The Fortean/paranormal/conspiracy thread

[big mickey]

It could be fair to say Kennedy was a possible inside job, but the whole grassy knowl stuff is codswallop, he was most definatly shot from the book depository.

 

Now wether Oswald was the shooter is another matter, he most probably was but I for one wouldn't be shocked if it was an internal assassination.

[Loki]

Wood is not a crack pot with a chip on her shoulder who lives in a dumpster and eats out of discarded dog food cans. Whether you believe in her ideas or don't (and I know next to nothing about them so don't really have an opinion on free energy technology) you have to acknowledge that she's an intelligent person who's heart is in the right place, even if you think she's delusional. She risked her career for her beliefs.

 

Yeah, but so what? She's still wrong, and 9/11 was still not an inside job. Her intelligence and sincerity is entirely irrelevant.

 

I don't really know what you expect here. The onus is on the conspiracy theorists prove something was amiss. The onus is not on everyone else to disprove them. TripleGay is well within his rights to accept the majority view of the scientific community. He doesn't have to spend weeks researching it.

 

I agree that both the US and the UK governments have subsequently used 9/11 as a political tool to further their own agendas, but I do NOT see any reason to suspect that is anything other than opportunism.

 

I'd pose two questions to you - and bear in mind you've been perfectly reasonable so far, to your credit.

 

Can you see the difference between believing that some elements of the events of that day have been obscured or rewritten by the authorities, and believing that the whole thing was somehow pulled off by the authorities?

 

Do you accept that until some definitive, incontrovertible proof is establish that undermines the official story of how the towers fell, there is no real reason to doubt the truth as generally acknowledged?

Edited September 11, 2011 by Loki

[Horrorshow]

Yeah, but so what? She's still wrong, and 9/11 was still not an inside job. Her intelligence and sincerity is entirely irrelevant.

 

I don't really know what you expect here. The onus is on the conspiracy theorists prove something was amiss. The onus is not on everyone else to disprove them. TripleGay is well within his rights to accept the majority view of the scientific community. He doesn't have to spend weeks researching it.

 

I agree that both the US and the UK governments have subsequently used 9/11 as a political tool to further their own agendas, but I do NOT see any reason to suspect that is anything other than opportunism.

 

I'd pose two questions to you - and bear in mind you've been perfectly reasonable so far, to your credit.

 

Can you see the difference between believing that some elements of the events of that day have been obscured or rewritten by the authorities, and believing that the whole thing was somehow pulled off by the authorities?

 

Do you accept that until some definitive, incontrovertible proof is establish that undermines the official story of how the towers fell, there is no real reason to doubt the truth as generally acknowledged?

 

To answer your first question, yes absolutely I can. Definitely. But I also believe it would be easier for an internal U.S. agency to perpetrate the atrocities of 9/11 than an external enemy of the Americans. I accept that that isn't a popular belief around these parts.

 

To answer your second question, again yes. Although it can be debated that such definitive, incontrovertible proof exists.

 

I'm not on a crusade to convert anyone's thinking or capture their hearts and minds. I've seen evidence presented from both sides of the 9/11 fence. I've taken a small amount of time to process said data in the limited way that I can to come to my own conclusions. Said conclusions have put me in the minority, particularly here in the vitriolic world of UKFF. I can live with that.

 

My reasons for contributing to this thread was to suggest two things. Firstly, that not every "truther" is a loon and that some very credible people suspect that there is something wrong with the official 9/11 story. Secondly, that it's fairly important for those of us who live in a democracy to not necessarily accept every last word our governments tell us. Look at Watergate for example. It's not unprecedented for governments to lie and deliberately obfuscate important facts. My personal opinion is that it's not a reach to think that powerful men wouldn't murder their own citizens if there were enough chips on the table to warrant it.

 

To echo a previous statement of your own, I don't really know what you expect here either. We have different beliefs on a controversial topic. You perceive my belief to be wrong. I respect your belief because unlike many you've made an effort to cultivate it. None of us are privy to The Big Picture. All sorts of shady things happen behind closed doors. Money makes the world go round. Powerful men will do a lot to maintain and further their positions. History has unquestionably shown us that.

[Horrorshow]

It could be fair to say Kennedy was a possible inside job, but the whole grassy knowl stuff is codswallop, he was most definatly shot from the book depository.

 

Now wether Oswald was the shooter is another matter, he most probably was but I for one wouldn't be shocked if it was an internal assassination.

 

So you'd concede that the possibility exists that JFK was assassinated by an internal U.S. agency and that said murder was covered up the authorities to protect themselves from their crime?

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1...78329757426695#

 

Are you a proponent of the Single Bullet Theory, big mickey?

[big mickey]

The main thing of the JFK assassination is that as far as conspiracy theories go it's doable.

1 guy, 1 gun, 1 victim. When you look at the scale of something of 9/11 something like that is far far more complex it's almost unthinkable.

 

As far as the single bullet goes, bullets do strange things inside people sometimes.

[Devon Malcolm]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gcaq4ElAJrE

[Horrorshow]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gcaq4ElAJrE

 

[Smeg_&_The_Heads]

As far as 9/11 goes I suppose the most believable (not saying I do) conspiracy theory is the US government had a tip off it was going to happen but did nothing to stop it.

 

Again not saying I believe that but I wouldn't be very shocked if it ever officially came out they did know.

 

Wasn't there also conspiracy theories that the US government knew about Pearl Harbor in advance but did nothing as it was the best way to get the US citizens behind them getting into the war

Edited September 11, 2011 by Smeg_&_The_Heads

[King Pitcos]

Firstly, that not every "truther" is a loon and that some very credible people suspect that there is something wrong with the official 9/11 story.

And you tried to back that up by namedropping a woman whose theory goes "Look at this photo, obviously the Death Star did 9/11." There's yet to be shown any evidence that not every truther is a loon or that any people at all credibly believe the inside job/evil global elite stories. In all of this "independent research" by supposedly credible scientists pointing to internal conspiracy, is any of it actually verified by the scientific method and peer review? Or is it just a load of Bad Science shite they're peddling because it gets them money and/or attention from nutters?

 

Secondly, that it's fairly important for those of us who live in a democracy to not necessarily accept every last word our governments tell us. Look at Watergate for example. It's not unprecedented for governments to lie and deliberately obfuscate important facts.

Nobody's arguing this, though, are they? Loons always throw that sort of stuff around as though somehow it validates their nonsensical beliefs in space guns and hologram planes and the like. It doesn't. There's a world of difference between "yes, prime minister" and "actually the planes really landed at Bohemian Grove and everybody got raped and eaten." Please do look at Watergate, since you mentioned it. That scandal's almost enough to make anyone think the Republicans and Democrats are opposing political parties rather than sham fronts for the same consortium of evil Jews who control everything.

 

My personal opinion is that it's not a reach to think that powerful men wouldn't murder their own citizens if there were enough chips on the table to warrant it.

If they were that powerful, why couldn't they fly a plane into building 7 or fake the WMDs in Iraq as well? They're a bit half-arsed, your Illuminati.

[Surf Digby]

Here's an interesting news item:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14497641

 

I'm sure this wil spark another round of UFO crash stories

I'm surprised to see no linking of this with the Aurora project.

 

Anyone else on here watch BBC 3's Conspiracy Road Trip on Thursday? It's an interesting one for those in the truth movement since it features the well known and charismatic Charlie Veitch (Love Police). Someone who until recently was popular with many truthseekers, he flip-flopped and changed his mind on 9/11 being an inside job in a very short space of time following this trip to the States with the BBC.

 

Part 1 of the programme.

 

Since Charlie changing his opinion to quick and easily as you can imagine there has been all sorts of speculation as to whether CV was genuine to begin with or controlled opposition, if Neuro Linguistic programming was used or if he's just someone after his 15minutes of fame. CV has previously appeared on TV alongside Anarchists at the March 26 demo, interviewed by ITV when he declared he would protest the Royal Wedding, then was subsequently arrested before leaving his home in Cambridge. He's also appeared on Russia Today and Press TV. Plus his girlfriend Silkie appeared on a reality show.

If you look at the videos of Charlie from a couple of years ago when he was first doing The Love Police with Danny, he was a very different person. He then increased his cannabis intake considerably after getting together with Silkie, and became more and more aggressively defensive of everything he was doing (to the point where Danny stopped having anything to do with him), and became very involved with "truth seeking". His behaviour at protests and in public was a lot less good natured (and often spurred on by Silkie, who can often be seen provoking people and then sitting back whilst others deal with the outcome), and everything to him became about "the Zionist machine".

 

About 6 months ago he posted a video blog where he admitted that his increased cannabis use was muddling his head and was supposedly going to cut down. Since then, he's distanced himself from Alex Jones and the more radical conspiracy theorists (AKA: "They got to Charlie!" / "Charlie's a corporate shill!"), and now - having looked at evidence first hand - has decided that 9/11 wasn't the inside job theory he'd been pushing for other people. Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong, but without getting high and having his middle class hippy perpetual victim girlfriend in his ear, he's taken a rational look at things.

I would not be completely shocked to learn that Bush and the goverment knew that 9/11 was going to happen beforehand and had a hand in it, but there is no concrete evidence of that and I doubt any will ever come out.

Evidence declassified after 9/11 showed that there was prior knowledge of the '93 bombing of the WTC.

It could be fair to say Kennedy was a possible inside job, but the whole grassy knowl stuff is codswallop, he was most definatly shot from the book depository.

 

Now wether Oswald was the shooter is another matter, he most probably was but I for one wouldn't be shocked if it was an internal assassination.

The JFK conspiracy is heavily influence by a massively inaccurate report, from which the Oliver Stone movie was based. Inaccurate "factual evidence" is essentially fiction.

Unfortunately it's been lost in the archives, but there was a tremendous thread on here about JFK a few years ago.

[Dynamite Duane]

"I can answer that - I spent about 2 or 3 weeks looking at the various theories and "evidence" presented by the conspiracy movement, as well as reading all the official documents and also independent research not picked up by the conspiracy theorists.

 

The conclusion I came to was that whilst the US government might have had a number of indicators that a terrorist attack was likely, if not indeed imminent, there was absolutely not one shred of verifiable, consistent evidence to suggest that any department of the US government had any hand in the planning or execution of the attack.

 

Is that good enough for you?

 

 

 

I know nothing about this guy, but even I can immediately see that there's another possibility you've conveniently not listed there - the possibility that as a result of the evidence and testimony he found on that trip, he realised he was wrong.

 

In fact, isn't that by far the most likely possibility, for more likely than your other ones, Duane?

 

Whilst we're here, are you going to comment on the Alex Jones video posted on page 71 Duane?

 

Any chance you'll actually debate these two things, or shall we just book you in for another visit to the thread next month?

Why would I want to bother discussing anything with you Loki when you use such an arrogant tone? There's some people on here I think come across as a bit thick tbh but you sound clever and articulate but spoil yourself with an arrogant attitude quite honestly. Just because I miss your comment or not on here when you are you throw a strop I don't come on here as often, whoopee dooo!!!

 

Regards Charlie changing his mind, it shows they picked someone who wasn't very well clued up and couldn't have a decent debate with them. Would have been totally different if they'd picked Richard Gage for example from Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth.

 

No, I've got no comment on the Alex Jones vid, I've not seen it, sorry not interested. Move on!

Edited September 11, 2011 by Dynamite Duane

[Astro Hollywood]

Why would I want to bother discussing anything with you Loki when you use such an arrogant tone? There's some people on here I think come across as a but thick but you sound clever and articulate but spoil yourself with arrogant your attitude quite honestly. Just because I miss your comment or not on here when you are you throw a strop I don't come on here as often, whoopee dooo!!!

 

Regards Charlie changing his mind, it shows they picked someone who wasn't very well clued up and couldn't have a decent debate with them. Would have been totally different if they'd picked Richard Gage for example from Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth.

 

No, I've got no comment on the Alex Jones vid, I've not seen it, sorry not interested. Move on!

 

You're the stupidest man in the world.

[Dynamite Duane]

Have you done your independent research back up that claim?

[Astro Hollywood]

Have you done your independent research back up that claim?

 

Years and years of reading your utter drivel, you absolute fuckwit.

[Surf Digby]

Regards Charlie changing his mind, it shows they picked someone who wasn't very well clued up and couldn't have a decent debate with them. Would have been totally different if they'd picked Richard Gage for example from Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth.

Quite the opposite. Charlie's well educated, and a slick talker that used to "schmooze clients" (his words) when he worked in banking. All that's happened is that he's spent a couple of years getting high and ONLY looking for reasons why it was an inside job, instead of balancing for and against each other.

 

The BBC likely picked him to appear as he's very well known amongst the conspiracy theorists, and has been very vocal in promoting these theories. If you look back at his videos, you'll see his main point was, "All these learned people say it was an inside job".