conspiraloons

[William of Walworth]

you havent even read the articles or watched the cynthia mckinney video, have you?

No. I've read plenty else though. And the onus isn't on me to disprove the implausible, so just because I can't be bothered to read every link you throw at me RIGHT NOW doesn't PROVE anything -- except to the low standards of satisfaction of a compiraloon ...

i refer you to this

My comment stands -- a disparate mix of pick n mix stories that prove little ...

 

[Fong]

Here you give us a perfect example of what I just explained.

You link to an earlier post and in that post you have...

there was hundreds of billions of dollars of gold in the towers but only $200 million was ever accounted for

But that isn't quite true is it?

The very first line of the report is:

"There are rumors"

Which underpins the entire report. You have to make a leap of faith that those rumors are true, but there is no evidence to suggest this, just clever sophistry.

Again, "the only published reports mention" relying on the fact of what is missing to prove your point.

All this cleverly wrapped up in blatant misuse of governmental money, such as the Haliburton link, but hey, not like we didn't all know this before the war started, that isn't conspiraloon, that is just whats going on, but its hidden cleverly in this ridiculous idea of a huge conspiracy going on right under our noses.

 

[William of Walworth]

For the last time. Either present a condensed, coherent argument that isn't made up of nothing more than a hotchpotch of random links or give it up.

Expecting people to trawl through endless videos, dubious sites and random articles to get some idea of whatever it is you're banging on about is not acceptable.

So stop it, please.

I have to agree -- zArk, your demandingness and insistency can only succeed in putting people off.

Conspiracists are RUBBISH at persuading the sceptical!

 

[s.norbury]

Van der Lubbe was a conspiracy theorist

 

[William of Walworth]

Van der Lubbe was a conspiracy theorist

Feel free to expand on why ....

<suspects s. norbury of conspiracist tendancies ... >

9. . Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it’s “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Van der Lubbe was a conspiracy theorist

And?

 

[zArk]

Here you give us a perfect example of what I just explained.

You link to an earlier post and in that post you have...

there was hundreds of billions of dollars of gold in the towers but only $200 million was ever accounted for

But that isn't quite true is it?

The very first line of the report is:

"There are rumors"

well, the question pops up, how can zark claim that this gold was robbed when it didnt even exist in the first place?

The rumours are rumours, there never was hundreds of billions of dollars of gold in the wtc complex.

Its called "Fraud", to claim that there is gold there in order to secure loans and financial transactions when in fact there is no gold. The event on that day made it all go away, destroying all the files in the WTC complex which would have provided trails to the money-men who used this imaginary gold to futher their financial securities.

 

[zArk]

but that figure of gold (roughly $150 billion) is dwarfed by the $ trillions missing from the pentagon. 6 years later... still no sign.

omg trillions, it is beyond bafflement. it is a mind boggling figure

thats alot of comfy mattresses in washington. stuff them beds, stuff em

 

[Bob_the_lost]

The rumours are rumours, there never was hundreds of billions of dollars of gold in the wtc complex.

You what!?

http://www.whatprice.co.uk/financial/how-much-gold.html

So in other words for there to be hundreds of billion $ of gold there we're talking around 8,000 Tons of it, and a greater sum than the entire US gold reserve (which is a mere 100 Billion $ or so)

 

[editor]

well, the question pops up, how can zark claim that this gold was robbed when it didnt even exist in the first place?

What the fuck's with with talking about yourself in the third person bollocks?

You've been caught out spreading disinformation by dishonest, highly selective quoting. But that's the way conspiraloons (and govt agents) work, isn't it?

 

[zArk]

You what!?

http://www.whatprice.co.uk/financial/how-much-gold.html

So in other words for there to be hundreds of billion $ of gold there we're talking around 8,000 Tons of it, and a greater sum than the entire US gold reserve (which is a mere 100 Billion $ or so)

well it included silver, precous metals and gold. But yeah, officially 2 trucks shipped out the Gold. £200 million of it.

In 1999-2002 the Uk government sold 400 tns of reserve gold leaving 315 tns.
original price was £7 billion --- 400 tns roughly £4 billion.


Fort Knox
a proper audit of the US Gold Reserve at Fort Knox has not been completed since the Eisenhower administration
In the 1970's a very courageous gentleman named Edward Durrell claimed that substantially all of the US Gold Reserve being stored at Ft. Knox was gone. Only 1,000 tonnes or so of the 8,500 tonnes supposedly being stored there remained. The rest had been secretly taken from Ft. Knox and shipped to London in 1967 and early 1968 for sale by President Johnson in an ill-fated attempt to keep the price of Gold at $35 per ounce.

so wait... urmmmm there are some major shenanigans going on here.

 

[editor]

but that figure of gold (roughly $150 billion) is dwarfed by the $ trillions missing from the pentagon. 6 years later... still no sign.

omg trillions, it is beyond bafflement. it is a mind boggling figure

thats alot of comfy mattresses in washington. stuff them beds, stuff em

I would have thought that gold bars would be rather uncomfortable to sleep on, not that I believe a single word that you post up.

You seem to be reaching a frenzy of fact-free fruitloopery at the moment, btw, and the novelty is wearing off fast.

 

[teqniq]

People like laptop and Bernie Gunther and Donna Ferentes are far more sceptical of establishment propganda and far more effective at exposing it, than most conspiracists will ever be.

Having waded through most of this (and other similar threads) I'm rather inclined to agree wholeheatedly with the above

 

[DrRingDing]

So they've blown up huge great chunks of New York, demolished their prestigious landmarks and mass slaughtered their own citizens in highly complex plots involving the complicit involvement of hundreds of people before, have they?

I must have missed that.

Umm, what's this 'highly complex plot' and 'involvment of hundreds of people' ?

Like I said before the most likely explanation, IMO and many others, is that a few high ranking neocons turned a convienient blind eye to a coming attack.

 

[DrRingDing]

So they've blown up huge great chunks of New York, demolished their prestigious landmarks and mass slaughtered their own citizens in highly complex plots involving the complicit involvement of hundreds of people before, have they?

I must have missed that.

I never said 'they' knew exactly what was planned down to the last details, I'm sure they didn't want to know.

The yanks have killed many of it's own citizens for money over it's short history.

And again hundreds of people were not neccesarry.

 

[DrRingDing]

So why didn't they just plant a huge load of WMDs in the deserts of Iraq/Iran/wherever else they want a scrap?

Easily done and reason enough to start an invasion.

But you have to fool a set of highly experienced international weapons inspectors from the UN which certainly would not be 'easily done'.

 

[DrRingDing]

Donna, with due respect, I believe you are tripping your spuds off.

 

[editor]

But you have to fool a set of highly experienced international weapons inspectors from the UN which certainly would not be 'easily done'.

Be a damn sight easier than planning and executing 9/11 which would have needed the direct involvement of thousands of experts from a huge variety of fields (explosives, air crew, air controllers, aircraft companies, security staff, air force, demolition experts etc) and then be executed so perfectly as to fool all the highly experienced experts in related fields al over the world.

And then there's the tricky problem of keeping all these people silent for eternity.

Nah. Slapping a load of weapons in an empty desert sure looks an easier option to me.

 

[zArk]

But you have to fool a set of highly experienced international weapons inspectors from the UN which certainly would not be 'easily done'.

2003 the US reclassified nuclear weapons so that they are no longer used only as the weapon of last resort. They are defined as safe for citizens.

spoken about by Michael Chossudovsky in my post with all the links

 

[William of Walworth]

A clue as to what you're on about would help ...

Donna, with due respect, I believe you are tripping your spuds off.

 

[laptop]

But you have to fool a set of highly experienced international weapons inspectors from the UN which certainly would not be 'easily done'.

2003 the US reclassified nuclear weapons so that they are no longer used only as the weapon of last resort.

In what sense would this be a response to that?

They are defined as safe for citizens.

So what are they supposed to be for, then?

 

[zArk]

In what sense would this be a response to that?



So what are they supposed to be for, then?

opps i thought the full text of this post was added.. oppps


nuclear weapons are now in the 'safe to use' list that the military uses to make decisions.

 

[laptop]

* Reads back a bit *

Now. You know you need to.

 

[DrRingDing]

Be a damn sight easier than planning and executing 9/11 which would have needed the direct involvement of thousands of experts from a huge variety of fields (explosives, air crew, air controllers, aircraft companies, security staff, air force, demolition experts etc) and then be executed so perfectly as to fool all the highly experienced experts in related fields al over the world.

And then there's the tricky problem of keeping all these people silent for eternity.

Nah. Slapping a load of weapons in an empty desert sure looks an easier option to me.

I believe you're absolutely correct in your thinking.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

What was your thinking when you posted this?

Donna, with due respect, I believe you are tripping your spuds off.

Its meaning and purpose are entirely lost on me. The post contains no quote from me and as I hadn't posted on the thread for some time it's hard to see to what post of mine it have been referring, let alone why it said what it said.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Umm, what's this 'highly complex plot' and 'involvement of hundreds of people' ?

Like I said before the most likely explanation, IMO and many others, is that a few high ranking neocons turned a convenient blind eye to a coming attack.

The trouble with this is that the "few high-ranking neocons" wouldn't have been the only people to know of the plot, would they? Indeed, in order for them to have been made aware of it, that information would have had to be in the possession of the intelligence agencies and the military and therefore known to people at various levels within them. These would be people who, whatever their attitude to foreigners, would have considered it their duty to protect America (and presumably its citizenry) from attack. They would, therefore, have had to have been actively prevented from raising the alarm and if they were prevented (or if their warnings went unheeded) would surely have spoken out, with the support of an outraged nation, afterwards.

Yet, curiously, there is an absence of evidence that anybody is saying anything of the sort. Which is really odd, is it not? Nobody is saying "we knew about 9/11 and we were prevented by Dick Cheney from saving the World Trade Centers!".

 

[Azrael23]

If you can`t wake upto the obvious truth that 9/11 was an inside job to start a war that justifies a police state and foreign imperialism then you`ll never understand whats happening in society at the moment.

I`ll start a thread. To show you people. I would say prove but NOTHING can be proved beyond what a person is willing to believe. Quote me on that!

 

[Teepee]

If you can`t wake upto the obvious truth that 9/11 was an inside job to start a war that justifies a police state and foreign imperialism then you`ll never understand whats happening in society at the moment.

I`ll start a thread. To show you people. I would say prove but NOTHING can be proved beyond what a person is willing to believe. Quote me on that!

 

[Azrael23]

Yet, curiously, there is an absence of evidence that anybody is saying anything of the sort. Which is really odd, is it not? Nobody is saying "we knew about 9/11 and we were prevented by Dick Cheney from saving the World Trade Centers!".

Errr what about the highest prosecutor in the country, David Shippers (guy who impeached clinton) banging on John Ashcrofts door asking why various FBI agents were being prohibited from investigating intelligence on Al-Qaeda planning a major attack.
The order prohibiting investigation came from the top, a presidential order named W199i.

Thankyou for responding to my point.

Thats right you just ignore what you don`t want to hear.

Your sad. Really.....very sad. (editor and others)

 

[editor]

If you can`t wake upto the obvious truth that 9/11 was an inside job to start a war that justifies a police state and foreign imperialism then you`ll never understand whats happening in society at the moment.

And your actual, peer reviewed, credible evidence for this wild claim is where, exactly?

In your head?

Please note: a random listing of dubious websites is not an acceptable answer.