9/11 Conspiracy Stuff

First topic message reminder :

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You're clearly an imbecile who probably believes 911 was an inside job.

I actually do believe that

superflyweight wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Gwlad - you have proof of who really shot JFK? I'm impressed, you should consider making it public. I have no doubt that your concrete evidence will clear things up once and for all, leaving absolutely no room for doubt. Except for those with woolly eyes, of course.

Thanks for making my point.

It would be highly embarrassing for us to believe that we had actually been fooled for all these years, that the Warren Commission was accurate....etc

And highly self-congratulatory to believe that we know better than others, who we can then dismiss as sheep, reinforcing our own sense of superiority. Certainly the id and ego can be powerful forces.

I'd say your inferiority is driving that post; my position has nothing to do with superiority just an understanding that we should sometimes question our political masters. We were duped then, that was acknowledged by the house Senate committee later; governments spend billions on making us believe stuff while they have highly secretive organizations working in the background apparently in our name to ensure we do. The Warren Commission is an example. Watergate nearly became an example…will 9/11?

And I dismiss the sheep for exactly the same reason that anyone who doesn't toe the party lien gets dismissed as a conspiracy theorist.

Parklife!

I bet you have a picture of Russell Brand on your bedside table.

What a hurtful thing to say. Take it back David Icke.

Well GWLAD can you point us to some conspiracy theories you believe at the moment (leaving out 9/11, we're bored to death of that one)

And then point us in the direction of where there's proof of said conspiracy, and if we can we'll point you in proof of why it's wrong and so on,

We could all learn something then

Gwlad wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:TRUSSMAN66 - 1, Gwlad - 0

No one likes a referee but then i guess you have always been either a ref or spectator in life right

Not always, no. But then there's no talking to avowed lunatics is there?

superflyweight wrote:What a hurtful thing to say.  Take it back David Icke.  

Okay so you have a picture of Daivd Icke by your bed, whatever.

I think you're actually more intellectual lightweight than flyweight and since you have absolutely nothing to contribute why don't you go and read My Booky Wook and leave the conversation to the adults.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:TRUSSMAN66 - 1, Gwlad - 0

No one likes a referee but then i guess you have always been either a ref or spectator in life right

Not always, no. But then there's no talking to avowed lunatics is there?

Not always? But most of the time right, sitting on the fringes in your tight little shorts, looking in with nothing of substance to actually say. Trying and failing to be amusing. That's navyblueshorts for you.

Gwlad wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:TRUSSMAN66 - 1, Gwlad - 0

No one likes a referee but then i guess you have always been either a ref or spectator in life right

Not always, no. But then there's no talking to avowed lunatics is there?

Not always? But most of the time right, sitting on the fringes in your tight little shorts, looking in with nothing of substance to actually say. Trying and failing to be amusing. That's navyblueshorts for you.

Whatever. Enjoy your tinfoil...

as I said, most of the nutters get highly strung out when you question them ha ha.

Sure it wasn't you that did the 9/11 documentary glad :-)

Gwlad wrote:

superflyweight wrote:What a hurtful thing to say.  Take it back David Icke.  

Okay so you have a picture of Daivd Icke by your bed, whatever.

I think you're actually more intellectual lightweight than flyweight and since you have absolutely nothing to contribute why don't you go and read My Booky Wook and leave the conversation to the adults.

You seem upset? Why?

I don't understand that comment anyway, Lightweight is heavier Flyweight so seems an unintellectual thing to say.

superflyweight wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

superflyweight wrote:What a hurtful thing to say.  Take it back David Icke.  

Okay so you have a picture of Daivd Icke by your bed, whatever.

I think you're actually more intellectual lightweight than flyweight and since you have absolutely nothing to contribute why don't you go and read My Booky Wook and leave the conversation to the adults.

You seem upset?  Why?  

Seems to happen a lot on the off topic boards, supes. I inadvertently really annoyed someone with quite an innocuous hypothetical the other day, still not sure how or why.

Good spot HH. Am glad I didn't call myself Superpaperweight.

In your face Gwlad (if that is even your real name).

Rick - no good has ever come of being on the Off Topic section - its a strange and dark place and it scares me a lot.

The off topic section is a great section think we all just need to take a deep breath every once in a while and have a giggle over the crap we all say

None of you people know anything about flies 'cept me and superlightflyweight! So if you're not qualified to have opinions on flies, please desist from trying to look intellectual by giving ten cents worth of utter nonsense on the subject.

I know all about flies - my trousers have a them. Ask me anything.

Derbymanc wrote:Well GWLAD can you point us to some conspiracy theories you believe at the moment (leaving out 9/11, we're bored to death of that one)

And then point us in the direction of where there's proof of said conspiracy, and if we can we'll point you in proof of why it's wrong and so on,

We could all learn something then

For those inclined I think the Martin Luther king shooting needs re-examining..........We have a career criminal who is helpful enough to leave his binoculars and gun near the scene of the crime with his "fingerprints" all over them.....A broke career criminal that couldn't steal a bottle of milk without getting caught suddenly managing to jet set to Canada...London twice and Portugal.........

It certainly is food for thought...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:Well GWLAD can you point us to some conspiracy theories you believe at the moment (leaving out 9/11, we're bored to death of that one)

And then point us in the direction of where there's proof of said conspiracy, and if we can we'll point you in proof of why it's wrong and so on,

We could all learn something then

For those inclined I think the Martin Luther king shooting needs re-examining..........We have a career criminal who is helpful enough to leave his binoculars and gun near the scene of the crime with his "fingerprints" all over them.....A broke career criminal that couldn't steal a bottle of milk without getting caught suddenly managing to jet set  to Canada...London twice and Portugal.........

It certainly is food for thought...

WMD Iraq 2003. Not even a conspiracy theory as they were all too dim to cover their tracks.

Next

What do you mean WMD's in Iraq, don't think that's a conspiracy as it's pretty much been covered (and if memory serves me right, was said at the time) that there wasn't any.

Unless the conspiracy is that there was but they're hiding that from us?

I flip flop on 9/11 sometimes but not in the way some of you do. I think the government had more info than they let on and a bit like what happens, they dropped the ball a bit and didn't realise how serious it was. (but then that's normal government not conspiracy I suppose)

Other than that can't think of anymore, instead of slagging each other off then what theories do you think hold some weight and why (No secretfly don't be writing any essays on it ;-)

Roswell.

But what about Roswell Julius, all the vids and that have been debunked (I think)

I don't think debunking stops some people believing in any conspiracy. They just assume the debunking is part of the conspiracy, or ignore it, or believe that there is other stuff that is still hidden.

I only said Roswell for fun, to see if anyone came up with anything, but if there's any point to be made from it, it's in my above paragraph.

Roswell definitely exists...

UFO's don't have to be alien either.

I want to believe.

Derbymanc wrote:What do you mean WMD's in Iraq, don't think that's a conspiracy as it's pretty much been covered (and if memory serves me right, was said at the time) that there wasn't any.

Unless the conspiracy is that there was but they're hiding that from us?

I flip flop on 9/11 sometimes but not in the way some of you do. I think the government had more info than they let on and a bit like what happens, they dropped the ball a bit and didn't realise how serious it was. (but then that's normal government not conspiracy I suppose)

Other than that can't think of anymore, instead of slagging each other off then what theories do you think hold some weight and why (No secretfly don't be writing any essays on it ;-)

9/11 travesty was caused by the CIA and the FBI not sharing information...Always been very competitive each one wanting to be top dog..

CIA were aware of the Al Queda links of the men and that something was going down they just didn't think it was the FBI's business.

Like Pearl Harbor it could and should have been avoided.

Are you kidding us, Truss?  

The CIA knew there was something going down of a major nature involving a threat to the security of the Nation?  

The FBI didn't know anything because the CIA didn't want to tell them?  

And they both kept what they knew or didn't know away from the President and his boys so that even the President couldn't hint to the FBI that the CIA had essential info on a major National security threat that they weren't telling the FBI about but were informing him on?  

We're back to Rumsfeld territory.

So the grand All Seeing Eye that is the CIA (proven one more time by Vault 7 disclosures), that had the ability to eavesdrop on virtually ALL digital communications by any person on the planet (including domestically in the USA even though it is not formally in their remit to do so) as early as the late 90s.  (UKUSA Agreement/Stoneghost/Echelon):

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/us-spy-base-taps-uk-phones-for-mi5-1364399.html
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukusa/

............That CIA knew that they knew something was going down, they knew how and why they were conscious that something was going down - but they didn't know what that something was or when it was due?      

That was some code being used by the terrorist guys - there should be a movie on how perfect that code must have been that the CIA couldn't understand what they were talking about and couldn't seemingly keep them under surveillance... but still knew something big was coming?  
It must have been some code to allay the fears of the CIA to the extent that they felt the threat was not of a significant level either to intercede themselves or to urgently tell the FBI so that the domestic investigation boys could spoil the plans before execution of those plans.  

But whatever your opinion of what the CIA knew or didn't know, on what they shared or didn't share with the FBI; whatever your degree of belief in the idea that in America there is absolutely no cross-over of infiltration agents through the CIA and the FBI (considering your idea that they are very much competitors) - whatever about all that, the facts that the CIA had ample personnel and allies around the world, ample International intelligence links and the ability to know what was going down in their own Nation (without needing the FBI to tell them) suggests they were either exceptionally negligent - criminally negligent - or.......................................... they knew exactly what was going to happen and when.

Anyone familiar with the Mandela effect? It's really worth checking out.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I want to believe.

Then just believe

kingraf wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:I want to believe.

Then just believe

Hadn't thought of that.