Dr. Alex Jones; Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love FEMA - A look at the NWO Theory
336 replies, posted
[QUOTE=insidious420;30784973]*giant post*[/QUOTE]
Please, don't even try to insinuate that the planes [I]weren't [/I]what brought down the towers.
Why does nobody get this through their head. Controlled demolition requires explosives or as some conspiracy theorists claim, thermite. Explosives create a lot of noise. Thermite creates a lot of incredibly bright light.
Neither noise, or incredibly bright light was noticed before the towers fell. It's stupid to even suggest that there was any controlled demolition.
Also, the towers did not fall perfectly "into their own footprint"
[img]http://www.apfn.org/APFN/3101-07-WTC.jpg[/img]
Notice the many gutted buildings around ground zero.
Oh don't make me refute this, please.
[editline]29th June 2011[/editline]
Fuuuuck, I'll get to it.
[QUOTE=The Vman;30785699]Please, don't even try to insinuate that the planes [I]weren't [/I]what brought down the towers.
Why does nobody get this through their head. Controlled demolition requires explosives or as some conspiracy theorists claim, thermite. Explosives create a lot of noise. Thermite creates a lot of incredibly bright light.
Neither noise, or incredibly bright light was noticed before the towers fell. It's stupid to even suggest that there was any controlled demolition.
Also, the towers did not fall perfectly "into their own footprint"
[IMG]http://www.apfn.org/APFN/3101-07-WTC.jpg[/IMG]
Notice the many gutted buildings around ground zero.[/QUOTE]
Actually, some FDNY workers reported many popping noises like small explosions ringing around & around the building(s) before it fell, accompanied with brief flashes at points along faces of the buildings. There are videos & plain audio clips around the net of these accounts. There are also accounts from various WTC employees stating there were unprecedented physical security lapses in the weeks prior to 9/11, as well as strange loud noises, like heavy construction, being done on the higher floors while no construction was officially scheduled. The insinuation in that video was that the witness believed he was hearing demolition explosives being planted through the building weeks in advance, and that the unprecedented lax security aided in doing so undetected. Circumstantial evidence, sure, but these are people who were physically there as things were happening, trained observers & rescuers of human life, and people who worked in the WTC who knew the daily going-ons and who noticed things out of the norm.
Poor choice of words on my part: The collapses were not PERFECTLY into their own footprints, but they certainly did not follow the path of least resistance; the majority of debris of both fell almost straight down into themselves. As I was watching on live TV, I was expecting one of them to only partially collapse, only the top (above impact) fall and hit the section beneath and topple off, or some combination, but I did not expect nearly everything of both towers to disappear into a cloud of dust on its way downward.
Obviously I'm no expert, but I can see why so many people latch onto the controlled demolition theory: it looked remarkably similar to a controlled demolition, compared to the many I've seen through my life (not first-hand). As a kid, I was fascinated with this kind of stuff after I saw David Copperfield escape from a building about to be CD'd, and since then I actively sought out & watched many, many CDs on TV & the net. Again, I'm no expert, and I don't think anyone has ever seen 2 planes fly into 2 buildings and completely pulverize 3 buildings (WTC7) into nearly perfect vertical falls (watch WTC7 collapse videos and tell me it doesn't look like CD), but I don't think you have to be an expert on this type of stuff to justify questioning what it appeared like with regard to physics and the structures of the buildings.
It is far from stupid to suggest a controlled demolition for the 2 main towers and WTC7. Again, to my knowledge, steel does not melt at the temps jet fuel burns at, and these buildings were steel framed & reinforced. Although most (if not all) of the steel wreckage was removed & shipped overseas before it could be examined, there were questionable photographs of partial steel beams in the wreckage, cleanly severed mid-point at an angle consistent with a shaped charge such as thermite.
I'm not trying to convince anyone of my own doubts/beliefs, just trying to make a point that if you clear your mind & really look into it, there are many questionable aspects of the events of the day. That said, read up on the London 7/7 bombings, all the coincidences that day, the similarities to 9/11 with how nearly identical training exercises were being run simultaneously with the events that actually happened in each case. It's all highly questionable stuff if you actually read into it.
I'm not suggesting subterranean reptilian human hybrid overlords are orchestrating world-wide genocide of mankind through unnecessarily elaborate shenanigans, but rather that history has proven that the powers-that-be can, have, and will launch false-flag operations to reach some ultimate goal, and that if there is ever any reason for doubt about a serious, life/world-changing event, it should not be ignored or ridiculed... it should not also be bought-into without rational thought & examination.
Psycho: my statement you quoted was hyperbole to express a point. The point was, the entirety of both of the buildings (actually, all 3 including WTC7) were nearly vaporized in a fraction of the total time a controlled demolition would have taken, with a strikingly comparable level of thoroughness and precision. Thanks for making a personal attack though.
Hey, 420 boy, we would love some sources on a bunch of your 'reports' and such. Also: INCREDIBLY bright light, which was not shown at all with the twin towers.
Also you can show me your degree in explosive weaponry later if you choose?
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;30792442]Hey, 420 boy, we would love some sources on a bunch of your 'reports' and such. Also: INCREDIBLY bright light, which was not shown at all with the twin towers.
Also you can show me your degree in explosive weaponry later if you choose?[/QUOTE]
From what I've seen, thermite/mate reactions aren't super bright on film/video. I'm not sure how bright they are in person or how bright you expect them to be, as I've never seen it first hand. Also like I said, I don't have sources for some things I mention - it's been years since I was interested in reading & researching this type of stuff. But I have a link for one interesting video about thermite/mate, and it has some very brief clips of some FDNY guys & WTC victims I mentioned who talk about strange things they saw & heard, it's about 15 minutes & I recommend watching the whole thing. There are many clips out there with more witness material.
[URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNOM_U5UM6Q[/URL]
If nothing else, the only point I'm trying to prove here is that there are many, many valid reasons people have for doubting the official story and for following this particular theory, and that not all "conspiracy theorists" are absolute nutters who believe in mass government genocide, extra dimensional reptilian beings, rainbows from sprinklers as evidence of chem-spraying, etc.
EDIT: Here is another clip of a random guy talking to a NIST investigator/scientist, mostly about the steel and unusual temperatures & fires seen on 9/11 and months later still hot, all easily verifiable by digging around the net for good sources; this one has more FDNY & other witness testimony. IMO, the narrator's caption bubbles are unnecessary & highly opinionated, but the clip is OK & only 6 minutes.
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YaFGSPErKU[/url]
I've seen thermite explosions on television and the internet, it's extremely bright and causes a huge glare. That being said, now Alex is saying the reason they want this genocide is because the government are aliens who want to wipe out the human race so they can have the planet for themselves.
[editline]30th June 2011[/editline]
Not. Kidding.
[editline]1st July 2011[/editline]
They say the U.S. government was behind the Pearl Harbor raid to.
I think I'm going to write a book.*
420, if you want to state that something happened, or that a certain theory is true, and you claim there is evidence for it, show us the sources. Post links to something. It's incredibly messy otherwise because there ARE so many different takes on what "really" happened, and trying to get to the bottom of what your saying is difficult. For one thing, you're saying 9/11 is a false-flag operation, but you're saying that you're not exactly claiming the government had anything to do with it. How can there be any reason to believe it's a false flag operation without having some idea who's behind it? I'm not saying it's impossible, but it would be nice to know where you're coming from. Telling us it's there doesn't help, because I could type "9/11 false-flag" in Google and get conspiracies on how aliens were involved. Although, I do appreciate you posting a couple videos. I'll check them out tomorrow.
Another thing that bothers me is, since when did every conspiracy theorist on the planet become a structural analyst? It's almost as if it's some kind of supernatural power that comes only to those who initially suspect that they're being conspired against. I think one thing people are forgetting is that the jets hit somewhere in the middle of the building. How many floors were above where they hit? How much weight was resting there? The metal didn't need to melt. It just needed to lose strength. The temperatures were at least above the point where steel begins to weaken. The differing temps at various sections of the floors caused structural instability. Several exterior columns were already taken out. Finally, one thing people seem to have a hard time remembering is that not everything in the frame of the design was a massive beam. There were several connecting points on the joints that likely gave way. So, why were explosives needed? Why thermite? Maybe someone could put some diagrams on the net illustrating where the explosives would have been placed?
I'm not a structural analyst. I don't have any degrees in this sort of thing. But, to suggest that some elaborate scheme took place prior to the impact in an effort to weaken the building's structure seems ridiculous. I wouldn't doubt that if a massive earthquake caused the towers to fall instead, there would be dozens of conspiracy theories claiming that HAARP was involved.
Also, just a note: Steel and other metals can be melted with electric induction. I've experienced it myself, in fact. Apparently, if the battery cables in your car are not properly conducting electricity, the positive terminal will swell up and the clamp will melt. Now I have a lot of parts to replace. Not so sure that that has any bearing in this discussion, but I thought it was interesting.
I'm not trying to be aggressive about this, and I can't claim to be up to date on all the theories out there. I'm also not trying to simply dismiss everything I hear. I can understand people questioning a lot about what happened. Nothing makes sense about that day. That's because it was senseless. It shouldn't have happened. But, the problem with saying that it was a false flag operation, or claiming some other established theory, is that it doesn't come with evidence... at least not yet. It doesn't come with anything substantial to prove that it was anything other than what it seems to have been. It's not impossible, but it hardly seems provable.
I wish I could say more right now, but I don't have the time. I would just like to quote you on something real quick:
[quote]If no one ever questioned the established "truth" propagated by the higher powers that be, we would still believe the earth was the center of the friggin universe. THAT truth did not change easily and was also ridiculed and it's creators & believers persecuted & humiliated.[/quote]
Who humiliated them? Who persecuted them? Who said the earth was the center of the universe, or that the earth was flat, or that smallpox was God's judgment on Job? People who were told to believe that. People who found a coincidence, connected two dots, or mistook correlation for causation. How were they proven wrong? Evidence.
*I'm serious. I just might write a book.
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;30794551]I've seen thermite explosions on television and the internet, it's extremely bright and causes a huge glare. That being said, now Alex is saying the reason they want this genocide is because the government are aliens who want to wipe out the human race so they can have the planet for themselves.[/QUOTE]
Seriously? Did he stop taking whatever meds were keeping him sane?
[QUOTE=markg06;30797963]Seriously? Did he stop taking whatever meds were keeping him sane?[/QUOTE]
Probably, he's definitely lost whatever fraction of a mind he had.
[QUOTE=insidious420;30784973]Is this not at least somewhat similar to the state of affairs since 9/11, with many people effectively being racially-profiled, with 0 or minimal or at best circumstantial/coincidental "evidence"[/QUOTE]
The airport I use most frequently is the Mineta International Airport. The guy it's named after, Norman Mineta, was George W. Bush's Secretary of Transportation on 9/11.
[quote=Wikipedia]On September 21, 2001, Mineta sent a letter to all U.S. airlines forbidding them from practicing racial profiling; or subjecting Middle Eastern or Muslim passengers to a heightened degree of pre-flight scrutiny. He stated that it was illegal for the airlines to discriminate against passengers based on their race, color, national or ethnic origin or religion. Subsequently, administrative enforcement actions were brought against three different airlines based on alleged contraventions of these rules, resulting in multi-million dollar settlements.[/quote]
Does that mean racial and religious profiling doesn't still happen? Of course not. It happens a lot and is terrible. But 50 years ago a guy as high-ranking as Mineta pursuing something like that would be unthinkable. [i]Things are better now[/i]. Doesn't mean all our problems are fixed, doesn't mean we don't have to keep fighting for what's right, but anyone who says the U.S. is getting more and more repressive has no grasp of history whatsoever.
[QUOTE=insidious420;30784973]with Guantanamo Bay and many falsely-accused "terrorists" imprisoned for up to years with no due-process? CIA performing extraordinary renditions in general, but specifically with innocent people (I know of at least 1 case for this, read an amazing article or two about some poor guy who was abducted, tortured, and dropped off in another country when the CIA realized he wasn't actually a person of interest, but sadly I do not recall his name, this was years ago)? I think that is "comparable" to your examples. [/QUOTE]
These guys are all non-U.S. citizens. In the 1950s, not only did we imprison non-U.S. citizens with no due process, we propped up brutal dictatorships in their countries, tested nuclear weapons on their homes without permission or compensation, and funded genocidal commandos, all in the name of fighting communism. Again, the U.S. government is doing things today that are wrong. But look back half a century and you can't seriously say that what's happening now is WORSE than what went on then.
[QUOTE=Polykatana;30794611]
Another thing that bothers me is, since when did every conspiracy theorist on the planet become a structural analyst? It's almost as if it's some kind of supernatural power that comes only to those who initially suspect that they're being conspired against. I think one thing people are forgetting is that the jets hit somewhere in the middle of the building. How many floors were above where they hit? How much weight was resting there? The metal didn't need to melt. It just needed to lose strength.[/QUOTE]
You don't have to be a structural analyst to recognize how strange the WTC7 collapse was. To me, and many others, it is clearly a controlled demolition based on the visual evidence alone, there is no other logical explanation for it. If I were to show you a video of it, but not tell you beforehand that it was from 9/11, I'm sure you would agree, it was a CD. However, knowing it was on 9/11 makes people want to look for any other type of explanation, however infeasible, because if CD is accepted as truth for what brought down WTC7, then that implies foreknowledge of the entirety of the day's events (since CDs take weeks or months to plan).
Here is a video with the WTC7 fall, and Dan Rather stating it looks like CD:
[URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nvx904dAw0o[/URL]
More angles of the suspicious WTC7 collapse:
[URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A[/URL]
[URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsJQKpnkZ10[/URL]
...and a video comparing CDs to WTC7:
[URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk[/URL]
Here are various live news clips of reporters & witnesses stating how the main tower collapses resembled CD (including Peter Jennings), and reports of explosions within the buildings long after the impacts and right before they fell:
[URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t20eBRZl8Zw[/URL]
Also in general a video worth watching is the Naudet FDNY documentary on 9/11, which just happened to catch the first plane impact (to my knowledge, the only footage of the first impact). The videos also include rescuers entering the WTC lobby and the massive destruction on the ground floor and so much more emotionally powerful stuff. It is just a powerful experience to watch, and easily some of the best live on-site video captured that day:
[URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIpLLYadyeo[/URL]
As an aside, these videos & any number of videos will show, the first tower was not hit in the middle, it was easily in the top 1/3 of the tower, and the second tower was hit barely above the halfway point.
[QUOTE=Polykatana;30794611]
I'm not a structural analyst. I don't have any degrees in this sort of thing. But, to suggest that some elaborate scheme took place prior to the impact in an effort to weaken the building's structure seems ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
Taking WTC7 into account, I strongly disagree and do not think the idea is ridiculous at all. Two planes hit two steel reinforced structures and brought down three steel reinforced structures, and NIST has yet to come up with a clear, universally accepted explanation for any one of them.
None of this is even getting into the other suspicious ancillary facts: that many of the purported 9/11 hijackers were actually discovered to still be alive (name & visual matches); one hi-jacker's passport was discovered on the street outside WTC (the point is, it's amazing that it survived the impact, explosion, & flames, or that it somehow escaped the plane before impact); the mysterious and highly-profitable "put" options on UA & AA stock placed days/weeks before 9/11, insinuating foreknowledge; reports of middle-eastern looking men positioned to watch the events and "celebrating" as the towers fell, with later reports indicating these were Israeli Mossad agents, held in custody for suspected involvement, but later deported back to Israel; the multiple war game scenarios being run on 9/11, some of which almost exactly matched the actual events that were taking place, which created confusion toward a proper response; the countless surveillence cameras around the Pentagon, yet the only footage released of that plane impact was literally less than 10 frames of blurry video from one camera, from one angle, and no other footage released due to "security risks"; and much more.
Look, I'm not trying to convince anyone, I've tried that in the past, and it is immensely emotionally draining. It is like a Christian trying to convince an atheist/agnostic of the importance of faith and believing in an invisible man in the sky looking over humanity and the world, or similarly it is like an atheist/agnostic trying to convince a religious person of the significance of logic & reasoning and how they defy religious faith - both are effectively impossible. If you are fine with the truth you currently hold dear, then you will not be convinced otherwise no matter what anyone says. A change in mindset like this, or a paradigm shift, must come from within and must be a personal journey, which is why I have no desire to find more material than I already have shared about any of this, and re-tread through the same stuff I did years ago for my own personal curiosity and comfort and peace of mind. If any of the above stuff is interesting, don't ask me (or anyone) to spoon-feed it to you (I didn't, when I was initially interested in this stuff), Google it and use your brain to search for relevant & trustworthy sources!
Again, the point I'm trying to make is that there are many valid reasons many average citizens, many reputable people in the public spotlight, and many academics have to doubt the "official story" of what, why, when, who, how, 9/11 occurred and many potentially related aspects, and that not all "conspiracy theories" are as obviously retarded as the ones Amute debunked. There are far more significant & questionable things out there beyond some country yokel seeing a type of train he has never seen before and jumping to ridiculous conclusions and attracting a following of equally or even less-mentally-endowed frothing-at-the-mouth followers.
But, for the sake of argument, here are some other examples of past false-flag operations, and other things, using Wikipedia simply as a launching point:
Wow, one of them is even perpetrated by Israel, to try to instigate USA into attacking Israeli's enemies for them, imagine that!:
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident[/URL]
The Nazi's may have covertly done something but blamed someone else, to reach a goal of their own? Preposterous!:
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire#Dispute_about_van_der_Lubbe.27s_role_in_the_Reichstag_fire[/URL]
Oh my, our own US Gov has actually planned in the past to launch false-flag operations of our own?:
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods[/URL]
High-ranking elements within the various world governments, political members, armed forces, and corporations would never, ever want to meet in secret to discuss secret things with themselves, in turn potentially violating federal law ([URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act[/URL]), would they?!:
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group[/URL]
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohemian_Grove[/URL]
You know why people might want to meet in secret? To stop people from interfering in their affairs, I mean what would you do if someone just walked into the doctors office if you were being looked at and just started asking shit you'd want them to fuck off.
I'm still researching a lot of what you posted. I'm not about to return a response to the links and videos you posted without having adequately covered all aspects. Until then, I want to touch on a part of your post that doesn't require research to discuss.
[quote]Look, I'm not trying to convince anyone, I've tried that in the past, and it is immensely emotionally draining. It is like a Christian trying to convince an atheist/agnostic of the importance of faith and believing in an invisible man in the sky looking over humanity and the world, or similarly it is like an atheist/agnostic trying to convince a religious person of the significance of logic & reasoning and how they defy religious faith - both are effectively impossible.[/quote]You ARE trying to convince someone. No one comes to a message board and types up three long-winded posts supporting a theory, philosophy, or idea without having some intention of corralling people into their mode of thought. That's the point of a debate. And, that's what we are doing here. But, it will be emotionally draining if you put emotion into it. This is not supposed to be a struggle to determine who is right or who the winner is. This is supposed to be about getting down to the truth and presenting others with a picture of both sides.
It may be that I will never convince you of anything, and likewise, you will never convince me of anything. That just may be the case. However, it's not pointless. People all over the world who want the truth will often find themselves drowning in an overwhelming flood of conflicting, disorganized information. They need to see civil debates like this where information is brought to them. Imagine a newlywed couple who, six months down the road, find that they can expect a new addition to their family. Then, one day they go to a party or some social function where another couple approaches them, congratulates them, and begins to talk their heads off. Then, the dreadful subject comes up. The engaging couple asks the newlyweds about vaccinations, and then suggests that it's not a good idea. Vaccines (according to a friend of theirs who's co-worker has a sister who had a child with autism) have thimerosal, and thimerosal causes autism. So, now the couple is faced with a difficult decision and a lot of homework to do. They find sources online, books and coffee at Barnes&Noble, and a bunch of health magazines that contain conflicting information on the subject, and soon they find themselves swimming in half&half sea of truth and lies.
People like that need to see debates like this. They need to see all perspectives and theories come to the center to do battle. They need us to bring the sources, logic, and arguments that we find stable enough to claim as our weapon. This isn't for us, it's for others. So yes, you are trying to convince other people, and yes, it is that important.
[quote]If you are fine with the truth you currently hold dear, then you will not be convinced otherwise no matter what anyone says. A change in mindset like this, or a paradigm shift, must come from within and must be a personal journey, which is why I have no desire to find more material than I already have shared about any of this, and re-tread through the same stuff I did years ago for my own personal curiosity and comfort and peace of mind. If any of the above stuff is interesting, don't ask me (or anyone) to spoon-feed it to you (I didn't, when I was initially interested in this stuff), Google it and use your brain to search for relevant & trustworthy sources![/quote]I don't see much in this quote that isn't in some way offensive to me. You're insinuating that:
1.) I hold closely to what I believe like it's some religion or blanket of comfort, and I, along with so many others, am incapable of being persuaded otherwise,
2.) I am lazy and demand others to "spoon-feed" me information,
3.) I don't use any modicum of intellect here, and the fact that I don't Google to find the exact sources of information you claim exist is an indication of that.
I'll respond to each of these respectively.
1.) I accept truth only. I've been on both sides of religious deliberation in my life and have come to affirm that truth is all I will look for when it comes to issues like this. I don't want to support one side or the other, because both eventually lead to extremes. Either, I believe that the government could never do anything wrong, or I believe that a decade from now we'll all be subjects in some mind-control experiment conducted by FEMA, the FDA, or YMCA. Both are absurd, both paint a spectrum of lies that so many people find themselves trapped in. I want to know what the truth is. If you provide me with convincing evidence contrary to what I believe, if you show me that it was in fact a controlled demolition, I will change my mind. I will still continue to search for more information, however, either against or in support of this very conclusion, because I have to reassure myself that I have the truth. The claim that everyone is some hardened, immutable shell of made up opinions seems like more of an excuse for you to say what you want to say, and then leave with a sense of pride, thinking that you're above all of this because you're enlightened on the inner workings of the average simpleton's mind. Why did you post any of this to begin with if you truly believed it would have had no impact?
2.) You came into this discussion making various claims about about thermite, false flag operations, and controlled demolition. Then you were asked for sources. Not necessarily proof. You were asked for the sources from which you got your information so that there could be a structured discussion about it, rather than people scrambling all over the net to find those few golden nuggets of information that you claim are trustworthy, but will never divulge the location of. Your response to this is, "Don't ask me to spoon feed it to you." Really?
3.) If you have read my previous posts, then you probably already know the problems I'm having currently with local conspiracy theorists. Don't you think I've already searched high and low to find information on vaccines, 9/11, and countless other subjects that are brought into question on sites like PrisonPlanet or InfoWars? I've seen a lot of claims about what happened that day. Likewise, I've heard a lot of opinions on everything else that is allegedly designed to kill us. I've sat in humiliation and embarrassment in restaurants and other public areas when certain people I was with would just spontaneously turn to me or someone else and ask something like, "What do you think about Mercola and their plot to poison us?" I've had some guy throw a fit when I offered someone else a piece of Trident gum. I have to study this stuff. I have to keep on guard because I am constantly assaulted with the most ridiculous suppositions by very aggressive people who will do what they can to control me and the people I care about. I research. I don't just Google. I read books. I talk to people who have experience in these fields. I study the foundation of whatever is being questioned. When faced with the subject of vaccines, I spent half a year studying, comparing notes, claims, evidence, and other findings that were declared as evidence. This is not something I take lightly.
This is what results from adding insult to argument. I suppose the reason why debates are emotionally draining for you is because, when you do this, it turns into a battle of slurs and condescending remarks. That's not going to happen here. I'm at peace with my position. If someone has good information that casts doubt on what I think is truth, I'm more than happy to accommodate them. If I'm presented with information and sources, I will check them out, study them, and return my personal conclusion. And, that's what I will be doing for you later when I get more time.
I want to have a civil, mature discussion about this. I enjoy discussing things like this even... no, ESPECIALLY with people who disagree with me. I have so many people around me who try to shove their opinions down my throat that when I finally find people who can argue with me over and over again, and yet be understanding, subtle, and tolerant, it's like Christmas. I'm seriously considering writing a book, and this, among other things, is going to help me do the research and gather the information I need. I'm not feeling drained at all. I feel optimistic.
I will try to get back to you later, but I've still got a lot of other responsibilities to attend to, and unfortunately, life won't pause just so I can surf Youtube.
I hope you do write a book, you have a good attitude, and you sound a intelligent person.
Polykatana: regarding the paragraph you quoted me on, I didn't mean to sound like I was directing that at YOU personally. I know I literally used the word "YOU", but I meant it in a general way to refer to anyone, said in a manner as if talking to a friend in person. What I meant was, in general I believe most people have a very hard time re-examing preconceived thoughts & beliefs that holds some level of emotional significance, and especially when it is an outside party trying to convince them, rather than exploring something of their own accord.
That might be hard to buy, but please believe me I meant nothing negative or personal directed at you, I'm just sometimes not the most eloquent writer when trying try to express a point.
Well I showed this to a ton of conspiracy theorists. Those who responded said it was a lie because you're Irish. There is no end to the insanity.
Did anyone ever say what the secondary explosions in the WTC were
Insidious please don't answer this for obvious reasons
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;30928491]Well I showed this to a ton of conspiracy theorists. Those who responded said it was a lie because you're Irish. There is no end to the insanity.[/QUOTE]
Since when is Irish synonymous with being a lying twat?
[QUOTE=amute;30932059]Since when is Irish synonymous with being a lying twat?[/QUOTE]
To them? Since an Irishman disagreed with Jones.
[editline]6th July 2011[/editline]
As I said, no end to the insanity.
Man if any of these conspiracy nuts were right, don't you think the government would drag them off and dispose of them for revealing their plans?
[QUOTE=ElChrisman99;30933671]Man if any of these conspiracy nuts were right, don't you think the government would drag them off and dispose of them for revealing their plans?[/QUOTE]
A agree. Everyone knows that the government would be making it look to obviously if they just silenced all the conspiracy theorists, which is exactly why the [I]would [/I]silence them, as nobody would expected them to be that careless!
[QUOTE=Mingebox;30933725]A agree. Everyone knows that the government would be making it look to obviously if they just silenced all the conspiracy theorists, which is exactly why the [I]would [/I]silence them, as nobody would expected them to be that careless![/QUOTE]
[img]http://www.gmodforums.com/images/sasmilies/emot-psyduck.gif[/img]
[QUOTE=Mingebox;30933725]A agree. Everyone knows that the government would be making it look to obviously if they just silenced all the conspiracy theorists, which is exactly why the [I]would [/I]silence them, as nobody would expected them to be that careless![/QUOTE]
What
[editline]6th July 2011[/editline]
also conspiracy theorists are batshit crazy
i think at least a few people in my family are CT's
this is why i hate fox news, rush limbaugh, glenn beck, and alex jones:
[url=http://postimage.org/image/azduhrd0/][img]http://s3.postimage.org/azduhrd0/photo2.jpg[/img][/url]
I saw this today in a bathroom. Meaningless, but it still shows that it's not unheard.
great post OP rated check
[QUOTE=ElChrisman99;30933671]Man if any of these conspiracy nuts were right, don't you think the government would drag them off and dispose of them for revealing their plans?[/QUOTE]
I've said that dozens of times. If half of what they said was true they'd have all gotten the gas chamber (in their minds we use those). They just cover that up by saying they've gotten death threats (to them anyone who dislikes them works for the government) and point out that some of them have been arrested (and let out in exchange for telling their fellow lunatics to stop trying to burn down the police station).
[editline]6th July 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=fox '09;30940014]this is why i hate fox news, rush limbaugh, glenn beck, and alex jones:
[url=http://postimage.org/image/azduhrd0/][img]http://s3.postimage.org/azduhrd0/photo2.jpg[/img][/url]
I saw this today in a bathroom. Meaningless, but it still shows that it's not unheard.
great post OP rated check[/QUOTE]
Write "Don't" in front of want. There's too many of them as is, the last thing we can allow is further spreading.
would of if i had a sharpie or something. probably should just cross the entire thing out
[QUOTE=fox '09;30948449]would of if i had a sharpie or something. probably should just cross the entire thing out[/QUOTE]
They'd just say it was the CIA or NBC or google trying to silence them.
[editline]6th July 2011[/editline]
They refuse to acknowledge the fact that people disagree with them for reasons other than being payed to do so.
[QUOTE=fox '09;30948449]would of if i had a sharpie or something. probably should just cross the entire thing out[/QUOTE]
Use toilet paper/water to wipe it off the wall.
[editline]6th July 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;30950117]They'd just say it was the CIA or NBC or google trying to silence them.
[editline]6th July 2011[/editline]
They refuse to acknowledge the fact that people disagree with them for reasons other than being payed to do so.[/QUOTE]
"The CIA wiped my graffiti off of a bathroom stall!"
They'd say it and think it was more obvious than 2+2 equaling 4.
[editline]6th July 2011[/editline]
Heck these people have such a messed-up grasp on reality they probably think 2 plus 2 is 5 and that it equaling 4 is part of a government conspiracy.
[quote]Write "Don't" in front of want. There's too many of them as is, the last thing we can allow is further spreading.[/quote]
That won't do much though. And, really, it's not the way it's done most of the time. It seems people who support infowars or anything similar are more aggressive about this kind of thing than people who don't believe in conspiracies.
We have two sides: Skeptics, and Believers. I'm not talking about religion. I'm talking about everything else. In a skeptic forum or function, people of all different beliefs, convictions, whatever, are free to roam about, ask questions, and even (are you ready for this?) disagree with the founders of that organization or forum, like the JREF for example. Now, of course, acting like a jerk will get you banned, but being opinionated, curious, or just plain different won't get you censored.
However, in a forum like InfoWars, posting something contrary to their beliefs will get you censored, if they don't just ban you first. Sure, you can have a slightly differing opinion. You could probably have a different belief as to why the CIA is using facebook to track our every move. But, you can't say it's not likely.
Oh, and as for functions, ever heard of Autism One?
[URL]http://silencedbyageofautism.blogspot.com/2011/05/autism-one-pick-up-your-police-escort.html[/URL]
Of course, I'm sure there are many other Anti-vax functions, which means many more censorship stories, but as for conspiracy ones? I have no idea. All I know of are rice-bagging parties. Anyway, the point is, if you want to attend any of these things, you have to keep a low profile, and never ever say that you disagree with anyone. Keep your mouth shut, and either leave or believe. It won't do you any good to say anything anyways. So, I would just say, leave it there. Best not to play their game. They censor facts because it conflicts with conjecture. They censor doubt or questions because it forces them to show their hand. If we censor them, they'll claim it's because we're trying to keep the New World Order a secret.
To Insidious: I'm not taking a lot of offense to it. I was just trying to show how it could be offensive. That's why I tried to end on a positive note. We can have debate without animosity. Also, I'm still working on a response, but this week has been difficult for me. I'm going to the library tomorrow, so I should have time then to get myself, and everything else, together.
[B]Edit:
[/B]Nevermind. Looks like my plans changed again.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.