9/11 media happenings
- Thread starter Jazzz
- Start date
- Status
That is so true!axon said:
And there were absolutely no tests for traces of tuna carried out on the girders which were instantaneously removed from the site and buried in a large hole in the ground in China!
Why? What is being covered up? Reveal the truth!
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
Nobidy is denying this.Jazzz said:
Your reasoning has a crucial flaw - you assume that becuase x got y wrong on one occasion then x is always wrong. You then take a pre-determined conclusion and look for evidence to fit, ignoring anything that contradicts this view.
Can you not see the flaw in this approach?
axon said:
What made me very ready to consider that the government was behind was a combination of three things:
1. The basic lack of morals or conscience of certain power clan types. The Neo -cons with their Straussian philosophy, NAZI supporting grandads and obvious sinisterness, personified in Rumsfeld, Cheney etc. (and a seeming hefty dose of beligerent lunacy)
2. That such 'false flag' operations do occur, and this crowd has the connections, basically being heavily connected to CIA. I've heard it said that when Bush senior came to office, it was basically the CIA taking over govt.
We see a similar senario with Putin in Russia. Then we have (seemingly much more substantial) claims that its govt. has been behind attacks on its own people - leading to russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya being killed for speaking out, and the Litvinenko poisoning which was connected.
Throughout history, domestic terror attacks faciliate 'goverments', and strengthen their hand.
I too distrust authority, because I believe that our governments are heavily influenced and infiltrated by mafias and criminal cartels.
Berezovsky testimony
- interesting interview with FSB official
3. That pre drawn up plans for invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq where facilitated by the attack, as well as a great strenghthening in position domestically, as well as huge oil and arms profits.
Of course these circumstantial points do not prove that 911 was a government operation. A Controlled demolition seems to be a hypothesis that has been disproved for me.
But this explains my own suspicion, and I still feel there is something more to this.
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
I'm saying nothing of the sort - I'm saying that to question authority is a very good thing.Jazzz said:
But this is not what you are doing - you dismiss it outright, without any questioning or reasoning whatsoever.
I fear I have wasted my breath with you bees.beesonthewhatnow said:
It must obviously be at least as silly to say that authority is always wrong as it would be to say that it is always right.
You were making no genuine enquiry. What all this is from you is simply a masquerade - whatever you might kid yourself, it's just same old criticism of my position by appeal to authority.
As I said, I make up my own mind.
editor
hiraethified
....Based on information gleaned from lunatic websites... (see: "Huntley was innocent!", "Saddam's sons are alive!", "Saddam had a double, nay, triple in court," "9/11 here's how they did it," oh, and absolutely anything that that janitor bloke says, no matter how unlikely, improbable and evidence free the claim is).Jazzz said:
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
Jazzz, of anyone on U75 you'd be the last one who's judgement i'd take blindly.Jazzz said:
You see conspiracies everywhere. You're worse than someone who believes authority automatically, they get things right more often than you.
Why is the BBC not regarded as nutjob? Because they report the news, not make it up from whole cloth and desires.
axon said:
Er axon, you seem a bit unsure about the role and relationship that the USA and terrorism have.
Firstly the US are the biggest terrorists in the world bar none. If you want to be accurate you could say they are the biggest state-sponsored terrorists. Nevertheless, a terrorist is a terrorist regardless of the adjective to describe what kind they are. The outcome is always the same: sheer terror for humans, and death and destruction for humans.
Secondly the USA, through proxies, actually create terrorism in other countries. Having created it, they can then go about combatting it, thereby ensuring that they remain the sole superpower, and the world's largest empire.
As i read yesterday somewhere the US is not waging a war on terrorism, it is waging a war in terrorism. Without an evil other superpower any more, suddenly there were no enemies. Hence the war on terrorism, the new enemy is the terrorists who are out to steal all the freedoms in the US.
Create and instigate terrorism, then combat it. That is the way of the US of A.
editor said:
Ah look, there goes the editor again demanding proof and evidence, quite confusing himself between a debating board and a court of law.
And, no, i shan't be providing any proof. I have zero need or desire to furnish you with any proof of anything.
And you're also doing your not clever bit in putting words into people's mouths that were never there. A seasoned practitioner at this the editor is.
editor
hiraethified
Err, yes you did. You claimed that Huntley was as innocent as the driven snow and the girls were in fact murdered by American serviceman in a truly bizarre plot (which I believe you swallowed wholesale from that rampaging nutcase Vialls.)Jazzz said:
Luckily for you, your lunatic threads on the topic have been deleted, but here's where you finally admitted that you were as wrong as Mr Wrong on the day that he got everything wrong:
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=1417570&postcount=68
Bob_the_lost said:
The BBC are a propaganda machine for the british establishment.
Yes, they report "the news", but any examination of the language they use, and the way it is delivered, will reveal that they are shapers of thought.
However a question for you bob: what is 'the news'? I ask because if you mean all the news, then you'd be wrong. Which then leaves another thought open: who selects what news to report, and what news to leave out?
editor
hiraethified
Your own words:fela fan said:You what? My claims?? They're not my claims. They're claims you dreamt up, then put into my mouth, then asked me to verify them with examples.
Sly and sneaky seem eminently suitable here, not ad homs. And that's coz you've done this countless times.
I simply asked you to give some examples where your distrust of authorities has proved you right and the authorities (presumably) proved wrong.fela fan said:
But if it was you just sharing a little personal fantasy, that's fine. Just say so and I'll move on.
editor said:
You're changing your tune again, it's remarkable! Slippin and slidin all around. Here was your question to me:
"Could you share some of these many examples of you proving the authorities wrong?"
Now, editor, you just show me where i ever claimed that i've proved the authorities wrong? Or even point out how you feel you can correctly interpret my comments to mean this, even though they never said this.
First you put claims in my mouth and then ask me to defend them. Then you say you didn't ask what you asked!! Mebbe it's time for some sleep man.
Apparently, whilst innocently blackberrying near one of Cambridge's US air bases, the girls accidently came across a top secret meeting involving Dubya (who they recognised from school lessons), called to discuss how to deal with the problems of the conspiracy theories which were circulating. Unfortunately for them, at that very moment Dick Cheney was showing a powerpoint slide of the WTC 1 falling, indicating where all the invisible explosives were with big red arrows.editor said:
The marines guarding the meeting decided the girls had seen too much and had to be eliminated. Hearing about this, and still smarting from the fact that not only had he been in a junior school talking to pupils on 9/11 but the janitor there had disrespected him by not immediately recognising him and addressing him as "Yo, bossman" instead of "Mr President", he decided to take revenge by fitting up the janitor of the girls school ...
(Source: www.nutjobsrus.con.uk)
Listen, I know that this is more convincing than most of Jazzz's theories ... but it isn't true ...
$$$$$ 0/10 $$$$$
You can't even make stuff up correctly. You are sooooo like the VAT man who came to my house years ago with loads of correct facts and figures but alarmingly was 100% incorrect about everything .. even when I met the twat at Spurs he was wearing a stupid shirt.
I demand that you are banned and I demand that folks stop imagining what the editor might post before posting themselves. He must find it very embarrassing. I know I do when when folks talk about burd's and fannies and that.
You can't even make stuff up correctly. You are sooooo like the VAT man who came to my house years ago with loads of correct facts and figures but alarmingly was 100% incorrect about everything .. even when I met the twat at Spurs he was wearing a stupid shirt.
I demand that you are banned and I demand that folks stop imagining what the editor might post before posting themselves. He must find it very embarrassing. I know I do when when folks talk about burd's and fannies and that.
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
Of course it's a criticism of your position, becuase your position is laughable.Jazzz said:
You say you make up your own mind - I agree that you do, but you do so before you consider any evidence. You then cherry pick anything that supports your view and ignore completely anything that goes against it.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
