Topic: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Get Destroyed | |
---|---|
I find it interesting that someone mentioned Canadian fringe groups with an anti-Semitic bent. I don't want to generalize this because I know there are many out there who aren't anti-Semitic, but the "Truther" tactics are quite similar to those used by Skinheads, Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the Aryan Brotherhood. These groups use conspiracy theories to gain support, and refuse to entertain any evidence or argument that contradicts their own views. Of course, this could also be said of many extremist groups. Given that, I wouldn't be surprised if such a fringe group did seize on Michael Moore's conspiracy theory, pushing their own propaganda to promote civil unrest just to make a power grab of their own. So, as Jeanniebean said in other threads, "look for the agenda".
Leaping lizards, Batman! I think I'm beginning to develop a reverse-conspiracy theory... |
|
|
|
The whole "Truther" story is one of ignorance piled upon ignorance. If you survey any population you can find some people who will believe anything and have no education to understand what they are believing. If only one percent of the population falls into this category, it leaves a loud silly group. And then there are the hard core "truthers" who will deny any science to believe any absurd story. The actual truth just gets in the way of the trumped up garbage they have imagined. To them, anyone who disagrees is "stupid", "brainwashed", "gullible", or some other nasty adjective to use as a weapon. |
|
|
|
The whole "Truther" story is one of ignorance piled upon ignorance. If you survey any population you can find some people who will believe anything and have no education to understand what they are believing. If only one percent of the population falls into this category, it leaves a loud silly group. And then there are the hard core "truthers" who will deny any science to believe any absurd story. The actual truth just gets in the way of the trumped up garbage they have imagined. To them, anyone who disagrees is "stupid", "brainwashed", "gullible", or some other nasty adjective to use as a weapon. i'll buy into that, someone must have dropped the ball for allowing it to hit the pentagone, what was it, 45 minutes after the twin towers?... maybe they were busy shooting down the other plane, and i have read that russia had some planes in our airspace during this, and some of our fighters were escorting them back... |
|
|
|
The whole "Truther" story is one of ignorance piled upon ignorance. If you survey any population you can find some people who will believe anything and have no education to understand what they are believing. If only one percent of the population falls into this category, it leaves a loud silly group. And then there are the hard core "truthers" who will deny any science to believe any absurd story. The actual truth just gets in the way of the trumped up garbage they have imagined. To them, anyone who disagrees is "stupid", "brainwashed", "gullible", or some other nasty adjective to use as a weapon. You give rubes a bad name. |
|
|
|
I will simply say one thing......follow the money. That is all. that's all you'll say? c'mon man. enlighten us. tell us all about your concerted efforts to, 'follow the money' and what you've learned. or, like me, did you simply hear the term, 'follow the money' before and unlike me you actually bought into the bs? I'm not sure if you're taking me seriously or not by that statement. i'll consider whether or not i'm taking you seriously after i've heard your accounting of your experience to, 'follow the money.' you did follow the money right? how else could you suggest that we all do so if you've not tracked it from it's source to end user? i'm always interested in hearing about actual research data put forth by people like you. what i'm not the least interested in and never take seriously are folks who repeat the same old political and media sound bites such as, 'follow the money.' you either followed the money or you simply repeated what others keep saying who've never followed the money either. but here's your chance to provide me a reason to take you seriously, so have at it. All I meant by that was, you have to consider who owns and controls the media, that is to say, the elite, your Rockefellers, your Murdochs, your Rothchilds, etc etc. They who run the media also control its' content, as well as well as what ISN'T content. So when I say follow the money, what I am telling you is they who hold it have the power as well, and you can be certain they will use that power to suit their agenda, which is NOT the agenda of the American people at large and never really has been. so you followed the money and found that rothchild, murdoch and rokefeller planned and carried out 911? That isn't my point, you're taking my quote out of context. My point is, if they control the media they control what information is put out and what isn't. Ergo, if they want to spin that 9-11 was done the way you think and discredit others who think otherwise, they will do it. That simple. |
|
|
|
I will simply say one thing......follow the money. That is all. that's all you'll say? c'mon man. enlighten us. tell us all about your concerted efforts to, 'follow the money' and what you've learned. or, like me, did you simply hear the term, 'follow the money' before and unlike me you actually bought into the bs? I'm not sure if you're taking me seriously or not by that statement. i'll consider whether or not i'm taking you seriously after i've heard your accounting of your experience to, 'follow the money.' you did follow the money right? how else could you suggest that we all do so if you've not tracked it from it's source to end user? i'm always interested in hearing about actual research data put forth by people like you. what i'm not the least interested in and never take seriously are folks who repeat the same old political and media sound bites such as, 'follow the money.' you either followed the money or you simply repeated what others keep saying who've never followed the money either. but here's your chance to provide me a reason to take you seriously, so have at it. All I meant by that was, you have to consider who owns and controls the media, that is to say, the elite, your Rockefellers, your Murdochs, your Rothchilds, etc etc. They who run the media also control its' content, as well as well as what ISN'T content. So when I say follow the money, what I am telling you is they who hold it have the power as well, and you can be certain they will use that power to suit their agenda, which is NOT the agenda of the American people at large and never really has been. so you followed the money and found that rothchild, murdoch and rokefeller planned and carried out 911? That isn't my point, you're taking my quote out of context. My point is, if they control the media they control what information is put out and what isn't. Ergo, if they want to spin that 9-11 was done the way you think and discredit others who think otherwise, they will do it. That simple. That is if you assume ALL of the media is under government control. Some news outlets are pure news and no spin. Problem is Turner Media and groups like his that will take a news story and spin it to fit THEIR agenda of social consciousness engineering. Paranoia works against you. So why allow yourself to fall into their trap of perception? I only believe half of what the media says! If I believed any more I would be buying into lies! You honestly don't think Banks and Globalists are not out to destroy our way of life rather than our own from within? We call those who sell out to our enemies traitors normally. Now we call them corporations! |
|
|
|
I will simply say one thing......follow the money. That is all. that's all you'll say? c'mon man. enlighten us. tell us all about your concerted efforts to, 'follow the money' and what you've learned. or, like me, did you simply hear the term, 'follow the money' before and unlike me you actually bought into the bs? I'm not sure if you're taking me seriously or not by that statement. i'll consider whether or not i'm taking you seriously after i've heard your accounting of your experience to, 'follow the money.' you did follow the money right? how else could you suggest that we all do so if you've not tracked it from it's source to end user? i'm always interested in hearing about actual research data put forth by people like you. what i'm not the least interested in and never take seriously are folks who repeat the same old political and media sound bites such as, 'follow the money.' you either followed the money or you simply repeated what others keep saying who've never followed the money either. but here's your chance to provide me a reason to take you seriously, so have at it. All I meant by that was, you have to consider who owns and controls the media, that is to say, the elite, your Rockefellers, your Murdochs, your Rothchilds, etc etc. They who run the media also control its' content, as well as well as what ISN'T content. So when I say follow the money, what I am telling you is they who hold it have the power as well, and you can be certain they will use that power to suit their agenda, which is NOT the agenda of the American people at large and never really has been. so you followed the money and found that rothchild, murdoch and rokefeller planned and carried out 911? That isn't my point, you're taking my quote out of context. My point is, if they control the media they control what information is put out and what isn't. Ergo, if they want to spin that 9-11 was done the way you think and discredit others who think otherwise, they will do it. That simple. Who says they care? If there was any proof of this theory it would be accepted. There isn't proof. |
|
|
|
I will simply say one thing......follow the money. That is all. that's all you'll say? c'mon man. enlighten us. tell us all about your concerted efforts to, 'follow the money' and what you've learned. or, like me, did you simply hear the term, 'follow the money' before and unlike me you actually bought into the bs? I'm not sure if you're taking me seriously or not by that statement. i'll consider whether or not i'm taking you seriously after i've heard your accounting of your experience to, 'follow the money.' you did follow the money right? how else could you suggest that we all do so if you've not tracked it from it's source to end user? i'm always interested in hearing about actual research data put forth by people like you. what i'm not the least interested in and never take seriously are folks who repeat the same old political and media sound bites such as, 'follow the money.' you either followed the money or you simply repeated what others keep saying who've never followed the money either. but here's your chance to provide me a reason to take you seriously, so have at it. All I meant by that was, you have to consider who owns and controls the media, that is to say, the elite, your Rockefellers, your Murdochs, your Rothchilds, etc etc. They who run the media also control its' content, as well as well as what ISN'T content. So when I say follow the money, what I am telling you is they who hold it have the power as well, and you can be certain they will use that power to suit their agenda, which is NOT the agenda of the American people at large and never really has been. so you followed the money and found that rothchild, murdoch and rokefeller planned and carried out 911? That isn't my point, you're taking my quote out of context. My point is, if they control the media they control what information is put out and what isn't. Ergo, if they want to spin that 9-11 was done the way you think and discredit others who think otherwise, they will do it. That simple. That is if you assume ALL of the media is under government control. Some news outlets are pure news and no spin. Problem is Turner Media and groups like his that will take a news story and spin it to fit THEIR agenda of social consciousness engineering. Paranoia works against you. So why allow yourself to fall into their trap of perception? I only believe half of what the media says! If I believed any more I would be buying into lies! You honestly don't think Banks and Globalists are not out to destroy our way of life rather than our own from within? We call those who sell out to our enemies traitors normally. Now we call them corporations! Well all mainstream media let's say then has a bias. Yes there all some unbiased news sources that exist, but you're mainly going to find those online and maybe in some places overseas, but that's about it. But you are right, those that are biased, do indeed take a story and spin it to fit their agendas. You're really closer to what I think than maybe it seems here. I do think the banks and globalists are out to destroy our way of life, and in fact in ways they already have. It's just been done so covertly that a lot of people fail to recognize it. To them it's nothing more than the definition of "normal life" changing. |
|
|
|
Edited by
Kleisto
on
Tue 08/02/11 03:30 PM
|
|
I will simply say one thing......follow the money. That is all. that's all you'll say? c'mon man. enlighten us. tell us all about your concerted efforts to, 'follow the money' and what you've learned. or, like me, did you simply hear the term, 'follow the money' before and unlike me you actually bought into the bs? I'm not sure if you're taking me seriously or not by that statement. i'll consider whether or not i'm taking you seriously after i've heard your accounting of your experience to, 'follow the money.' you did follow the money right? how else could you suggest that we all do so if you've not tracked it from it's source to end user? i'm always interested in hearing about actual research data put forth by people like you. what i'm not the least interested in and never take seriously are folks who repeat the same old political and media sound bites such as, 'follow the money.' you either followed the money or you simply repeated what others keep saying who've never followed the money either. but here's your chance to provide me a reason to take you seriously, so have at it. All I meant by that was, you have to consider who owns and controls the media, that is to say, the elite, your Rockefellers, your Murdochs, your Rothchilds, etc etc. They who run the media also control its' content, as well as well as what ISN'T content. So when I say follow the money, what I am telling you is they who hold it have the power as well, and you can be certain they will use that power to suit their agenda, which is NOT the agenda of the American people at large and never really has been. so you followed the money and found that rothchild, murdoch and rokefeller planned and carried out 911? That isn't my point, you're taking my quote out of context. My point is, if they control the media they control what information is put out and what isn't. Ergo, if they want to spin that 9-11 was done the way you think and discredit others who think otherwise, they will do it. That simple. Who says they care? If there was any proof of this theory it would be accepted. There isn't proof. If they can use it to control the populace, you're damn right they are gonna care. It's all about money and power to them, nothing more. Do not underestimate them. |
|
|
|
Edited by
actionlynx
on
Tue 08/02/11 03:42 PM
|
|
So, if a bunch of megalomaniacs are trying to do us all in, how come they aren't ripping each other to shreds too? If all they care about is money and power, then everyone else is an obstacle to gaining just that. Why would they work together? Megalomaniacs are notoriously poor team players.
|
|
|
|
I will simply say one thing......follow the money. That is all. that's all you'll say? c'mon man. enlighten us. tell us all about your concerted efforts to, 'follow the money' and what you've learned. or, like me, did you simply hear the term, 'follow the money' before and unlike me you actually bought into the bs? I'm not sure if you're taking me seriously or not by that statement. i'll consider whether or not i'm taking you seriously after i've heard your accounting of your experience to, 'follow the money.' you did follow the money right? how else could you suggest that we all do so if you've not tracked it from it's source to end user? i'm always interested in hearing about actual research data put forth by people like you. what i'm not the least interested in and never take seriously are folks who repeat the same old political and media sound bites such as, 'follow the money.' you either followed the money or you simply repeated what others keep saying who've never followed the money either. but here's your chance to provide me a reason to take you seriously, so have at it. All I meant by that was, you have to consider who owns and controls the media, that is to say, the elite, your Rockefellers, your Murdochs, your Rothchilds, etc etc. They who run the media also control its' content, as well as well as what ISN'T content. So when I say follow the money, what I am telling you is they who hold it have the power as well, and you can be certain they will use that power to suit their agenda, which is NOT the agenda of the American people at large and never really has been. so you followed the money and found that rothchild, murdoch and rokefeller planned and carried out 911? That isn't my point, you're taking my quote out of context. My point is, if they control the media they control what information is put out and what isn't. Ergo, if they want to spin that 9-11 was done the way you think and discredit others who think otherwise, they will do it. That simple. Who says they care? If there was any proof of this theory it would be accepted. There isn't proof. If they can use it to control the populace, you're damn right they are gonna care. It's all about money and power to them, nothing more. Do not underestimate them. That assumes they care about who caused 9/11 or not. |
|
|
|
I will simply say one thing......follow the money. That is all. that's all you'll say? c'mon man. enlighten us. tell us all about your concerted efforts to, 'follow the money' and what you've learned. or, like me, did you simply hear the term, 'follow the money' before and unlike me you actually bought into the bs? I'm not sure if you're taking me seriously or not by that statement. i'll consider whether or not i'm taking you seriously after i've heard your accounting of your experience to, 'follow the money.' you did follow the money right? how else could you suggest that we all do so if you've not tracked it from it's source to end user? i'm always interested in hearing about actual research data put forth by people like you. what i'm not the least interested in and never take seriously are folks who repeat the same old political and media sound bites such as, 'follow the money.' you either followed the money or you simply repeated what others keep saying who've never followed the money either. but here's your chance to provide me a reason to take you seriously, so have at it. All I meant by that was, you have to consider who owns and controls the media, that is to say, the elite, your Rockefellers, your Murdochs, your Rothchilds, etc etc. They who run the media also control its' content, as well as well as what ISN'T content. So when I say follow the money, what I am telling you is they who hold it have the power as well, and you can be certain they will use that power to suit their agenda, which is NOT the agenda of the American people at large and never really has been. so you followed the money and found that rothchild, murdoch and rokefeller planned and carried out 911? That isn't my point, you're taking my quote out of context. My point is, if they control the media they control what information is put out and what isn't. Ergo, if they want to spin that 9-11 was done the way you think and discredit others who think otherwise, they will do it. That simple. Who says they care? If there was any proof of this theory it would be accepted. There isn't proof. If they can use it to control the populace, you're damn right they are gonna care. It's all about money and power to them, nothing more. Do not underestimate them. That assumes they care about who caused 9/11 or not. There's a saying: "Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story". It'd behoove you to think about that. |
|
|
|
Edited by
Kleisto
on
Tue 08/02/11 04:01 PM
|
|
So, if a bunch of megalomaniacs are trying to do us all in, how come they aren't ripping each other to shreds too? If all they care about is money and power, then everyone else is an obstacle to gaining just that. Why would they work together? Megalomaniacs are notoriously poor team players. In ways there are indeed power struggles going on, be it behind the scenes or even sometimes in public (like with the whole Rupert Murdoch thing of recent times), doesn't mean though that there isn't an agenda that exists amongst it all however. |
|
|
|
If I may offer some wisdom to this. There is a game called Illuminati for real. It is a card game where several Illuminati groups vie for power. I have never once found any advantage in attacking any of my own power structure. Usually I resort to doing the other guy's instead. Now to compare it to here and now, there were MUCH better targets for an attack like this. State of the Union address would have been perfect to drop an Airliner on! You got most of congress, the president, and even the vice president all in one. Speaker of the house, heads of the military, you get a smorgasbord of the leadership of this nation in one place.
Also think about this, in the world community New York is seen as America's economic center and the WTC was a landmark. Islam thinks Americans worship money so the WTC was viewed as a high profile low risk target where the Pentagon was a high risk high profile target. they hedged their bets striking several targets. The Pentagon was a strike at our military headquarters. Yet another viable target and our Military would not exactly see a lot of value even trying to sway public opinion doing their own building risking personal who although are expendable would have been a painful loss to our own military operations. Now for Islamic Militants trying to help their friends in say Pakistan? Then the Pentagon makes total sense as a target. The game I was referring too actually is quite educational in the way things operate. You have to lie, cheat, and back stab to get ahead in that game. But the biggest no no of all is you NEVER intentionally weaken yourself. One dream job of mine was working for the FBI trying to find weaknesses in our infrastructure to prevent terrorists from stumbling on to ways to really fuque us! There are things if I was asinine enough to pull off would screw California so badly alone and the frightening thing is the impact of the crap I have in mind. It is not the stuff I want to write a book about and inspire some a$$hole to try pulling it off! Could you see California without its Aqueducts because some nut managed to blow up one key spot and cripple most of the system??? If Los Angeles lost its water feeds this city would be in terrible trouble PDQ! Now about other targets for dropping a jet airliner, why not drop a jet or four on an international air port in the name of God? Want to really get a message out there and cripple Infrastructure??? I mean aim for the terminals! Maximum Carnage! Want to talk about headlines? The thing to me is that for as Amateurish as the 911 attack was it was a serious black eye for America in a lot of ways. Terrorist can only operate on information they know about. They are not trained that well to do real acts of suburban terror here. I even view the Oklahoma City bombing as an Armature attack because they killed a lot of children and innocent people. They could have chosen a better target. But they clearly did get a message of fear across with their attack because it harmed so many innocent lives. The fact is the terrorists who pulled off 911 were amateurs who got real lucky! We were not ready to believe anyone had the balls to pull something like that off! Well SURPRISE SURPRISE SURPRISE! To me the lack of sophistication of the 911 attack only shown how lax and ignorant Americans have become of the world around us. Now we are trying to kill mosquitoes with mallets! I do agree that many wars get blessed from reactionary fear. And an attack does wonders to galvanize opposing factions to band up and go after a common enemy. But there in lies America's greatest flaw, we are too factionalized and we in turn have become so paranoid that we can't stop long enough to really gather the facts before girding our loins and cavalierly ride into some foreign country and go crazy burning it to the ground. Then we get stuck rebuilding it! |
|
|
|
Edited by
Bestinshow
on
Tue 08/02/11 04:04 PM
|
|
I think the end game of it all is what we have now. A crippled broke middle class. Bankrupting wars makeing someone rich the bankers got bailed out by the tax payers and the rich stil pay an historicly low tax rate. Our media once the standerd for journalism is about as worthless as the soviet pravda. So many americans are struggling to survive and have no time or energy to quistion the authoratative voice of cbsmsnbcfoxcnn.
Unlike the rest of the free world we have no universal healthcare, we have poor people blameing poorer people for our economic troubles. We may as well submit I see no end to it. "When peaceful revolution becomes impossible, violent revolution becomes inevitable." -- John F. Kennedy Then they blew his brains out. |
|
|
|
Edited by
Kleisto
on
Tue 08/02/11 04:04 PM
|
|
If I may offer some wisdom to this. There is a game called Illuminati for real. It is a card game where several Illuminati groups vie for power. I have never once found any advantage in attacking any of my own power structure. Usually I resort to doing the other guy's instead. Now to compare it to here and now, there were MUCH better targets for an attack like this. State of the Union address would have been perfect to drop an Airliner on! You got most of congress, the president, and even the vice president all in one. Speaker of the house, heads of the military, you get a smorgasbord of the leadership of this nation in one place. Also think about this, in the world community New York is seen as America's economic center and the WTC was a landmark. Islam thinks Americans worship money so the WTC was viewed as a high profile low risk target where the Pentagon was a high risk high profile target. they hedged their bets striking several targets. The Pentagon was a strike at our military headquarters. Yet another viable target and our Military would not exactly see a lot of value even trying to sway public opinion doing their own building risking personal who although are expendable would have been a painful loss to our own military operations. Now for Islamic Militants trying to help their friends in say Pakistan? Then the Pentagon makes total sense as a target. The game I was referring too actually is quite educational in the way things operate. You have to lie, cheat, and back stab to get ahead in that game. The interesting thing about that game was that there was much hidden within it about some of the things that are actually going on or have happened since that game came out in the 1990's. 9-11 was one of them in fact as there is a card that depicts the idea of planes hitting the trade center. There was also one related to an oil spill, and of course we had the whole BP mess not too long ago. Rather strange coincidences no? |
|
|
|
Edited by
Kleisto
on
Tue 08/02/11 04:08 PM
|
|
I think the end game of it all is what we have now. A crippled broke middle class. Bankrupting wars makeing someone rich the bankers got bailed out by the tax payers and the rich stil pay an historicly low tax rate. Our media once the standerd for journalism is about as worthless as the soviet pravda. So many americans are struggling to survive and have no time or energy to quistion the authoratative voice of cbsmsnbcfoxcnn. Unlike the rest of the free world we have no universal healthcare, we have poor people blameing poorer people for our economic troubles. We may as well submit I see no end to it. I'm not even sure you can say that a free world really exists, as we are far from the only country to have others controlling or at least trying to control what we can and cannot do. Spot on about the questioning thing though, people just don't care enough to really research things or have the time to. So they just go along with they are told. Add in all the chemicals and things in our air, water and food, and you have a pretty docile populace that is very easily molded. |
|
|
|
That assumes they care about who caused 9/11 or not. There's a saying: "Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story". It'd behoove you to think about that. So you agree that you have no facts or "truth" so you just make up a "good story" about those people having a cover up agenda. |
|
|
|
Edited by
s1owhand
on
Tue 08/02/11 05:11 PM
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Kleisto
on
Tue 08/02/11 05:14 PM
|
|
That assumes they care about who caused 9/11 or not. There's a saying: "Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story". It'd behoove you to think about that. So you agree that you have no facts or "truth" so you just make up a "good story" about those people having a cover up agenda. Way to put words in my mouth, though coming from you I shouldn't be surprised that you'd twist my words to suit your own agenda. It's they that make up the truth as they see fit according to what they want to do, no matter what the truth actually is, and they've been doing it for a long time. But I don't expect you to understand that because you are so obviously incapable of seeing this. |
|
|