7/7 Home Office 'narrative' leaked: Iraq led to July 7
- Thread starter Badger Kitten
- Start date
Why would they need martial law if they already had the power to blow up thousands of US citizens, many of whom were part of the elite business class, on live television and keep the hundreds of thousands of people who were involved in the conspiracy from spilling the beans? Martial law is a wretched irrelevance compared to the power that they must already have!Azrael23 said:
And why on earth would the administration stage a coup? Coups involve groups grabbing state power - those who currently enjoy state power are unlikely to feel the need.
Soul On Ice said:
I agree that this is by far the best advice.
gurrier said:
Do you know anything about the US constitution and the masterful system of governance the founding fathers laid down. Its taken centuries of eating away at the rights of the people to get to the present day situation. A situation that has come about due to plain apathy and ignorance of normal people.
You guys need to remember who staffs the military that drops the bombs. Normal people. Normal people who need to be lied to in order to do their job.
Hi detective-boy, just to pick on specific points;
It's maybe not so much the lack of big plane bits at the Pentagon, but the sheer fact that no single piece of aircraft wreckage has been produced and identified as coming from flight 77 although such parts should have been all over the place. We simply do not have any physical evidence that flight 77 hit the Pentagon, and that should certainly surprise you. Anyway, the really impossible thing is that there wasn't a hole made by the wings!
Some stuff from the planes survived the WTC impacts, in particular an engine which appears not to have been from a 767. Also, of course, a hijacker's passport!detective-boy said:
It's maybe not so much the lack of big plane bits at the Pentagon, but the sheer fact that no single piece of aircraft wreckage has been produced and identified as coming from flight 77 although such parts should have been all over the place. We simply do not have any physical evidence that flight 77 hit the Pentagon, and that should certainly surprise you. Anyway, the really impossible thing is that there wasn't a hole made by the wings!
I doubt it. Shock and awe.
You cannot seriously suggest that because the collapse of WTC7 is extremely suspicious and bizarre it actually supports the official theory, that's perverse logic and you of all should know that!
For WTC 1&2, it looked like one that had been modified to come down in the way you describe by judicious timing of the charges (which are all over the building). WTC7 indeed collapsed from the bottom.
Well this is again, second guessing. But I would venture that it would be too hard to produce a 757 and crash it into the Pentagon without it being well tracked and shot down - that's if you can do the maneouvering. And where do you get it from? You might not have one. You have loads of military smaller planes at your disposal but if you put in an order for a 767 that's damn suspicious.
Yes this is curious, but doesn't affect the proof. An explanation might be that some of the big, foundation blowing explosions were needed to be done first to get the final collapse to go right, and the plane impacts were the cover for these. But this isn't up to us to explain.
Flight 93 has supplied nearly all of the the audio/phone call report evidence for that day. We have pretty much nothing from any other flight. Without flight 93 there is hardly anything to support the official story at all. However, this flight didn't hit anything. Perhaps this was the one 'real' hijack - although the hijackers may have had no idea of their true fate? The problem is the simple one that you can't get these guys to kill themselves. You can shoot them down though.
I don't personally agree with the the line taken in the film about the phone calls.
A very good description of the official theory!
Tens of thousands of normal people who happily get involved in vast conspiracies to murder thousands of their co-citizens and not one of them ever has a pang of conscience about it afterwards, nor does one even get drunk and blab in a bar?
Jeez, if this were a proper conspiracy, we'd have had hundreds of "I overheard this confession" by now...
E2A: Oh fuck, what have I said. Now the conspiraloons will start hearing voices in bars...
Jeez, if this were a proper conspiracy, we'd have had hundreds of "I overheard this confession" by now...
E2A: Oh fuck, what have I said. Now the conspiraloons will start hearing voices in bars...
Azrael23 said:
But not one of those people has really come up with convincing evidence have they though. Not one scrap of official documentation really to incriminate, not one email survives, not even a snatched recorded conversation. Quite remarkable really.
And in return you've thousands, tens of thousands possibly, of people actually involved in the tragedy who don't have the belief that there's been a conspiracy, many of whom find the wild, arrogant speculations of conspiranatics like yourself a little grating and distasteful to say the least.
It's amazing that you choosing to take notice of a comparatively very small number of people over the masses of others, many of whom even contradict (or discredit) the small band of witnesses whose comments you continually and conveniently favour over all other viewpoints.
Why would someone act as shills unwittingly by the way? Have they been mind-controlled by some Cheney-authorised mind ray? Or are they just not as good at 'truth seeking' as you?
laptop said:
Well we`ve never had a whistleblower have we.....
No, we`ve had literally thousands, some of the most prominent historical characters warned us of what was going on. The media never tells you.Cognitive dissonance does the rest.
Do you not understand how a paradigm works?
Soul On Ice
Well-Known Member
Azrael23 said:
Well they do share some common traits
- both crave the oxgyen of publicity
- both exisit on the margins of society
- both rely on myths to scare people into believing them
- both believe there is a conspiracy to keep the truth from people
- both a are derrided by right minded people
I am at homeAzrael23 said:
and to be honest I would have thought shill would have been a more apt description of you and your ilk
I only expect to know you if I ever end up in the same state run mental health institution that you are surely bound for.Azrael23 said:
Damn - I've not taken my own advice and ignored these crazies. You see - they just draw you in with their insane ramblings. Must try harder!
Azrael23 said:
A whistleblower would be someone who was involved, stupid. And not even the nuttiest of conspiraloons have claimed any of those have come forward.
* Bookmarks post to watch for claims after this time *
It's a sign of the coonspiraloons' total lack of connection with or interest in the world outside their self-referential texts that they simply don't understand this argument, isn't it?
The best-kept secrets ever in the UK were GCHQ Cheltenham and Corsham Quarry. But we still had construction workers getting pissed and muttering "you'll never guess what I was doing last year". Anyone from NORAD, USAF, FAA, ATC, the Port Authority even muttered thus? No.
If there was a conspiracy it must have involved tens of thousands of people.Azrael23 said:Well we`ve never had a whistleblower have we.....
Nobody has ever come forward and claimed to have been involved in this conspiracy. Therefore, you are asking people to believe that 'they' have managed to keep all these normal people quiet, despite the fact that all evidence would suggest that it is impossible to do this.
Your references to nationalism and war are entirely irrelevant to this. Nobody here has contested the fact that the US government uses nationalism to prompt the grunts to do horrible things in imperialist wars. Nobody sane believes that you can use the same ideology to persuade normal people to happily massacre their co-citizens.
No, but that's probably because I understand what the word means and why the question is inherently stupid.Azrael23 said:
That's right. Whenever a military dude orders me to collaborate in a plot to murder thousands of innocents, I say "aye aye sir!" and snap to attention.Jazzz said:
I believe that it's even easier to order doctors, paramedics, and emergency personnel, many of whom have chosen their profession in order to allow them to alleviate suffering wherever they can, to abandon their beliefs and turn a blind eye while the government carries out wholescale slaughter.
gurrier said:
Some people will murder. Welcome to the real world. If your a criminal you will in turn hire criminals. Criminals who will gladly murder co-citizens. Lets not forget the classic lines given to security service operants over the years,
"If the commies take control they`ll kill millions, we`ll kill a hundred to save thousands....now take this bomb...."
For God's sake, editor. When are you finally going to bin this drivel? 
We don't. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I have yet to see a definitive source for the fact that there were no major plane parts. And I haven't seen a series of pictures in which it is clear there are no plane holes.Jazzz said:
It's no more perverse than to suggest it needed to come down and yet wasn't specifically targetted in any way which would make it's collapse look logical. And I don't use the fact to support the official theory. I am merely pointing out that it's use to support the unofficial theory is not "fact".
Find me a building which has been brought down in a controlled explosion from the top down then.
Er .. like it was too hard to find those two planes which hit the WTC then?
Oh but it is, if you are using it as part of your theory. It is for you to explain why it supports your theory. So far as I can see the "official side" suggests it is due to blasts down elevator shafts, etc. If you don't go with that, it is up to you to explain some alternative. Cos it sounds plausible enough to me. And I am sure big buildings hit by big planes do lots of things that we wouldn't necessarily expect.
Azrael23 said:
You still don't understand. You still choose to make the word mean what you pay it to mean. Clue: it doesn't mean anyone interpreted in your self-referential texts as saying something that supports your delusion.
Azrael23 said:
Fired from MI5 when?
Azrael23 said:
I'm sure you will. But not necessarily here.
Azrael23 said:
What about the past tense do you not understand?
laptop said:
Please, editor.
Er ... I think was the point, hon!Azrael23 said:Best-kept secrets? GCHQ?! Its in the fucking encyclopedia.
Some do, some don't and some innocent people come forward and make false confessions.Jazzz said:
Azrael23 said:
You still don't get it?
Has no-one among the conspsiraloons put the least effort into working out how many people, from how many diversely ill-disciplined organisations, would have to have played their parts - parts which any with an IQ above room temperature would have been able to deduce the importance of, sometime during the past four years?
Not the least bit of management and logistics analysis?
Nope.
All we get is the assertion that all it takes is a handful of evil people - who can apparenrly magically make things happen without their subordinates having the least clue.
But that's the starting point of conspiranoid theories, to assume that events are in the hands of a handful of evil people, and the conspiranoid is oh-so-special because The Truth Is Revealed To Them.
Similar threads
- Locked
