Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Conspiraloons – why...?

William of Walworth said:
Can any one other than Jazzz, and other than those predisposed to believe in 'alternative versions', please give an objective idea of whether this documentary is worthwhile??

why dont you watch it and then YOU can judge for yourself?
 
frogwoman said:
seriously guys ... it's far more easy to believe a conspiracy theory about the government putting bombs onto the bottom of trains than deal with the reasons why such an atrocity happened...

Exellent post Frogwoman!
 
Major Tom said:
http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/

Has anyone mentioned Lobster Magazine yet? A voice of sanity in the area of conspiracy theory. The guy running it takes an academic research-based approach to assessing any core of truth within conspiracy theories. I strongly recommend taking a look.

Yup.

I've been a subscriber for ages (since issue 12). Robin Ramsay continues to turn up real meaningful gems of info. A pity most of the loonspudular tendency (who appear to be more interested in selling their latest book or video) don't take a leaf from his book.
 
Conspiraloons can sometimes be good for comedy value when they start going on about child-killing owl gods, but I always feel a little guilty mocking the afflicted.
 
siarc said:
that is an absurd and libellous affront, an inferrence which says more about your own condititoning than any subconscious racism on the part of azrael, who i am sure was quite honest in his use of the term.

It would only be libellous if you could prove intent to defame or otherwise traduce.
 
siarc said:
this works both ways. if a phaenomenon comparable to the cathar heresiarchs occured today, it would be apparent to everyone far sooner, including those who wished to destroy it.



free expression must not be groupuscular, there are many who reject the inspirations of our forefathers and cannot parse the ideologies of capital on even an unconscious level, such that 'productivity' is only significant for them on economic terms.

what do you understand by schumann resonance? i had only ever thought of ionospheric resonance as a synechdoche for the noesis, never on its own terms, though i reject de chardin who was a witch doctor and an idiot. can we learn from it?




is this not the path followed by the naysayers on this thread? i have even been described as a 'spambot', as if i have no autonomous consciousness and regurgitate only the tripe inculcated by my masters, and they see no irony in this! the ego metastasises into the chorus of undead voices, imprecating capital to feed them and take away the nasty thoughts, let the nightmare finish. we should have sympathy for them.

You are the Architect off of The Matrix sequels and I claim MY £5!

Now you must excuse me, I have a basket of fresh owls to fuck.
 
I swear, it's true! Look!

"Your life is the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation inherent to the programming of the matrix. You are the eventuality of an anomaly, which despite my sincerest efforts I have been unable to eliminate from what is otherwise a harmony of mathematical precision. While it remains a burden to sedulously avoid it, it is not unexpected, and thus not beyond a measure of control. Which has led you, inexorably, here."
 
LJo said:
I swear, it's true! Look!

"Your life is the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation inherent to the programming of the matrix. You are the eventuality of an anomaly, which despite my sincerest efforts I have been unable to eliminate from what is otherwise a harmony of mathematical precision. While it remains a burden to sedulously avoid it, it is not unexpected, and thus not beyond a measure of control. Which has led you, inexorably, here."

Get out more.


Seriously.
 
I can understand why you wouldn`t want to accept that our leaders are heavily involved in the "dark side" of the occult. It may mean you have to reevaluate your own view of reality, Which for most people is tantamount to death. :rolleyes:

Don`t mean its not true though. :)
 
Azrael23 said:
I can understand why you wouldn`t want to accept that our leaders are heavily involved in the "dark side" of the occult. It may mean you have to reevaluate your own view of reality, Which for most people is tantamount to death. :rolleyes:

Don`t mean its not true though. :)

Our "leaders " dont have to be involved in whatever lunancy Grant Morrison/RAW etc have dreamed up to act like utter inhuman cunts to everyone else.
The structure of authoritarian/heirarchical relationships, the nature of political and economic power and the quality of the individuals who usually end up top of the heap'll do that everytime.

Seriously azzer, mate. Go back and read "Illuminatus" again.
You may think you're out of the abyss, but you're still in it.
Peace
 
Azrael23 said:
I can understand why you wouldn`t want to accept that our leaders are heavily involved in the "dark side" of the occult. It may mean you have to reevaluate your own view of reality, Which for most people is tantamount to death. :rolleyes:

Don`t mean its not true though. :)

You seem to have taken art pranks of bods like the London Psychogeographical Association, Stewart Home etc, rather too seriously.
 
William of Walworth said:
Can any one other than Jazzz, and other than those predisposed to believe in 'alternative versions', please give an objective idea of whether this documentary is worthwhile??

If Loose Change is the one I'm thinking of, where it starts to some pompous (obviously unqualified) gimp talking over the top of slowed down, grainy footage of the WTC plane crashes repeatedly, then it's more laughable lunchtime viewing than worthwhile. It's the one where the narrator keeps focusing on some 'bulge' on the plane's fuselage (not an artefact on the footage, oh no) and alleging that the thing fires a missile as it's about to hit the WTC. The same narrator, as convincing and persuasive as a mute and blind panelist on Pop Idol, gives us his 'expert' opinion why it's got to be a missile.

Worthwhile? Not a chance. Bloody funny at times though.
 
It's not the one you are thinking of tarannau... I suspect you are referring to 'In Plane Site'
 
Shite. You mean I've got more of the same to look forward to...

:D

Is 'Loose Change' any more convincing then? Surely even you've got to believe 'In Plane Site' is a load of laughable bollocks, where the narrator shows a worryingly delusional aspect in reaching his assertions?
 
tarannau said:
It's the one where the narrator keeps focusing on some 'bulge' on the plane's fuselage (not an artefact on the footage, oh no) and alleging that the thing fires a missile as it's about to hit the WTC.

To be fair (doing this through gritted teeth), I think it refutes the missile theory for the WTC, although I might be getting mixed up with a website that refutes it. It's all a bit of a morass.

I can't remember where I read it, but Loose Change apparently started life as a short story about US government involvement in 911. Then the director started to believe his own piece of fiction and did the documentary. Now that would make a good film ...
 
Blimey. It certainly didn't look like it was refuting it to me. Near endless close ups of grainy footage, blagging authoratatively about red flashes and trying desperately to make the missile story fit.

I'll wholeheartedly admit to skipping bits though, when the tears of laughter and howls of snorting disbelief got too much for the room to take. I doff my hat to your greater knowledge.
 
tarannau said:
Is 'Loose Change' any more convincing then?
Nope. I sat through as much of it as I could bear, but it's basically a propaganda film for 9/11 nutcases, stuffed full of the usual selectively-compiled bollocks.
 
Blimey. It certainly didn't look like it was refuting it to me. Near endless close ups of grainy footage, blagging authoratatively about red flashes and trying desperately to make the missile story fit. It seems a strange thing to spend so much time trying to establish a theory, only to effectively destroy it soon into the tape.

I'll wholeheartedly admit to skipping bits though, when the tears of laughter and howls of snorting disbelief got too much for the room to take. I doff my hat to your greater knowledge.
 
pembrokestephen said:
With a pun like that in the title, every copy of that film should be burned!
Probably a fair verdict on Dave Von Kleist's jumper too...
 
Azrael23 said:
I can understand why you wouldn`t want to accept that our leaders are heavily involved in the "dark side" of the occult. It may mean you have to reevaluate your own view of reality, Which for most people is tantamount to death. :rolleyes:

Don`t mean its not true though. :)

Yep, we're all zombies sleepwalking through life just waiting for a free thinker like you to come and open our eyes for us - if we dare! :eek:
 
brahaminda said:
Get out more.


Seriously.


It is interesting reading your reactions. Your five predecessors were by design based on a similar predication, a contingent affirmation that was meant to create a profound attachment to the rest of your species, facilitating the function of the one. While the others experienced this in a very general way, your experience is far more specific. Vis-a-vis, love.

<ponces around in room with lots of tellies>
 
Our leaders are dark occultists you can`t deny that.

You think it impossible that they might know things about the nature of reality that are not propagated to the masses?
 
owl_1web.jpg


bg_1205_ritual.jpg


Yeah its twilight zone, its still happening though.
 
Owls, owls, owls, owls
Owls, owls, owls, owls
Owls, owls, owls, owls
Owls, owls, owls, owls

OWLS.

Isn't it funny how when you type a word over and over again, it starts to look really strange?

OWLS.
 
Azrael23 said:
Our leaders are dark occultists you can`t deny that.

You think it impossible that they might know things about the nature of reality that are not propagated to the masses?

I think it's unlikely that any "occultism" they manifest is much more than window-dressing, and that any claims to gnosis they make are put out to engross and enthrall the credulous.
 
Back
Top Bottom