manslaughter.

These people are cunts of the highest order. And no I do not "respect their choice". You can run this herd immunity simulator here: http://www.software3d.com/Home/Vax/Immunity.php


Here's a nice condescending video on exactly why anti-vaxxers are demonstrably cunts and idiots.



Seriously though, this video is really funny.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 28, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Good point that, but it only holds if there are non-negligible risks associated with immunisation. Interesting paper http://www.pnas.org/content/101/36/13391.abstract


 
It is an interesting one - thanks!


----------



## Random (Mar 28, 2013)

andysays said:


> But "we", you and I, *do* allow children to be hit by their parents, unless you're either involved in a campaign to have the law changed or intervene physically to prevent it any time you witness it. Allowing it isn't the same as agreeing with or condoning it - I don't agree with it, but neither do I think it's for me to physically prevent it.


 So someone who witnesses a stabbing has "allowed" the stabbing, unless they've intervened physically?

Not sure why you keep on reverting to talk of banning and physical force. The topic I was discussing was whether a parent's choices were always "their own business".


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 28, 2013)

Well some people choose to abuse their children in which case it's not.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 28, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Good point that, but it only holds if there are non-negligible risks associated with immunisation. Interesting paper http://www.pnas.org/content/101/36/13391.abstract


What if they make you gay?


----------



## TruXta (Mar 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What if they make you gay?


 Isn't that kind of an upside in some ways?


----------



## andysays (Mar 28, 2013)

Random said:


> I've already answered that question. Do you have a position? You seem to.


 
Your answer to that question doesn't seem very clear, but maybe I'm being a bit slow today.

My answer is this, we *do* have a right to know if parents choose not to have their kids immunised, we *do* have a right to persuade them that they should have them immunised, for their kids benefit and for the wider social benefit (see FBL's post for an example of that), we *even* have the right to take the piss out of them (but not their kids) unmercilessly for being conspiraloons and selfish cunts.

We *don't* have the right to insist or compel them to have their kids immunised, or to impose or call for the imposition of any sanction on them or their kids if they chose not to (also see FBL's post for an example of that, unfortunately).

I hope that's clear; maybe you'd like to outline your position, just to help me understand it.


----------



## andysays (Mar 28, 2013)

8ball said:


> Game theory. Best individual choice, risk-wise, is to be un-immunised and live in a population with herd immunity, thus avoiding the risks involved with both the disease and the immunisation.


 
If you're trying to come up with an argument *against* selfish, anti-social individualism, game theory is perhaps not the best place to start...


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Mar 28, 2013)

andysays said:


> We *don't* have the right to insist or compel them to have their kids immunised, or to impose or call for the imposition of any sanction on them or their kids if they chose not to (also see FBL's post for an example of that, unfortunately)


 
Um.... yes we do, or at least we should. For the same reason we sanction people for driving dangerously. As a social species we totally have a right to decide what sorts of behaviour are sociably acceptable and not. That's called law.

What happens to adults who choose not to educate their children?


----------



## 8ball (Mar 28, 2013)

andysays said:


> If you're trying to come up with an argument *against* selfish, anti-social individualism, game theory is perhaps not the best place to start...


 
I wasn't.

Not that the anti-vaccine sorts are thinking along these lines - if you were an adherent to the 'game theory - fuck everyone else' school then you'd be best off keeping your mouth shut and singing the praises of vaccination.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 28, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Isn't that kind of an upside in some ways?


Note what political party he was previously involved with as well.


----------



## andysays (Mar 28, 2013)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Um.... yes we do, or at least we should. For the same reason we sanction people for driving dangerously. As a social species we totally have a right to decide what sorts of behaviour are sociably acceptable and not. That's called law. What happens to adults who choose not to educate their children?


 
That statement, in the context of vaccinations for kids, appears to be an argument for the removal of any right to the benefits of society for anyone who engages in any behaviour which the state has decided is not socially acceptable. Are you sure that's where you want to go?


----------



## Random (Mar 28, 2013)

andysays said:


> I hope that's clear; maybe you'd like to outline your position, just to help me understand it.


 Thanks. I can't see what it was in my earllier comments that started you off, though tbh.

My longer statement of position is that we need to take action to prevent harm, on a sliding scale based on the level of harm, and our ability to act. If we see someone beating a child it's clearly justifiable to step in and physically restrain them. But if we merely think that something may possibly be harmful, it's probably better to discuss it first before even developing a position.


----------



## andysays (Mar 28, 2013)

Random said:


> Thanks. I can't see what it was in my earllier comments that started you off, though tbh.
> 
> My longer statement of position is that we need to take action to prevent harm, on a sliding scale based on the level of harm, and our ability to act. If we see someone beating a child it's clearly justifiable to step in and physically restrain them. But if we merely think that something may possibly be harmful, it's probably better to discuss it first before even developing a position.


 
OK, we seem to have got our wires crossed. Apologies for whatever part of that was me.


----------



## Random (Mar 28, 2013)

andysays said:


> OK, we seem to have got our wires crossed. Apologies for whatever part of that was me.


As far as I'm concerned it's about whether or not what parents do to their children can ever be anyone else's "business."


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 28, 2013)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Exactly. If someone wants to selfishly harm their own children, or neglect them, that's up to them. It makes them a cunt, but it's up to the.


You think this doesn't also have social consequences?


----------



## TruXta (Mar 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Note what political party he was previously involved with as well.


I did notice that.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Mar 28, 2013)

andysays said:


> That statement, in the context of vaccinations for kids, appears to be an argument for the removal of any right to the benefits of society for anyone who engages in any behaviour which the state has decided is not socially acceptable. Are you sure that's where you want to go?


 
In Poland.  It's illegal not to vaccinate your dog against rabies.

Why do you think that is?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 28, 2013)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Um.... yes we do, or at least we should. For the same reason we sanction people for driving dangerously. As a social species we totally have a right to decide what sorts of behaviour are sociably acceptable and not. That's called law.
> 
> What happens to adults who choose not to educate their children?


Although child abuse and neglect  is just an individual decision?


----------



## andysays (Mar 28, 2013)

Random said:


> As far as I'm concerned it's about whether or not what parents do to their children can ever be anyone else's "business."


 
It's obviously other people's business. The suggestion that it wasn't was some bollocks offhand comment above, and to an extent we've (maybe mainly me) probably allowed ourselves to be diverted in addressing it.

I do think there is a valid discussion to be had about where the limits of other people's business are around how parents bring up their children, though maybe this isn't the place for it.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 28, 2013)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> In Poland. It's illegal not to vaccinate your dog against rabies.
> 
> Why do you think that is?


You confusing the state and society here.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Mar 28, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> Although child abuse and neglect is just an individual decision?


 
No.  Not at all.  But neglect is a sliding scale.  What I consider neglect may not be what you consider neglect or vice versa.  I'd say not vaccinating your child is neglect, but then, not everyone would agree with me.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Mar 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You confusing the state and society here.


 
You've lost me.  Even if it weren't illegal we should all be vaccinating our dogs against rabies for society.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 28, 2013)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> No.  Not at all.  But neglect is a sliding scale.  What I consider neglect may not be what you consider neglect or vice versa.  I'd say not vaccinating your child is neglect, but then, not everyone would agree with me.



You said abuse and neglect were purely individual decisions and contrasted them with not vaccinating which you said has a social consequence.


----------



## laptop (Mar 28, 2013)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> In Poland. It's illegal not to vaccinate your dog against rabies.
> 
> Why do you think that is?


 
Is it an evil plot to interfere in people's God-given right to deal with their pets as they please? Is it an attack on their God-given "dominion over the earth and the creatures in it?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 28, 2013)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> You've lost me. Even if it weren't illegal we should all be vaccinating our dogs against rabies for society.


the state = institutions eg parliament, police, army, courts
society = the people


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Mar 28, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> You said abuse and neglect were purely individual decisions and contrasted them with not vaccinating which you said has a social consequence.


Ok, well I clearly hadn't thought that one through.  Call it the anti-vax rage.....


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 28, 2013)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> You've lost me.


Your posts are predicated on the assumption that the state is the accurate reflection of the collective social interests and needs of civil society rather than being a  contested body and site of competing social interests. Something being law does not mean it then automatically is in the wider social interest - i'm sure that you can think of many examples of 'bad law'.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Mar 28, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> the state = institutions eg parliament, police, army, courts
> society = the people


Yeah I know that.  I'm not sure what you're trying to say.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 28, 2013)

> Exactly. If someone wants to selfishly harm their own children, or neglect them, that's up to them. It makes them a cunt, but it's up to them. If you don't vaccinate your kids, it makes you a super super extreme cunt who has no right to any form of freedom or decision making IMO.


 
if jimmy savile wants to nonce somebody, it makes him a cunt but it's up to him


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 28, 2013)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Yeah I know that. I'm not sure what you're trying to say.


you were confused by a post of butchers telling you you were confusing society and the state and i thought i would shed some light on your conundrum.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Mar 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Your posts are predicated on the assumption that the state is the accurate reflection of the collective social interests and needs of civil society rather than being a contested body and site of competing social interests. Something being law does not mean it then automatically is in the wider social interest - i'm sure that you can think of many examples of 'bad law'.


 
So Anarchism vs State law. No, I know that. Unfortunately not everyone reaches post conventional morality or understand what a social contract is. It's a conundrum.

That said, anti-vaxxers are cunts.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 28, 2013)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> So Anarchism vs State law. No, I know that. Unfortunately not everyone reaches post conventional morality. It's a conundrum.
> 
> That said, anti-vaxxers are cunts.


No, not anarchism vs state law  A point about the assumptions behind your posts and why they are wrong.


----------



## andysays (Mar 28, 2013)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> In Poland. It's illegal not to vaccinate your dog against rabies. Why do you think that is?


 
OK, I've just been back and re-read all the stuff on this thread about vaccination, and discovered that it was you who originally brought the subject up (no problem with that).

I suggest you continue to attempt to persuade your friend to get her kids vaccinated, but if she can't be persuaded, I really don't think you have the right to demand that she does. If your child is one of those who can't be vaccinated, you're probably better off not letting your kids play together, but if the mum is as gullible/selfish as you're suggesting (you haven't mentioned any reason why she doesn't want her kids vaccinated, although it's conceivable that a reason may exist), there might be other reasons why you wouldn't want them playing together.

I started to watch the video you linked to, but the whiny/sneery voice put me right off, so I didn't get very far (which is not to say that the content isn't correct); far enough to read this though:

"nothing in this video supports government forcibly injecting a substance into anyone's body"

I obviously didn't get to the part where it discusses Polish dogs and rabies, so I'm unable to answer that question...


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Mar 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> No, not anarchism vs state law  A point about the assumptions behind your posts and why they are wrong.


 
In you'll need to explain slowly and carefully becuase I still don't know exactly what your point was. What were my assumptions? I'm genuinely trying to work out what you're saying to me but we seem to be on different pages.



andysays said:


> I suggest you continue to attempt to persuade your friend to get her kids vaccinated, but if she can't be persuaded, I really don't think you have the right to demand that she does. If your child is one of those who can't be vaccinated, you're probably better off not letting your kids play together, but if the mum is as gullible/selfish as you're suggesting (you haven't mentioned any reason why she doesn't want her kids vaccinated, although it's conceivable that a reason may exist), there might be other reasons why you wouldn't want them playing together.
> 
> I started to watch the video you linked to, but the whiny/sneery voice put me right off, so I didn't get very far (which is not to say that the content isn't correct); far enough to read this though:


 
Fair enough. I don't have kids, but I worry for the little tyke, and of course the other kids who he plays with. Like I said, she's really gullible, always posting stuff about anti-vax sheeple truther theory blah blah. There's no way I can talk to her. Talking doesn't compute and the moment you disagree with her she goes on the attack, shouts at you, starts doing the "herp-a-derp" thing (I don't know what that means). She's seriously irrational.

You're right about the whiney sneery voice too. Here's the "classroom version". Same guy, less sneers. I'm afraid his voice is just as whiny (he can't help it, that's his voice)


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 28, 2013)

That's cos the guy who made it is a massive cunt - a right wing 'libertarian' who thinks tax is theft etc. He even says at the start that the anti-vaxination stuff is 'socialist' and those who engage with it are railing against a 'capitalist conspiracy' - which is completely upside down.

It's amusing that he goes on about them being ant-science too cos he's an anti-psychiatry type who's referenced texts produced by the church of $cientology to support his irrational beliefs.

Obviously the anti-vaxination types are moronic cunts but this kermit the frog soundalike cunt is just as bad.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Mar 28, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> That's cos the guy who made it is a massive cunt - a right wing 'libertarian' who thinks tax is theft etc. He even says at the start that the anti-vaxination stuff is 'socialist' and those who engage with it are railing against a 'capitalist conspiracy' - which is completely upside down.
> 
> It's amusing that he goes on about them being ant-science too cos he's an anti-psychiatry type who's referenced texts produced by the church of $cientology to support his irrational beliefs.
> 
> Obviously the anti-vaxination types are moronic cunts but this kermit the frog soundalike cunt is just as bad.


 
He may well be (I never picked up on the libertarian stuff btw), still, the video very accurately shows why herd immunisation is important. Stopped clock, once a day, etc etc.

It also kind of fits into the starting point of the thread, being that a small margin of the left seems to be well "conspiracy theory" like, homing in on these idoit fallacies. "It's BIG PHARMA" "Its the evil BANKING JOOOOOOZ", and seems to have quite a noisy voice, which is then exploited by right wing cunts that go "AHAHAHAHA LOOK AT THESE SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST DOLTS... "

(the right do the same with climate change denial ... ironic innit.)

I went down to occupy at the beginning, and towards the end, and by the end of it it was fucking EMBARRASSING. I had to run away (I think most sensible people did).


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 28, 2013)

Anyone going on about "big pharma" and "banking joooz" is right wing by definition. There was a large right wing element to Occupy.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 28, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> Anyone going on about "big pharma" and "banking joooz" is right wing by definition. There was a large right wing element to Occupy.


Big pharma means you're right wing? In what regard?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 28, 2013)

> It also kind of fits into the starting point of the thread, being that a margin of the left seems to be well "conspiracy theory" like, homing in on these idoit fallacies. "It's BIG PHARMA" "Its the evil BANKING JOOOOOOZ", and seems to have quite a noisy voice, which is then exploited by right wing cunts that go "AHAHAHAHA LOOK AT THESE SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST DOLTS... "


 

yep.

they're not on the left. in fact these types of movements promote fascist theories about the nature of society and what its "foremost problems" are and fascist solutions to those problems.

the EDL wouldn't be allowed on a left wing demo, if you're going to have no platform why the fuck are these people tolerated?


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Mar 28, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> Anyone going on about "big pharma" and "banking joooz" is right wing by definition. There was a large right wing element to Occupy.


 
Was there? Ask them, and they'll tell you they're left wing.  Which is annoying.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 28, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> Anyone going on about "big pharma" and "banking joooz" is right wing by definition. There was a large right wing element to Occupy.


 
However for a lot of young people who are just getting politically involved this may be one of the first sources of "alternative" politics they come into contact with.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 28, 2013)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Was there? Ask them, and they'll tell you they're left wing. Which is annoying.


 
Fascist movements have always adopted the appearance and the language and often some of the theories of the left.

Bring down the system!







"Germans! Give your answer to the system! Elect Hitler!"






"Workers of the mind and hand! Elect Hitler!"






"5,600,000 demand work! The need of the unemployed is the need of the whole people!"


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 28, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Big pharma means you're right wing? In what regard?


People on the left tend to have a thought out critique of the pharmacy industry, which is basically a critique of capitalism in general. There's a big strand in American conservatism and conspiraloon stuff that sees "big pharma" not as capitalist business but as a conspiracy to poison people. Tends to go along with anti vax stuff, belief in stuff like colloidal silver and a support for cottage industry as opposed to big business, traditional gender roles, homesteading, distrust of big government, anti communism etc. The Telegraph comments pages are full of these people.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Mar 28, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Fascist movements have always adopted the appearance and the language and often some of the theories of the left.


 
At this point you could say "no true Scotman".  I hate the term "left" and "right". They are really fucking unhelpful.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 28, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> People on the left tend to have a thought out critique of the pharmacy industry, which is basically a critique of capitalism in general. There's a big strand in American conservatism and conspiraloon stuff that sees "big pharma" not as capitalist business but as a conspiracy to poison people. Tends to go along with anti vax stuff, belief in stuff like colloidal silver and a support for cottage industry as opposed to big business, traditional gender roles, homesteading, distrust of big government, anti communism etc. The Telegraph comments pages are full of these people.


OK, just checking. Now put down that Ronnie Laing book and medicate your patients, nurse!


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 28, 2013)

TruXta said:


> OK, just checking. Now put down that Ronnie Laing book and medicate your patients, nurse!


Its all about Richard Bentall these days.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 28, 2013)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> At this point you could say "no true Scotman".  I hate the term "left" and "right". They are really fucking unhelpful.


What's unhelpful about them?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 28, 2013)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> He may well be (I never picked up on the libertarian stuff btw), still, the video very accurately shows why herd immunisation is important. Stopped clock, once a day, etc etc.
> 
> It also kind of fits into the starting point of the thread, being that a small margin of the left seems to be well "conspiracy theory" like, homing in on these idoit fallacies. "It's BIG PHARMA" "Its the evil BANKING JOOOOOOZ", and seems to have quite a noisy voice, which is then exploited by right wing cunts that go "AHAHAHAHA LOOK AT THESE SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST DOLTS... "
> 
> ...


 
Yeah I get that - wasn't really having a dig at you using the video, I just really hate that ignorant, sneering cunt


----------



## TruXta (Mar 28, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> Its all about Richard Bentall these days.


I really should get around to reading some of his stuff these days. What's your top recommendation?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 28, 2013)

TruXta said:


> I really should get around to reading some of his stuff these days. What's your top recommendation?


In terms of books, I've read "Madness Explained" which is very interesting but quite technical in places in terms of talking about stats. I'm currently reading "Doctoring the Mind" which is a more popular account. He's written quite a few research papers too. I like John Read too, he's a New Zealand psychologist doing work on trauma and psychosis.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 28, 2013)

Cheers, me dear.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 28, 2013)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> At this point you could say "no true Scotman". I hate the term "left" and "right". They are really fucking unhelpful.


you just have to look at things critically and use your brain. you're right about the occupy stuff. there was a massive contingent of that sort of thing in occupy. don't tar everyone with a critique of capitalist society with that brush though.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 28, 2013)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Was there? Ask them, and they'll tell you they're left wing.  Which is annoying.


There was a libertarian element (a lot of anon have a libertarian bent) and a big conspiraloon element who are very much on the right.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Mar 28, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> What's unhelpful about them?


 
I don't think they say very much tbh. economically? socially?
Ask the general public what it means to be left or right and I don't think you'll ever get a single matching answer.



Anyway, here's the latest shit from my anti-vax friend (who I see less and less of a friend) on a 25 comment thread, about monsanto and GMO:



> i really feel like ranting about the ignorance shown by the gay marriage supporters but i shan't as i'll be called an obnoxious heathen and probably banned from FB for pointing out the (not so) obvious



....


> I'm bisexual so shouldn't be posting that here as I have tutors etc but whatever. i don't give two hoots about marriage equality but i do give a shit about misdirection and people being willfully blind to the fate of their nations, their children and their own health based on being politically correct. I have no qualms about who loves/marries who, not my place to judge that BUT it is my place to point out that those who are happy clapping this gobshite are missing out on why the equality stuff has been thrown in to the spotlight. Sorry if this offends you but you're not likely to see it even after me explaining the obvious, but i hope that your support for this created issue makes you feel better about the laws you helped to pass while doing so.



....


> yeah agreed, and a lot just do as they are told/expected. I just fight for what is rightfully mine. The little bits on race/gender/sexuality are irrelevant in comparison to be honest and I'm more concerned for my child than myself.


....



> fro my perspetive if i had known my country was going to do that, I would be non stop badgering about it not happy clapping and sharing the same image everyone else was to look morally adequate. You do what you like with the gay stuff but my opinion remains.


 

And then it goes on, and on, and on, and oooooon......


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Mar 28, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> you just have to look at things critically and use your brain. you're right about the occupy stuff. there was a massive contingent of that sort of thing in occupy. don't tar everyone with a critique of capitalist society with that brush though.


 
Yeah I totally don't. Justsayin that there are a fuckton of people that do. A cunt is a cunt, I don't care how he chooses to label himself. Unless they're Tory. Then they're deffo a cunt.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 28, 2013)

Agree that the terms "left" and "right" are sometimes unhelpful but anyone going on about "banking jews" - well, can not see how this is not progressive (for lack of a better word)?

Trying to imitate a critique of capitalism/a workers' movement is nothing new for the "revolutionary right", have a look at the posters I put above.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 28, 2013)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Yeah I totally don't. Justsayin that there are a fuckton of people that do. A cunt is a cunt, I don't care how he chooses to label himself. Unless they're Tory. Then they're deffo a cunt.


 

A tory that pretends to be left wing and masks their toryism in left wing pro w/c clothing though, they need to be exposed.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 28, 2013)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> I don't think they say very much tbh. economically?  socially?
> Ask the general public what it means to be left or right and I don't think you'll ever get a single matching answer.
> 
> 
> ...


She appears to be on the right to me. The conservative right I was on about earlier. Anti equality, concerned with fate of the nation etc. The sort of person who would swing to fascism if push came to shove.

The left in contrast has an economic analysis and talks about class not nation.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Mar 28, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> She appears to be on the right to me. The conservative right I was on about earlier. Anti equality, concerned with fate of the nation etc. The sort of person who would swing to fascism if push came to shove.
> 
> The left in contrast has an economic analysis and talks about class not nation.



You'd say so...  but guess how she defines herself....  and with all honesty too.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 28, 2013)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> You'd say so...  but guess how she defines herself....  and with all honesty too.


A lot of people have contradictory views. People are complicated.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 28, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> A lot of people have contradictory views. People are complicated.


 
aye, some of mine definitely are.


----------



## andysays (Mar 28, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> That's cos the guy who made it is a massive cunt - a right wing 'libertarian' who thinks tax is theft etc. He even says at the start that the anti-vaxination stuff is 'socialist' and those who engage with it are railing against a 'capitalist conspiracy' - which is completely upside down. It's amusing that he goes on about them being ant-science too cos he's an anti-psychiatry type who's referenced texts produced by the church of $cientology to support his irrational beliefs. Obviously the anti-vaxination types are moronic cunts but this kermit the frog soundalike cunt is just as bad.


 
As I said above, I couldn't make it very far through that vid, so thanks for enduring it so the rest of us didn't have to 

I did notice the "anti-vaccination is socialist" trip, just, but my reaction was more physical than intellectual - like when someone's running their nails down a fucking blackboard.

Another example, if we needed one, of how my enemy's enemy is not automatically my friend...


----------



## 8ball (Mar 28, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> aye, some of mine definitely are.


 
Some of your people?

Up to you to sort them out then!


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 28, 2013)

8ball said:


> Some of your people?
> 
> Up to you to sort them out then!


 
some of my views i mean.


----------



## elbows (Mar 28, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> However for a lot of young people who are just getting politically involved this may be one of the first sources of "alternative" politics they come into contact with.


 
Exactly. Thats the only reason I paid so much attention to the conspiracy theorists in recent years, we cannot afford to write off people whose politics and sense of fairness may actually be pointing in the right direction, and is simply obscured and misguided by a range of things. If they've been seduced by dangerous explanations and 'solutions' then we have to figure out how to undo that, not just give up. For at the moment there are not very many dramatic tests, moments of truth where they will be called to make political decisions or stand up and be counted. But that may change one day and the more we've practiced how to appeal to their decency and loftiest ideals and steer them away from the dodgy shit the better.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 28, 2013)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> <edit cos it was stupid>If you don't vaccinate your kids, it makes you a super super extreme cunt who has no right to any form of freedom or decision making IMO.
> 
> The fact is that some people CANNOT have vaccinations, for whatever reasons, they are allergic, etc etc. These people rely on others having the vaccination in order not to die.
> 
> ...


 

Legally you are trampling all over the most fundamental principles of common law and medical ethics here.

The principle is *"the body is inviolate"*. This means you cannot go injecting needles into people without their consent, however much good you think it will do them, or however unintelligent you consider them.

There is absolutely no justification in law for forcing a potentially harmful medical treatment onto one person so that someone else may benefit.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 28, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> Legally you are trampling all over the most fundamental principles of common law and medical ethics here.
> 
> The principle is *"the body is inviolate"*. This means you cannot go injecting needles into people without their consent, however much good you think it will do them, or however unintelligent you consider them.
> 
> There is absolutely no justification in law for forcing a potentially harmful medical treatment onto one person so that someone else may benefit.


 
He is not trampling over anything he is saying your pseudo-science shouldn't be given airspace or the time of day. Without the guff the likes of you promote there would be no anti-vaccinationists.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 28, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> Legally you are trampling all over the most fundamental principles of common law and medical ethics here.
> 
> The principle is *"the body is inviolate"*. This means you cannot go injecting needles into people without their consent, however much good you think it will do them, or however unintelligent you consider them.
> 
> There is absolutely no justification in law for forcing a potentially harmful medical treatment onto one person so that someone else may benefit.


Yeah there is. Mental health act. Not applicable here though.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 28, 2013)

sihhi said:


> He is not trampling over anything he is saying your pseudo-science shouldn't be given airspace or the time of day.


 
no, I'm afraid that FLB was very clearly saying that no-one should have the right to refuse vaccinations, and that refusal to vaccinate should leave people open to criminal convictions.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 28, 2013)

Blagsta said:


> Yeah there is. Mental health act. Not applicable here though.


 
I'm not so sure


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 28, 2013)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> He may well be (I never picked up on the libertarian stuff btw), still, the video very accurately shows why herd immunisation is important. Stopped clock, once a day, etc etc.
> 
> It also kind of fits into the starting point of the thread, being that a small margin of the left seems to be well "conspiracy theory" like, homing in on these idoit fallacies. "It's BIG PHARMA" "Its the evil BANKING JOOOOOOZ", and seems to have quite a noisy voice, which is then exploited by right wing cunts that go "AHAHAHAHA LOOK AT THESE SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST DOLTS... "
> 
> ...


Hang on a minute, you were the one accusing people of bullying Jazzz on the other thread just yesterday, when people were pointing out his anti-semitism.

The reason so many of us criticise Jazzz over his shit is precisely because they do infect things like Occupy.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 28, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> Hang on a minute, you were the one accusing people of bullying Jazzz on the other thread just yesterday, when people were pointing out his anti-semitism.


And if FLB doesn't believe some 'conspiracy' stuff (for want of better phrase) he must also believe all of it anti-semitic? Because any attack on something you don't like is fair?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 29, 2013)

What do you call a theory that talks about "banking jews" Jazzz?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 29, 2013)

​“W*ho is Adolf Hitler?* The man from the people, for the people! The German front soldier who risked his life in 48 battles for Germany!​​*What does Adolf Hitler want?* Freedom and food for every decent working German! The gallows for profiteers, black marketeers and exploiters, regardless of religious faith or race!​​*Why is Adolf Hitler not allowed to speak?* Because he is ruthless in uncovering the rulers of the German economy, the international bank Jews and their lackeys, the Democrats, Marxists, Jesuits, and Free Masons!​​Because he wants to free the workers from the domination of big money!​​Working Germans! Demand the lifting of the illegal ban on his speaking!​


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 29, 2013)

*



			In ancient days we see him carrying on his business in the trading centers of the Mediterranean. In the Middle Ages he provided money for German nobles and free cities. Today he rules the banks and stock exchanges of the whole world, forcing the nations under the yoke of financial capitalism. The power of this people of 15 million rests on these international relations.
		
Click to expand...

* 
does this sound familiar to you? if it does, that's probably because it is. mystical bollocks about the middle ages linked to today. you've spent so much time on this over the years Jazzz, do you not realise the provenance of this stuff?



> They build hate against the awakening peoples with all the resources at their disposal. They depend most heavily, as we have shown, on world Bolshevism and world democracy. With ice-cold, devilish calculation, they unleashed a new world war that they hoped would defeat the national-authoritarian nations. After defeating these nations, the way would once again be open to establish [...] domination of the remaining nations.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 29, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> What do you call a theory that talks about "banking jews" Jazzz?


Well I don't know, but it would be family stuff. One of my ancestors was Mordechai Maisel


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Mar 29, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> Hang on a minute, you were the one accusing people of bullying Jazzz on the other thread just yesterday, when people were pointing out his anti-semitism.
> 
> The reason so many of us criticise Jazzz over his shit is precisely because they do infect things like Occupy.


 
Fair enough. I totally get the criticism. It seems to be infecting plenty of my friends more sensible faculties too. My point on that thread was it's not what you say but how you say it. And you'll remember that I criticised both sides. It wasn't the content I was criticising, it was the tone of the thread... You aint never gonna win over opinions when putting an argument across like a holier-than-thou twat (not you, just people generally). Remember, loads of people read the boards, so actually opinions are formed not just on the content, but how that content is put across.

People poison their own wells by adopting such an attacking tone, and makes other people reading (not just the recipient of the reply) less liekly to listen. I understand that people get tired repeating the same old shit, and that it's frustrating and annoying, but anyone can view these boards and plenty of lurkers base their decisions and ideas on the viewpoints put across here. Aggression is really unhelpful. You aint never gonna win Jazz over, you will never change his mind, so when people write responses they should really be thinking of the anonymous readers who will be taking it all in. THAT was my problem.



Jazzz said:


> And if FLB doesn't believe some 'conspiracy' stuff (for want of better phrase) he must also believe all of it anti-semitic? Because any attack on something you don't like is fair?


 
What are you talking about?

Banking "joooooz" is clearly anti Semitic. My mum's Hungarian - the stuff she comes out with is shocking, and she's generally a very nice lady. I tell her off about it, and say stuff like "mum... don't you think it's a bit more complex than that", and you know what - she fucking concedes, sometimes, but I take my victories where I find them.

So Jazz, tbh what you say is nothing new, it's nothing revolutionary and I've heard it all before. It's a deeply ingrained part of a paranoid aspect Eastern European culture (which has suffered war after war), with myth passed down form Babcia to Babcia.

The difference between my mum and you is that your conviction is unshakable. It doesn't matter what people say to you, YOU KNOW. It's a shame but it seems to me that your ability to trust anyone or to be even a little open minded anything has disappeared. You just never seem to concede. I don't think you're a twat Jazz, but your seemingly unshakable belief is really frustrating. For alot of people talking to you about any of this is like trying to talk to a fundamentalist Christian.

That's the worst part about this conspiracy stuff IMO. Is that it shuts down critical faculties and turns otherwise decent people who I think do have a soft heart, and do want the best for humanity turn into paranoid, defensive blame seekers.

It's a real fucking shame tbh.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 29, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> Well I don't know, but it would be family stuff. One of my ancestors was Mordechai Maisel


 
and you don't think there's anything wrong with theories that talk about jews in banking?


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 29, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> and you don't think there's anything wrong with theories that talk about jews in banking?


????


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 29, 2013)

Well if somebody mentions "banking jews" as part of a theory don't you think there's something wrong with what they're saying?


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 29, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Well if somebody mentions "banking jews" as part of a theory don't you think there's something wrong with what they're saying?


I very likely would! What has race got to do with it?


----------



## existentialist (Mar 29, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> I very likely would! What has race got to do with it?


Indeed.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> I very likely would! What has race got to do with it?


Yes, the cry of anti-semtism is exactly what the Social justice magazine and the hemphill articles faced in order to shut down the expression of their objective fact based views.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 29, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> I very likely would! What has race got to do with it?


 
well how come you haven't said anything about it whenever it's been pointed out that this is exactly what these theories are going on about?


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 30, 2013)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Fair enough. I totally get the criticism. It seems to be infecting plenty of my friends more sensible faculties too. My point on that thread was it's not what you say but how you say it. And you'll remember that I criticised both sides. It wasn't the content I was criticising, it was the tone of the thread... You aint never gonna win over opinions when putting an argument across like a holier-than-thou twat (not you, just people generally). Remember, loads of people read the boards, so actually opinions are formed not just on the content, but how that content is put across.
> 
> People poison their own wells by adopting such an attacking tone, and makes other people reading (not just the recipient of the reply) less liekly to listen. I understand that people get tired repeating the same old shit, and that it's frustrating and annoying, but anyone can view these boards and plenty of lurkers base their decisions and ideas on the viewpoints put across here. Aggression is really unhelpful. You aint never gonna win Jazz over, you will never change his mind, so when people write responses they should really be thinking of the anonymous readers who will be taking it all in. THAT was my problem.


Well I don't think people really were being all that aggressive/rude to Jazzz. Sihhi for example certainly wasn't.

I do accept your wider point to a certain extent, but as on the feminism thread I think you're going too far.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 30, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> Well I don't think people really were being all that aggressive/rude to Jazzz. Sihhi for example certainly wasn't.


 
of course they weren't, sihhi was extremely polite. however i think sometimes people dont get how strong and visceral reactions to things like anti-semitism, homophobia, sexism, racism can be if they've never experienced it themselves or had loved ones who have, therefore it looks like bullying to them even though it's not bullying, it's a perfectly reasonable response because the deliberate promotion of this stuff under the guise of some sort of learned theory about society should never ever be tolerated.


----------



## ymu (Mar 30, 2013)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> He may well be (I never picked up on the libertarian stuff btw), still, the video very accurately shows why herd immunisation is important. Stopped clock, once a day, etc etc.
> 
> It also kind of fits into the starting point of the thread, being that a small margin of the left seems to be well "conspiracy theory" like, homing in on these idoit fallacies. "It's BIG PHARMA" "Its the evil BANKING JOOOOOOZ", and seems to have quite a noisy voice, which is then exploited by right wing cunts that go "AHAHAHAHA LOOK AT THESE SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST DOLTS... "
> 
> ...


I don't think that this is a left thing in any way, shape or form. Some of the language may sound leftist, and arguably it's where a lot of the anti-imperialists have ended up, or where those who would have been anti-imperialist go these days, but it is primarily a right-libertarian pursuit.

And they're mostly climate change deniers too. Like the rest of the hard right. It's not one of Jazzz's hobby horses but a lot of them also bang out climate conspiracy, eg Alex Jones.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 30, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> Well I don't think people really were being all that aggressive/rude to Jazzz. Sihhi for example certainly wasn't.
> 
> I do accept your wider point to a certain extent, but as on the feminism thread I think you're going too far.


Part of the problem here is that responding as if he has been attacked, rather than merely disagreed with, seems to be a fairly standard part of Jazzz 's debating repertoire. 

And the beauty of that technique is that it is very good at becoming a self fulfilling prophesy: there is little as irritating as being accused of attacking someone when you haven't, and nothing quite so contemptible as the eager victim...


----------



## rekil (Apr 5, 2013)

The Onion on form.



> The bestselling author of “The Spooky Truth” series wants to teach kids that pulling back the curtain on what the government doesn’t want us to know can be fun!


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Apr 5, 2013)

This thread got bumped?


My loon mate unfreinded me last night for pointing out that land owners, hoarding reservoirs full of water in drought areas are fucking selfish arseholes.

Cue unfriending. I actually think she's got mental health problems. Bare paranoid about everything, loads of cognitive dissonance. I'll paste up the transcript later.


----------



## sihhi (May 23, 2013)

Pulitzer Prize winner endorses Icke on Radio 4. Weird.

And now : "Woolwich False Flag Bullshit - Masses are in a trance" on Icke's website


----------



## Idris2002 (May 24, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Masses are in a trance"


----------



## CrabbedOne (Oct 14, 2016)

In Psypag Special issue: The psychology of conspiracy theories

A couple of years old with some interesting papers. 

I doubt they foresaw a US Presidential candidate would be peddling a fistful of Alt Right conspiracy theories he probably privately thinks laughable very successfully to an excited main stream audience. People have had enough of experts and appear hungry for any old bullshit that confirms their prejudices.


----------



## Idaho (Oct 14, 2016)

I think politics has become the battle ground for the application of the heuristics and biases understanding of the last couple of decades. Unfortunately it is the dark side, the knee jerk, the irrational, which is being used most effectively.


----------



## 8den (Oct 14, 2016)

At the moment Trump's talk of CLinton stealing the election with the help of the media and "international bankers" means he's now just pivoted appeal only to the alt and far right.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 14, 2016)

8den said:


> At the moment Trump's talk of CLinton stealing the election with the help of the media and "international bankers" means he's now just pivoted appeal only to the alt and far right.



I guess it was only a matter of time before the mask slipped.


----------



## nuffsaid (Oct 17, 2016)

British conspiracy theorist found dead at flat in Poland


----------



## alan_ (Oct 17, 2016)

doo doo doo doo
doo doo doo doo


----------



## Lurdan (Oct 17, 2016)

> Max Spiers, 39, was found dead on a sofa in an apartment in Warsaw, Poland, where he was due to give a talk about UFOs and other conspiracy theories.
> 
> Friends claimed he died after he “vomited a black liquid” and supporters have called for an inquiry into his death.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 17, 2016)

Lurdan said:


>


Too much barszcz from the bar mleczny? Just a theory!


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 17, 2016)

Why is this 5 month old news suddenly news? _Status Quo_?


----------



## bimble (Oct 17, 2016)

8den said:


> At the moment Trump's talk of CLinton stealing the election with the help of the media and "international bankers" means he's now just pivoted appeal only to the alt and far right.


But talk about the MSM and the bilderburgs and hidden hands rigging the system appeal to all sorts of people, not just the far right, I think Trump has probably found support using this 'outsider' angle also from people who don't fit your portrait.


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 17, 2016)

butchersapron - while we're on the subject of all things conspiraloon, do you know a good source debunking Antony C. Sutton's claims about Western-USSR links?

(for those of you watching at home, Sutton was a very special loon who believed that USSR was a gigantic false flag run by . . . the West itself. Well there's more to it than that, but you get the broad strokes there, I think).


----------



## 8den (Oct 17, 2016)

bimble said:


> But talk about the MSM and the bilderburgs and hidden hands rigging the system appeal to all sorts of people, not just the far right, I think Trump has probably found support using this 'outsider' angle also from people who don't fit your portrait.



I'd agree with that to a degree. Post 9/11 in the Bush years, alot of left wing people went full kool aid on conspiraloon stuff. But generally the audience that is appealed to by this sort of rhetoric are this disadvantaged far right.


----------



## hot air baboon (Oct 17, 2016)

..according to the telegraph he was a UFO "expert"...


----------



## Lurdan (Oct 17, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Why is this 5 month old news suddenly news? _Status Quo_?


Because the Mail ran a story about him yesterday and the Standard (among others) picked it up a few hours ago. 

That said the hours do often seem like months here at Urban.


----------



## kebabking (Oct 17, 2016)

The loons are currently on Radio Four - I think I can hear Eddie Mair struggling to contain his mirth...

The bloke was, simply, mental.


----------



## Convention (Oct 17, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> Why is this 5 month old news suddenly news? _Status Quo_?


I knew Rick Parfitt was in on it.


----------



## editor (Oct 17, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> British conspiracy theorist found dead at flat in Poland





> Max made his living out of investigating UFO sightings and alleged cover-ups.


How is that even possible? Wait, I know the answer. Fools and money etc.

But wait. Why hasn't this story been covered up by the media?


----------



## bi0boy (Oct 17, 2016)

They interviewed his friend on Radio 4 on the PM programme. The guy reckoned he himself was in danger and his recent sickness on a flight was due to him having been secretly poisoned with multiple snake venoms. I was a bit surprised that the BBC ran the piece as if they were speaking to someone who wasn't a few steel girders short of a fireworthy skyscraper.


----------



## andysays (Oct 17, 2016)

editor said:


> How is that even possible? Wait, I know the answer. Fools and money etc.
> 
> But wait. Why hasn't this story been covered up by the media?



It's a warning to anyone else who might be tempted to reveal all the secrets that *they* don't want us to know, obviously...

Wake up sheeple!!1!


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 17, 2016)

That thing thing where you start to like what the conspiracy does


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 17, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> They interviewed his friend on Radio 4 on the PM programme. The guy reckoned he himself was in danger and his recent sickness on a flight was due to him having been secretly poisoned with multiple snake venoms. I was a bit surprised that the BBC ran the piece as if they were speaking to someone who wasn't a few steel girders short of a fireworthy skyscraper.


It got weirder and weirder what with extra terrestrials and other planes of being until Eddie Mair sent him up rotten with that sotto voce: _And then what happened? _I don't know how he managed not to guffaw. I expect there will be complaints.


----------



## tim (Oct 18, 2016)

bluescreen said:


> It got weirder and weirder what with extra terrestrials and other planes of being until Eddie Mair sent him up rotten with that sotto voce: _And then what happened? _I don't know how he managed not to guffaw. I expect there will be complaints.



Complaints that we will never be told about.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 18, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> butchersapron - while we're on the subject of all things conspiraloon, do you know a good source debunking Antony C. Sutton's claims about Western-USSR links?
> 
> (for those of you watching at home, Sutton was a very special loon who believed that USSR was a gigantic false flag run by . . . the West itself. Well there's more to it than that, but you get the broad strokes there, I think).


I've not read any Sutton directly, whilst being aware of his claims regarding US investment in the early USSR - which i think is a pretty unspectacular claim - of the type like the same USSR training and arming the Wermacht in the same period, or elements of German capital simultanteously funding various far right groups. I wasn't aware he had expanded this into the larger claim that you outline. It is a common understanding amongst the historical ultra-left thought that the situation post-war was mutually beneficial fake opposition - which didn't help those killed in the proxy wars really being dead mind. Sutton though, is now forever in the loons clutches.


----------



## nuffsaid (Oct 18, 2016)

editor said:


> How is that even possible? Wait, I know the answer. Fools and money etc.
> 
> But wait. Why hasn't this story been covered up by the media?



I checked out, briefly, some his comments on youtube hoping for some insightful info on our bankster overlords and their nefarious ways, but honestly, the guy just rambled on, he even sounded drunk, slurring his speech, and couldn't put a coherent argument across about anything. He should have gone into politics.


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 18, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> I've not read any Sutton directly, whilst being aware of his claims regarding US investment in the early USSR - which i think is a pretty unspectacular claim - of the type like the same USSR training and arming the Wermacht in the same period, or elements of German capital simultanteously funding various far right groups. I wasn't aware he had expanded this into the larger claim that you outline. It is a common understanding amongst the historical ultra-left thought that the situation post-war was mutually beneficial fake opposition - which didn't help those killed in the proxy wars really being dead mind. Sutton though, is now forever in the loons clutches.


Oh, he went Full Loon alright.

"In 1973, Sutton published a popularized, condensed version of the sections of the forthcoming third volume relevant to military technology called _National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union_ after which he was forced out of the Hoover Institution"

Antony C. Sutton - Wikipedia


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 18, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> Oh, he went Full Loon alright.
> 
> "In 1973, Sutton published a popularized, condensed version of the sections of the forthcoming third volume relevant to military technology called _National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union_ after which he was forced out of the Hoover Institution"
> 
> Antony C. Sutton - Wikipedia


Would explain why i only see him being quoted/used by certain types today. A quick check on who has mentioned him on here reveals one hardcore conspiracy type who was always banging on about _international bankers, _one open racist and dr jazzz (combining the first two in one package) pretending to have read one of his books. A couple of one hit wonder loons passing through as well.


----------



## bimble (Oct 18, 2016)

Thread on the Paris attacks just got closed by FridgeMagnet because a conspiraloon appeared promising to reveal who really dunnit and everyone had run out of patience with him.

Fridge said that recent political changes have reduced the need for such action to be taken (closing threads due to the appearance of such theorisers).
What political changes are these? Looks to me like the opposite is true, if anything the political climate right now is more fertile ground for such hypotheses than ever. See for instance the Trump.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 18, 2016)

It got better. Then it got worse.


----------



## existentialist (Oct 18, 2016)

TBH, I think the "getting better" bit was probably fairly unique to Urban. I quite regularly run up against conspiraloons on Facebook, and it doesn't seem to have abated. I think they're more cautious about giving it the full-on remote control laserdrone nanothermite 9/11 bollocks, but they're still in there with the usual guff around Big Pharma, and it's only when a couple find each other that they start riffing on the whole "skyscrapers can't fall DOWN, stoopid" gig.

Scratch 'em and they show themselves - you only have to post even a slightly moderate or non-committal comment on their Big Reveal (who, moi?), and they kick straight off into the OPEN YORE IYES babble.


----------



## squirrelp (Oct 18, 2016)

I would have thought that with europhysicsnews.org declaring the collapse of the WTC an open scientific question urban75 might wish to reevaluate this rather subjective criteria of censorship


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 18, 2016)

existentialist said:


> TBH, I think the "getting better" bit was probably fairly unique to Urban. I quite regularly run up against conspiraloons on Facebook, and it doesn't seem to have abated. I think they're more cautious about giving it the full-on remote control laserdrone nanothermite 9/11 bollocks, but they're still in there with the usual guff around Big Pharma, and it's only when a couple find each other that they start riffing on the whole "skyscrapers can't fall DOWN, stoopid" gig.
> 
> Scratch 'em and they show themselves - you only have to post even a slightly moderate or non-committal comment on their Big Reveal (who, moi?), and they kick straight off into the OPEN YORE IYES babble.


I mean that there was a point post when the rule was posted when it simply wasn't necessary to have to moderate on that basis. I don't think that any of the reasons why people are attracted to this stuff went away. Perhaps there just weren't any appropriate focus points for a few years, for the sort of people who tend to visit Urban.


----------



## existentialist (Oct 18, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> I would have thought that with europhysicsnews.org declaring the collapse of the WTC an open scientific question urban75 might wish to reevaluate this rather subjective criteria of censorship


I think you probably know that's being disingenuous.

Anyway, this is the europhysicsnews.org comment on the matter:


> *NOTE FROM THE EDITORS* This feature is somewhat different from our usual purely scientific articles, in that it contains some speculation. However, given the timing and the importance of the issue, we consider that this feature is sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers. Obviously, the content of this article is the responsibility of the authors.


You are not covering yourself in glory, here.

ETA: not to mention committing the Conspiraloon Faux Pas of endlessly decrying Big Science, and then happily clothing yourself in [what you think is] scientific respectability when you think it suits you to.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 18, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> I would have thought that with europhysicsnews.org declaring the collapse of the WTC an open scientific question urban75 might wish to reevaluate this rather subjective criteria of censorship


I appreciate that you are relatively new here so may not appreciate that cross-threading is not appreciated, let alone posting stuff that's against the rules anyway.

Let's be clear here - *never post any of it again*.


----------



## squirrelp (Oct 18, 2016)

yes, they say it is important, sufficiently technical, and merits publication.

I think it is ridiculous that urban75 would not consider itself an appropriate forum for something which europhysicsnews.org thought was important and scientific


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 18, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> yes, they say it is important, sufficiently technical, and merits publication.
> 
> I think it is ridiculous that urban75 would not consider itself an appropriate forum for something which europhysicsnews.org thought was important and scientific


I think it's ridiculous you hold up a 9/11 loon as an authoritative source


----------



## squirrelp (Oct 18, 2016)

I'm not cross threading. I'm pointing out that what people consider 'conspiracy theory' might be in tomorrow's science journals.

anyway, as you were.


----------



## existentialist (Oct 18, 2016)

squirrelp said:


> yes, they say it is important, sufficiently technical, and merits publication.
> 
> I think it is ridiculous that urban75 would not consider itself an appropriate forum for something which europhysicsnews.org thought was important and scientific


They didn't. That editorial sidebar makes that abundantly clear. 

You're just digging yourself a bigger hole - this wide-eyed obfuscation might work nicely on the gullible, but on the hard-eyed loonspotters on Urban, it doesn't stand a hope in hell.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 18, 2016)

If people would avoid referring to the existing posts that would be grand, so we can have an end to it all. Thank you in advance.


----------



## phillm (Oct 18, 2016)

Has Jazzz returned having had a breakdown ?


----------



## bimble (Oct 18, 2016)

squirrelp whodunnit?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 18, 2016)

No. Really.


----------

