Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

'Conspiraloons' in the ascendancy?

Status
Not open for further replies.
even your own chosen document

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

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.

:facepalm:

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.

:facepalm:

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.

:facepalm:
 
shooting-fish-barrel-small.gif



:facepalm:
:D
 
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.
 
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'.
 
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. :facepalm: :D
 
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. :facepalm: :D

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? :p
 
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.
 
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? :p

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'.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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? :p

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.
 
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.
 
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.

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

:facepalm:

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.
 
:facepalm:

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
 
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".
 
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.
 
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.

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

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.
 
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. :rolleyes:

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.
 
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.
 
out and out conspiracy theorist because i think Diana was probably murdered, and i believe in the existance of the bilderberg group??
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom