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

[butchersapron]

He's right though. And you didn't say much.

Blimey, an overtly offensive personal attack with no attempt to discuss what was said. On Urban of all places. Would you rather I said that I thought the Boston events were false flag even though I don't? Then you could have called me a fucktard too.

Why not?

 

[twentythreedom]

Pickman's model can you pm that thing to me too please

(It confirms exactly what I thought all along )

 

[Pickman's model]

Pickman's model can you pm that thing to me too please

(It confirms exactly what I thought all along )

Pm me an email & will send it you

 

[Pickman's model]

Blimey, an overtly offensive personal attack with no attempt to discuss what was said. On Urban of all places. Would you rather I said that I thought the Boston events were false flag even though I don't? Then you could have called me a fucktard too.

Not denying being dull and ennui-inducing almost to the point of tears I note

 

[Buckaroo]

Did he say 'Psychic act'?

 

[equationgirl]

I believe he did.

 

[Pickman's model]

 

[butchersapron]

It has nothing to do with a positive or negative view of females. It has to do with the fact that females have tended to figure most in the profession of circus psychics.

Sometimes I have just called it his "psychic act".

Butch has posted here and previously as if he knows what lots of other people think about me, even though his own estimation of what I think is often a miscalculation.

Not that he has answered on this, demonstrated it further or explained where his deep seated arrogance comes from or what qualifies it. I don't know if you have challenged him on that, but I
I hope this post answers your original question.

I do know what lots of other people think about you - they've told me, and they've told you.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Not denying being dull and ennui-inducing almost to the point of tears I note

Not denying everything you put to me doesn't equate with agreeing with it, as any fool would know. Inform us why anyone should engage with unsubstantiated abuse. This place is riddled with it. Ironically it is deeply dull.

 

[UhOhSeven]

Pickman's Model, I am a poor pathetic newbie who can't figure out how to PM you.

Is it the same thing as 'start a conversation'? Only I'm scared of clicking on that, in case you think I really do want a conversation.

So, please could you send that interesting-looking Jesus stuff to: gethsemenedump@hotmail.co.uk

(Pretty please with a cherry on top).

People having a row: As you were.

 

[editor]

Pickman's Model, I am a poor pathetic newbie who can't figure out how to PM you.

Is it the same thing as 'start a conversation'? Only I'm scared of clicking on that, in case you think I really do want a conversation.

So, please could you send that interesting-looking Jesus stuff to: gethsemenedump@hotmail.co.uk

(Pretty please with a cherry on top).

People having a row: As you were.

Conversations are the same as PMs, and only the people you invite into the conversation can access them. And the CIA lizards, of course.

 

[UhOhSeven]

Oh, thanks for the tip -- I shall do my best to remember.

 

[belboid]

Thijs Voskuilen, 'Operation Messiah: Did Christianity start as a Roman counterinsurgency operation?', in Small Wars and Insurgencies 16:2 (2005), pp. 192-215

Abstract:
Through examining the life and work of the man who is generally known as the Apostle Paul, I hope to challenge the idea that the founder of Christianity was a saint and replace it with the possibility that he really was an agent-provocateur working for the Roman administration in Palestine and various other parts of the Empire. Paul's biography and his own letters, both of which were taken up in the New Testament, hold numerous clues to the effect that this former persecutor, originally named Saul of Tarsus, never left the ranks of the government, but instead went undercover after his famous ‘conversion’ en route to Damascus. The self-proclaimed successor-to-Jesus was not only treated dramatically differently from Jesus by the Romans, but they were his friends and allowed him to live and work for 20 years instead of crucifying him. Jesus' original followers distrusted Paul, and made various attempts to kill him throughout his life. I will conclude by arguing that Paul's claim that Jesus, this candidate-king of the Jews, was the Messiah and had been crucified as the will of God (the prime assumption upon which Christianity is based) should be read as a sadistic mockery of Jewish faith, meant to divide a Jewish resistance organisation and pacify it.

butchersapron frogwoman

well, the article lived up to my hopes, it is a fine example of academic use of conspiracy theory practise.

It has one central argument that is hard to deny - that it was odd for the Romans to let Paul live and preach pretty much freely, despite being supposedly a prisoner. For seventeen years. That is, indeed, a bit odd. But from there...

Probably the most frequent phrase that crops up is 'it must be assumed' - and assume he sure does on a whole host of facts, mainly around the way the Romans did use spies and infiltrators. Many of these strike me as quite reasonable assumptions - there must have been some Roman espionage - but Voskuilen offers no actual facts or evidence to show that they definitely did so, and specifically finds none to show they planted supposed 'converts' into the flock.

There are a good range of references provided at the end of the article, it all looks very scholarly. Until ones looks a little closer. When one does that, one sees that there are only two authors referred to frequently, one being someone with whom he later co-authored his full book on Paul the Spy, and the other being an academic - a real academic, writing within in his area of specialisation - whose views on Christian origins wiki describes as being "highly controversial, with critics accusing Eisenman of backing up his allegations with "dubious circumstantial evidence and insinuations"." Sounds familiar. Both the co-author and the highly controversial chap are thanked by Voskuilen for helping with the editing and sourcing of sources for the article.*

in one part V.lists some of Paul's character traits:

Who, then, was the real Saul of Tarsus? Scholars have labelled him, among other things, a ‘genius’,a ‘chameleon’, ‘creative’,‘multilingual’,‘sarcastic’,‘a closet homosexual’, ‘a man of two cultures’,and ‘Liar’... Even though the above character traits can be considered remarkable for a saint, they are typical, indeed ideal, for a agent provocateur.'

Now quite how he reconciles that list with the second sentence is bizarre enough, but if you look at the list and its references, he quotes six sources for them. Groovy. But all of the clearly negative traits (I have no idea if being 'a man of two cultures' is good or bad. Possibly a hint at bi-sexuality??!!), come from just one book! No bias there then.

Two other bits are worthy of note. Early on he writes that it is doubtful whether the journey to Damascus on which Paul converted even took place. It is unlikely because Damascus was ceded to King Aretas IV in 37CE. Which looks a bit embarrassing for bible scholars. Until you read, right at the end of the article, that he says the journey took place in 36CE, when Damascus was under Roman control. Most scholars put the initial trip anywhere between 33 and 36CE, so there was not only time for that one, but for the return trips referred to elsewhere as well.

Right at the end of the article V makes the perfect CT challenge, setting up a framework for exploration of the question that means his theory will never be disproved:

The ultimate question is, then, who needs to prove what exactly? Does it have to be proven that persecutor Saul faked his conversion? Or does it rather have to be proven that an agent was sincere when he joined the movement he had recently been fighting in the name of the government? In the author’s opinion, it has to be proven that a persecutor is sincere about his joining a persecuted organisation. Saul had the means, motive and opportunity to lie about a change of mind. In addition, his actions validate the possibility of treachery both in biographical detail and literary content. Therefore, until it can be proven that Saul of Tarsus was sincere about his shift in loyalties, the possibility that he acted as an agent-provocateur under the name of ‘Paul’ must prevail, until contradicted by credible evidence.

So, Paul must prove he was genuine, 2000 years ago. Quite how he could do that is left strangely unclear. He can hardly go back and martyr himself.

So, in conclusion, we have: use of dodgy, circular, sources - check. Assertion used as fact - check. Misuse of known facts - check. Internally contradictory - check. Central involvement of 'the jews' - check. It does lose marks for quoting academics actually working within their field of expertise, so I give it a 9/10.



* The use of circularity of sources in academic journals - especially smaller, more specialist ones - is almost fascinating as a way of implying wide support for a theory which actually has no such support (or indeed, is completely fictitious). See, for example, this fascinating article on how a small group of people (possibly just one) carried out a convincing fraud that Dickens had met Dostoevsky - http://www.the-tls.co.uk/tls/public/article1243205.ece

 

[sihhi]

Should Glenn Beck be considered an ally of the truth movement taffboy gwyrdd

He has thrown down the gauntlet:

"Bring it on. Would you like some more, 'cause if you want another helping, we'll give it to you."

"We have a media that is so out of control they will destroy anyone who says Americans are in danger by both parties by all people involved"

 

[laptop]

well, the article lived up to my hopes, it is a fine example of academic use of conspiracy theory practise.

Thank you for reading it for us

* The use of circularity of sources in academic journals - especially smaller, more specialist ones - is almost fascinating as a way of implying wide support for a theory which actually has no such support. See, for example, this fascinating article on how a small group (possibly just one) of people carried out a convincing fraud that Dickens had met Dostoevsky - http://www.the-tls.co.uk/tls/public/article1243205.ece

Wonderful. That's my productivity for the day fucked

 

[belboid]

Wonderful. That's my productivity for the day fucked

That article is great. You have to almost admire the fraudsters. It is a very, very, long piece tho.

 

[William of Walworth]

Kinnell Belboid!

Can you do that to all conspiracy theories, ever, on all parts of the evil lizard controlled web?

 

[belboid]

Kinnell Belboid!

Can you do that to all conspiracy theories, ever, on all parts of the evil lizard controlled web?

that would require part two of the analysis - on the overall structure of such pieces (this one goes for option two, the specifically dubious/generic to the theoretically compulsive, rather than version one, the specifically, surprisingly, unarguable, generalising to a vaguer, but almost plausible theory), as well as the refutation of the CTers counter-thesis (ie, since I dont believe Saul/Paul was a Roman agent provacteur, I must believe that he really had a vision, and that the New Testament is wholly right.)

Fuck that. Much easier just to refer the reader to Umberto Eco's Foucaults Pendulum, the perfect deconstruction of all CTs. Especially the bit about cretins, fools, morons and lunatics.

 

[brogdale]

So...that bit of landing gear stuck between the blocks was from a (real, not holographic) Boeing...or so they say!

I mean, did you see the rope around the thing? No marks on either of the building sides?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/28/september-11-airplane-part-found-new-york

Anyone care to suggest who put it there?

 

[frogwoman]

So...that bit of landing gear stuck between the blocks was from a (real, not holographic) Boeing...or so they say!

I mean, did you see the rope around the thing? No marks on either of the building sides?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/28/september-11-airplane-part-found-new-york

Anyone care to suggest who put it there?

you would know who put it there if you opened your eyes to the truth

 

[existentialist]

So...that bit of landing gear stuck between the blocks was from a (real, not holographic) Boeing...or so they say!

I mean, did you see the rope around the thing? No marks on either of the building sides?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/28/september-11-airplane-part-found-new-york

Anyone care to suggest who put it there?

I think it is extremely unfair of them to discover this just as Jazzz finds himself unable to explain it all to we credulous fools.

There will, I am sure, be a perfectly logical explanation, probably involving the use of mass hypnosis, matter transference beams, moving of buildings by several inches to allow exactly the right space for this gear to be inserted, etc., etc.

Anyone who believes otherwise is being manipulated by TPTB, and should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[two sheds]

Where else are the governmnet going to plant a bit of the plane but "wedged between a mosque and an apartment building" though? That's a but sus isn't it?

 

[frogwoman]

we need to open our eyes to the truth so we can do what we all know needs to be done

 

[free spirit]

The twisted metal part – jammed in an 18-inch-wide, trash-laden passageway between the buildings – has cables and levers on it and is about five feet high, 17 inches wide and four feet long,

that must class as being an incredible shot, managing to shoot a 17 inch wide, 5 foot high, 4 foot long bit of metalwork into an 18 inch wide gap without causing enough damage to the walls for anyone to notice it for a decade.

I guess that with debris flying around all over the place that sort of thing will happen purely by chance, but it must be something like a 1:1000 shot, and seriously lucky it hit there and not the presumably occupied office block, as that size chunk of metalwork would caused some serious damage to anyone it hit.

 

[existentialist]

Also, I see one of the buildings was called "park51"

PARK51????? Oh yes, a likely story.

 

[two sheds]

that must class as being an incredible shot, managing to shoot a 17 inch wide, 5 foot high, 4 foot long bit of metalwork into an 18 inch wide gap without causing enough damage to the walls for anyone to notice it for a decade.

You've hit on it - it was P L A C E D. Not just a 1000:1 shot. Getting that exact part into that exact place is vanishingly small, just unbelievable really.

So W H Y would the government place it there? That's the next question we have to ask.

 

[laptop]

So W H Y would the government place it there? That's the next question we have to ask.

To distract us from the Real Conspiracy, of course.

Which is... err...

/revises hastily

 

[free spirit]

nah, more likely it was them muslims building the mosque stuck it there to make sure AQ could continue to take the credit for it rather than those pesky holographic CIA plane missile things.

 

[brogdale]

You've hit on it - it was P L A C E D. Not just a 1000:1 shot, though. Getting that exact part into that exact place is vanishingly small, just unbelievable really.

So W H Y would the government place it there? That's the next question we have to ask.

...or lowered into place...using the rope.

Worth looking at that rope, eh?

What does Israeli rope look like?

 

[two sheds]

The reflections on that photograph were all wrong. That's all I'm saying [taps nose].