UK courtroom to hear evidence against the official narrative of 9/11

[Wilf]

3 in particular is bullshit. It assumes perfect knowledge on the part of terrorists to avoid drills. Which in turn implies that the ones where there are no drills are the ones planned by 'Them'...

This one bemuses me most of all. There's the obvious issue of why, why would special ops false flaggers draw attention to terrorism just as they were about to do it? However there's also the issue of complexity. Any kind of conspiracy to bomb a building, never mind bring down towers/fly planes, would involve an enormous number of people. They'd all need to do their job perfectly and also keep schtum, permanently. Why would the planners of the attack decide to add further complexity by getting people to run drills??

Moreover Jazzz, you're list betrays the exact problem with your analysis - 'was it a suicide bomber - no. Was there a claim of reponsibility - no. Were there any terror drills nearby or recently - yes. Must be the bloodlines/government blowing their own buildings up then'. On 2 of those, you are taking the absence of evidence as proof that certain people (NWO) did it and why. In practice, you are saying providing we know virtually nothing about an attack,it's reasonable to believe lizards did it.

Edit: ... and another thing: there's an irony that, in practice you are doing precisely what the Bush/Blair governments did. I have some problems with the film, but Curtis in the Power of Nightmares says the very lack of evidence was used by governments to build up the image of Bid Laden/Al Quaida as the overarching narrative for terrorism. Rather than deal with messy international and local grievances that generate terror, they wanted a ridiculously simplified picture of the 'terrorist threat', the international organisation with a bond villain at its heart. In practice, jazzz you go through the same methodology and end up with equally simplified (and wrong) conclusions. It ain't bloodlines, it's the usual messy shit of power.

 

[frogwoman]

In practice, you are saying providing we know virtually nothing about an attack,it's reasonable to believe "lizards" did it.

it's an assumption that's worked well for the last 2000 years whenever people want to cover shit up so why stop now?

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

He's bullshitting anyway. Does anyone seriously believe those criteria would hold in the event of another bomb? Obviously they wouldn't, he'd be straight on here giving it some shite about conspiracies while the victims were still being loaded into the ambulances, whatever the particular circumstances. We all know it, so is it really worth engaging with his 'points'?

 

[Wilf]

He's bullshitting anyway. Does anyone seriously believe those criteria would hold in the event of another bomb? Obviously they wouldn't, he'd be straight on here giving it some shite about conspiracies while the victims were still being loaded into the ambulances, whatever the particular circumstances. We all know it, so is it really worth engaging with his 'points'?

I've no hopes of changing Jazzz's mind, it works for him, he gets something out of it or whatever. However, rather than just dealing with the 'evidence', I do think it's sometimes worth trying to pin down the assumptions that would have to be true for all of this to be a correct analysis. When you hear it, as in the '3 points', it's easy to get straight to the absurdities. Equally though, you're right, Jazzz won't ever feel bound by this and will move on to the next. The goalposts are on well oiled castors.

 

[equationgirl]

Plus these are public forums. It's good that there is somewhere on the interweb where conspiracy theories are challenged robustly and repeatedly.

 

[equationgirl]

They are official criteria.

<snip>

Where are they from, then?

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

Yeah that argument makes sense on the whole, and I understand the logic (although I don't have the energy to bother personally). My point wasn't so much 'why engage with jazzz' in general as 'why engage with this specific point' - there's a slight difference here to his usual arguments in that this is an outright lie about his own behaviour. The usual stuff is at least an argument of sorts, even if it's generally a terrible one.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Well okay Wilf. Genuine terrorist events (rather than 'false flags') tend to have three things:

1) suicides do not take place unless they are necessary to execute the attack. E.g. the Palestinian suicide bombers conceal the bombs on their body because that's the only way they can get the bomb close to their target.

No, it's the delivery method of greatest utility, as opposed to the only way. It's more strategically-sound, too.

2) They are accompanied by clear claims of responsibility and demands. That is the point of them.

Not true. Making no claims of responsibility is itself an old and much-used tactic in asymmetric warfare.

3) They don't coincide with a terror drill at the same place or nearby.

Except when they do, anyway.

 

[Wilf]

Well this one has false flag written all over it.

As you've been good enough to reply to my questions, just one more: do the gun battles and manhunt in Boston for the surviving Tsarnaev brother still suggest 'false flag'?

 

[Wilf]

Seems Icke is still running with a 'the 2 lads were framed' line:
http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/82966-fbi-ignores-men-with-backpacks-at-scene-of-boston-bombings
Presumably the MIT cop shot himself as well.

Jazzz?

 

[goldenecitrone]

As you've been good enough to reply to my questions, just one more: do the gun battles and manhunt in Boston for the surviving Tsarnaev brother still suggest 'false flag'?

You've got to hand it to them. It's brilliant acting.

 

[Wilf]

You've got to hand it to them. It's brilliant acting.

Of course they did work with Stanislavski.

 

[sihhi]

Seems Icke is still running with a 'the 2 lads were framed' line:
http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/82966-fbi-ignores-men-with-backpacks-at-scene-of-boston-bombings
Presumably the MIT cop shot himself as well.

Jazzz?

This stuff is so dumb it's unreal. They found a uni student so loyal to the lizards he willingly let himself be killed and a police officer happily let himself get shot to stage the incidents - which are concealed from other police officials. This will allow Obama to open FEMA camps to arrest and murder thousands like after Katrina (which happened even though of course it didn't).

 

[kavenism]

This stuff is so dumb it's unreal. They found a uni student so loyal to the lizards he willingly let himself be killed and a police officer happily let himself get shot to stage the incidents - which are concealed from other police officials. This will allow Obama to open FEMA camps to arrest and murder thousands like after Katrina (which happened even though of course it didn't).

It's not only dumb it's sick. I've been looking at the thread for this over at Icke's site and there are people who have literally been trawling through the footage of injured and suffering people, of friends and family of the bereaved, looking for the "actors", the "shills", the "fixers", all while there are people still in hospital possibly losing their limbs. Isn't it about time we stop engaging with these types and start treating them like what they are, perverse sociopathic oxygen thieves?

 

[frogwoman]

It's not only dumb it's sick. I've been looking at the thread for this over at Icke's site and there are people who have literally been trawling through the footage of injured and suffering people, of friends and family of the bereaved, looking for the "actors", the "shills", the "fixers", all while there are people still in hospital possibly losing their limbs. Isn't it about time we stop engaging with these types and start treating them like what they are, perverse sociopathic oxygen thieves?

they did that on 7/7, one bloke driving a van got death threats.

 

[equationgirl]

It's not only dumb it's sick. I've been looking at the thread for this over at Icke's site and there are people who have literally been trawling through the footage of injured and suffering people, of friends and family of the bereaved, looking for the "actors", the "shills", the "fixers", all while there are people still in hospital possibly losing their limbs. Isn't it about time we stop engaging with these types and start treating them like what they are, perverse sociopathic oxygen thieves?

I think it's worse to let them go unchallenged myself. These types seem to take silence as tacit agreement.

You are right though, to be gleefully trawling footage whilst people are critically ill is sick and cruel.

 

[kavenism]

I think it's worse to let them go unchallenged myself. These types seem to take silence as tacit agreement.

You are right though, to be gleefully trawling footage whilst people are critically ill is sick and cruel.

The trouble is that from their weird perspective being challenged is evidence either of the unthinking mentality of the sheeple which they have risen above, or that their truther activities are so righteous since they evoke the efforts of people to shut them up! You lose whatever you do. I prefer to save time and just not bother. No amount of argumentation is sufficient to change their minds. To even consider that possible is to presume that they're open to rational argumentation and the giving and challenging of reasons, whereas to look at any of their writing is to see that the opposite is the case. I still think there's a great sitcom to be written about the truther/conspiracy community though. Just looking at Icke’s forum you know the script would write itself.

 

[equationgirl]

The trouble is that from their weird perspective being challenged is evidence either of the unthinking mentality of the sheeple which they have risen above, or that their truther activities are so righteous since they evoke the efforts of people to shut them up! You lose whatever you do. I prefer to save time and just not bother. No amount of argumentation is sufficient to change their minds. To even consider that possible is to presume that they're open to rational argumentation and the giving and challenging of reasons, whereas to look at any of their writing is to see that the opposite is the case. I still think there's a great sitcom to be written about the truther/conspiracy community though. Just looking at Icke’s forum you know the script would write itself.

When I argue against their theories on the internet, I'm arguing to persuade the people who would be taken in by their crap if it went unchallenged. I think it's pretty evident from my numerous debates (and I use that word loosely) on here that these types don't change their minds.

 

[goldenecitrone]

Of course they did work with Stanislavski.

Stan who? Another Chechen, I'll be bound.

 

[kavenism]

When I argue against their theories on the internet, I'm arguing to persuade the people who would be taken in by their crap if it went unchallenged. I think it's pretty evident from my numerous debates (and I use that word loosely) on here that these types don't change their minds.

Yeah that is a good point. Trouble is no matter of challenge seems to be preventing these folks from running legion. I know an otherwise perfectly sensible friend of a friend that seriously worries that David Icke could be right about the moon being a hollow satellite! This stuff is becoming more and more prevalent, and the more it does the more it seems to gain some kind of legitimacy. Even if it’s just vague propositions about Bilderberg or some other supposedly controlling cabal, the cumulative effect is to prevent any kind of serious thought on politics or current events, everything gets filtered through the loon mill from the outset.

 

[Idris2002]

Yeah that is a good point. Trouble is no matter of challenge seems to be preventing these folks from running legion. I know an otherwise perfectly sensible friend of a friend that seriously worries that David Icke could be right about the moon being a hollow satellite! This stuff is becoming more and more prevalent, and the more it does the more it seems to gain some kind of legitimacy. Even if it’s just vague propositions about Bilderberg or some other supposedly controlling cabal, the cumulative effect is to prevent any kind of serious thought on politics or current events, everything gets filtered through the loon mill from the outset.

Some years ago I was talking to someone about how mobile phones and laptops containing coltan from the eastern DRC, and how the coltan trade is a major factor in keeping the civil war there going. . . and she said "oh, so you're one of those people who think the moon landing was a hoax, then?"

 

[existentialist]

Yeah that is a good point. Trouble is no matter of challenge seems to be preventing these folks from running legion. I know an otherwise perfectly sensible friend of a friend that seriously worries that David Icke could be right about the moon being a hollow satellite! This stuff is becoming more and more prevalent, and the more it does the more it seems to gain some kind of legitimacy. Even if it’s just vague propositions about Bilderberg or some other supposedly controlling cabal, the cumulative effect is to prevent any kind of serious thought on politics or current events, everything gets filtered through the loon mill from the outset.

They're not really running legion: it's just that, on the internet, their voices are as loud as everybody else.

Which is a disadvantage in terms of the fact that their opinions can, effectively, carry equal weight, but an advantage from the point of view that it doesn't take long for people to get conspiraloon overload. So long as there are sensible people around who are responding to the loonspuddery (ideally, rationally and calmly), it isn't going to take long for most people who pass a clue shop with any regularity to realise who the stary-eyed nutjobs spraying their monitors with spittle are, and who are the ones who might just still have a toe down on Planet Earth.

Jazzz, I have to say, has been doing an increasingly brilliant job of making himself look like one of the former lately, right down to his blunt refusals to engage in debate - apart from the most transparently one-upmanship kind - with anyone, especially the reasonable ones.

 

[Jazzz]

This one bemuses me most of all. There's the obvious issue of why, why would special ops false flaggers draw attention to terrorism just as they were about to do it? However there's also the issue of complexity. Any kind of conspiracy to bomb a building, never mind bring down towers/fly planes, would involve an enormous number of people. They'd all need to do their job perfectly and also keep schtum, permanently. Why would the planners of the attack decide to add further complexity by getting people to run drills??

You carry out the attack by carrying out the drill, and just making it live.

 

[equationgirl]

You carry out the attack by carrying out the drill, and just making it live.

Then it's not a drill.

And I'd quite like the answer to my question please.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Some years ago I was talking to someone about how mobile phones and laptops containing coltan from the eastern DRC, and how the coltan trade is a major factor in keeping the civil war there going. . . and she said "oh, so you're one of those people who think the moon landing was a hoax, then?"

I had a similar experience when someone mentioned the Bologna station bombing as an example of left-wing terrorism.

See e.g. http://libcom.org/files/Stefano-Delle-Chiaie.pdf

All the lizard fancier stuff sounds superficially similar to some aspects of real-world soundly evidenced conspiracies, so it makes it easier to airbrush them from history.

 

[existentialist]

You carry out the attack by carrying out the drill, and just making it live.

Course you do, Jazzz, course you do.

Because that's the only purpose of a drill.

(ETA: it's OK, I can rolleyes at Jzzz, not to mention inserting facepalms into his username: he's ignoring me, so I get away with it )

 

[Jazzz]

Then it's not a drill.

Indeed, it becomes a crime. But the people involved in assisting it won't know that. Law enforcement that might otherwise intervene won't know that. Indeed, the very people who are carrying out the crime might not know it.

And I'd quite like the answer to my question please.

The answer to your question is, are you really that stupid?

 

[equationgirl]

Indeed, it becomes a crime. But the people involved in assisting it won't know that. Law enforcement that might otherwise intervene won't know that. Indeed, the very people who are carrying out the crime might not know it.

The answer to your question is, are you really that stupid?

No, the answer to my question would have been where you got those criteria from, not an insult.

Is that because despite you claiming they are 'official criteria' you made them up?

 

[Jazzz]

No, the answer to my question would have been where you got those criteria from, not an insult.

Is that because despite you claiming they are 'official criteria' you made them up?

You are really that stupid.

 

[equationgirl]

You are really that stupid.

You made them up.

I'm not the one avoiding questions with playground-quality insults.