Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * - - - 4 votes

911 inside job - for what?


  • Please log in to reply
4446 replies to this topic

#1801    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 17,433 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet TEXAS

Posted 01 May 2013 - 01:06 AM

psyche101 How the Heck do you do it mate? I need some Alpine Texas fresh air ! Get your self over here the Stars are calling you ! Four inch thick steak`s and THe Marfa Lights too !

This is a Work in Progress!

#1802    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,206 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 01 May 2013 - 01:38 AM

 Babe Ruth, on 30 April 2013 - 11:59 AM, said:

The editorials written by Fire Engineering Magazine were exactly right, and they had the courage to write them at the heighth of the hysteria regarding the events.

Laws were broken by the authorities as they destroyed the forensic evidence, and they made a joke of proper forensic procedures.


There you go again!!!!

I heard someplace..........................

Where are your links? Where are your explanations? Where is any bloody thing?

Surely you would not be convinced by such yourself, or would you? Is that how you became a "truther"?

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#1803    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,206 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 01 May 2013 - 01:53 AM

 poppet, on 30 April 2013 - 07:08 PM, said:

Life-long activist, Splitting the Sky appeared at St. Ann's Academy on November 29, 2008. In this impassioned and authoritative speech he meticulously follows the bloody and labyrinthine trail of corruption and money, which leads him to conclude that a cast of top-level financiers and international secret service agencies were behind the events of 9/11.


here is more on the activist Splitting the Sky and his suspicious death on Saturday, March 23, 2013.

http://splittingthesky.blogspot.co.uk/

It is not suspicious at all, the moron who writes the blogspot is an idiot is all. He wondered why an autopsy would be performed and how the death would not be suspicious without those results. Unless you have a clinical illness with record, an autopsy gets done. And quite often, when people smack their skull against concrete, they often die.

Excuse me? How can the BC Coroners Service confirm that "foul play" was NOT involved when they have NOT yet completed their investigation, NOR performed an autopsy? Are they psychics, or what is going on here?

No, not psychics, actual investigators who see no sign of foul play. But hey, if we push this hard enough, we will get enough people to believe another Conspiracy Theory.

This is the guy:

At age 19 he landed in Attica Prison, notorious for brutality and overcrowding. There he became the leader of the bloodiest prison revolt in U.S. history in 1971 — 43 people were killed, with 29 inmates and 10 hostages shot during the retaking of the prison by authorities. Boncore was sentenced to another 20 years and narrowly escaped execution over the death of a prison guard, and survived several assassination attempts on the inside before being pardoned in 1979
.

LINK

Edited by psyche101, 01 May 2013 - 02:03 AM.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#1804    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,206 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 01 May 2013 - 01:55 AM

 DONTEATUS, on 01 May 2013 - 01:06 AM, said:

psyche101 How the Heck do you do it mate? I need some Alpine Texas fresh air ! Get your self over here the Stars are calling you ! Four inch thick steak`s and THe Marfa Lights too !

I need some of that too, still waiting for a change of situation, and still looking forward to getting there, hopefully soon something will happen :D

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#1805    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,378 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 01 May 2013 - 12:59 PM

 psyche101, on 01 May 2013 - 01:38 AM, said:

There you go again!!!!

I heard someplace..........................

Where are your links? Where are your explanations? Where is any bloody thing?

Surely you would not be convinced by such yourself, or would you? Is that how you became a "truther"?

Don't you think that in 11 years people have learned new things?

The Fire Engineering Magazine editorials were written as it was happening, 10 or 11 years ago.

I could not care less whether you understand that, or believe that.  If you are curious, you would use your bloody computer to inform yourself about such matters.

I wish I were really really skilled and could provide the link you desire.  I'm not.  If I were, and I did provide the links you desire, I know full well from your pattern of behavior that you would deny the veracity of the links and ridicule the person who wrote them.

Your MO is as apparent as mine, Psyche.


#1806    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 17,433 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet TEXAS

Posted 01 May 2013 - 08:30 PM

Babe the only Mo is actually MOE,Larry,and Curley. And It seems you have them all wraped up into one train of thought. :tu: :tsu: :clap:

This is a Work in Progress!

#1807    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 01 May 2013 - 10:04 PM

 psyche101, on 30 April 2013 - 08:29 AM, said:

And yet I showed you that Annova did not have false information at all, and the three sources you provided clearly showed the obvious evolution of the sentence! You just refuse to accept that you are wrong. That is why you went to personal attacks on Annova because the information is sound, and you cannot attack it. The more you do, the more the evolution of the sentence becomes obvious. What you have proven is that if the information does not agree with you that you will Ad Hom the source, and you provided a fine example yet again to prove my point.

One of either your honesty or intelligence appear to be falling short here.

It’s very simple...

The Ummat report is the source material (search “Karachi Ummat”): -
http://www.fas.org/i...ra/ubl-fbis.pdf

The Ananova report is supposed to be based on the Ummat report: -
http://web.archive.o.../sm_410936.html

Ananova quotes bin Laden:  “Neither I nor my organisation Al-Qaida”.

Despite that no such quote appears in the Ummat source report.  It’s easy to check – it takes one minute.  Neither can any such quote be found in the separate BBC translation here: -
http://www.globalres...t-in-9-11/24697

I do however agree that the sentence was evolved, that is, by Ananova to add words that were never present in the original transcript.  And that Ananova, unlike those other more established sources, leads the article with that false quote, declining to present the full transcript, should be a clue as to the agenda and intent.

The fact is, the Ummat interview was the second ‘denial’ of bin Laden, who stated: “I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States.”  Only the most dishonest or stupid of official story adherents would dare twist that interview into some sort of bin Laden ‘admission’.


 psyche101, on 30 April 2013 - 08:29 AM, said:

If anything, you have provided an example of the panto debunking Stundie referred to.

The above is not “panto debunking”, which you apparently do not understand the concept of.  The above is verifiable to anyone who does a quick check of the quote that I suggested.


 psyche101, on 30 April 2013 - 08:29 AM, said:

What the heck does the Cyberbabe comment have to do with the information presented? Don't you like girls?

The comment is relevant because balanced people (apparently not you) hold more value in transcripts from the FBIS and BBC than from Ananova, the world’s first ‘cyberbabe’ newscaster, which for me assists to show the quirky nature of the site you follow.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#1808    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 01 May 2013 - 10:08 PM

 psyche101, on 30 April 2013 - 08:38 AM, said:

You did not refute nor confirm it. You have not proven what that dish actually does, you just assumed it. But I am sure you are proud of the speculation, that is one thing I see you do well, and frequently.

I have refuted, as have you, that the presence of a satellite dish rules out a prison.  Look you agreed, “LOL, most prisons have phones and Internet too!”  It was Zaphod’s argument alone that prisons cannot have satellite dishes, phones, communications, etc.

The presence of the satellite dish is irrelevant to my argument that the bin Laden compound served as a prison.  It is relevant only to Zaphod’s argument, and he raised the idea, that a satellite dish somehow means the compound cannot be a prison.

There is nothing for us to argue about on this point.


 psyche101, on 30 April 2013 - 08:38 AM, said:

I already  did, and made my case, that being you have no case and have presented opinion and tried to make out your opinion is fact. A man trap does not make a prison and you have not refuted that. Not do single walls, nor does the inside of the place confirm anything prison like at all. Wives in prison? Where else do people take their wives to prison with them? It is a secure home which one would want for the leader of Al Qaeda, and one of the most wanted men in the world.

Ok, so your argument against the bin Laden compound being a detention facility is that it doesn’t have double-walls.  Forgive me for finding that unconvincing.  Wiser people know that compounds used for house arrest do not necessarily consist of double-walls.  Actually, your mention of bin Laden’s wives tells me that you don’t understand the nature of house arrest or what a ‘gentle imprisonment’ (to quote the security analyst from earlier) might mean at all to begin with.  No wonder you struggle with the suggestion, without understanding the details.

http://en.wikipedia....ki/House_arrest

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#1809    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,206 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 02 May 2013 - 08:45 AM

 Q24, on 01 May 2013 - 10:04 PM, said:

One of either your honesty or intelligence appear to be falling short here.

It’s very simple...

The Ummat report is the source material (search “Karachi Ummat”): -
http://www.fas.org/i...ra/ubl-fbis.pdf

The Ananova report is supposed to be based on the Ummat report: -
http://web.archive.o.../sm_410936.html

Ananova quotes bin Laden:  “Neither I nor my organisation Al-Qaida”.

Despite that no such quote appears in the Ummat source report.  It’s easy to check – it takes one minute.  Neither can any such quote be found in the separate BBC translation here: -
http://www.globalres...t-in-9-11/24697

I do however agree that the sentence was evolved, that is, by Ananova to add words that were never present in the original transcript.  And that Ananova, unlike those other more established sources, leads the article with that false quote, declining to present the full transcript, should be a clue as to the agenda and intent.

The fact is, the Ummat interview was the second ‘denial’ of bin Laden, who stated: “I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States.”  Only the most dishonest or stupid of official story adherents would dare twist that interview into some sort of bin Laden ‘admission’.

Must be my intelligence because for the life of me, all I can see is direct personal bias on your behalf, and contradiction form what you said earlier about sources. From our initial discussion one should be able to present information from MAD Magazine - as long as the information is supported. You have not done this, you have made up your own sequence of events and tried to tell me that ridiculous grammar is quite OK, which I think makes you the one lacking intelligence, but going by the big words you like to use, you're obviously not academically challenged, so are you being dishonest here? I do not accet your biased version of the evolution of the sentence, and hell, here you are trying to tell me that there is evolution of the sentence, but not the obvious one I laid out, but the convoluted one that you made up. That sounds like a hypocrite to me.

 Q24, on 01 May 2013 - 10:04 PM, said:

The above is not “panto debunking”, which you apparently do not understand the concept of.  The above is verifiable to anyone who does a quick check of the quote that I suggested.

I did verify it, heck, you knew squat about the Annova article until I placed it right under your nose. And laid out the evolution of the sentence, that which you twisted to your own version and claimed bad grammar is quite acceptable. That is BS Q. You're "opinion" is not by any means fact.

 Q24, on 01 May 2013 - 10:04 PM, said:

The comment is relevant because balanced people (apparently not you) hold more value in transcripts from the FBIS and BBC than from Ananova, the world’s first ‘cyberbabe’ newscaster, which for me assists to show the quirky nature of the site you follow.

Yet way back when we first discussed sources in this thread, you said source was irrelevant. What happened to that? When you said:


When claims cannot be checked through supporting/contradictory evidence, i.e. when media reports state that something happened and I cannot validate the claim, then I generally give benefit of the doubt.

That was a big steaming pile of crap wasn't it?

Maybe you should watch some FOX and stress down a bit Mr Truther.

Posted Image





 Q24, on 01 May 2013 - 10:08 PM, said:

I have refuted, as have you, that the presence of a satellite dish rules out a prison.  Look you agreed, “LOL, most prisons have phones and Internet too!”  It was Zaphod’s argument alone that prisons cannot have satellite dishes, phones, communications, etc.

The presence of the satellite dish is irrelevant to my argument that the bin Laden compound served as a prison.  It is relevant only to Zaphod’s argument, and he raised the idea, that a satellite dish somehow means the compound cannot be a prison.

There is nothing for us to argue about on this point.

What the hell has Zaphods argument got to do with me? Prisons do have phones and internet, so what? I said the inside of the place, (and gave you examples) does not reflect a prison, the satellite dish shows that they can have phone and internet, via the dish, he had several wives with him, and the building looks like a strong house, not a prison. You have not refuted anything, you just keep banging on about a man trap.

I agree, nothing more to say here, you want to believe a house is a prison, more power to you.

 Q24, on 01 May 2013 - 10:08 PM, said:

Ok, so your argument against the bin Laden compound being a detention facility is that it doesn’t have double-walls.  Forgive me for finding that unconvincing.  Wiser people know that compounds used for house arrest do not necessarily consist of double-walls.  Actually, your mention of bin Laden’s wives tells me that you don’t understand the nature of house arrest or what a ‘gentle imprisonment’ (to quote the security analyst from earlier) might mean at all to begin with.  No wonder you struggle with the suggestion, without understanding the details.

http://en.wikipedia....ki/House_arrest

And it should have double ended gates at each end, not one at each and, and the razor wire, vehicles, anything more than some guards out the front andf a person OPINION might be a bit more convicning on your behalf!

From your link:


Pakistan


Where is Osama?

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#1810    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,206 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 02 May 2013 - 08:51 AM

 Babe Ruth, on 01 May 2013 - 12:59 PM, said:

Don't you think that in 11 years people have learned new things?

The Fire Engineering Magazine editorials were written as it was happening, 10 or 11 years ago.

Do you think only "truthers" Learned new things? Really? And do you think all the "things" the "truthers" have learned are all fact do you? If so, what are you and I doing having this conversation then?

 Babe Ruth, on 01 May 2013 - 12:59 PM, said:

I could not care less whether you understand that, or believe that.  If you are curious, you would use your bloody computer to inform yourself about such matters.

You make the claim, and I am expected to spend my time proving or disproving it? Not the way it works Babe Ruth. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Surely you have heard that before. Look, you might be a great guy in person, but your word just does not cut the mustard with me OK?

Use your own bloody computer to firm your claims. I manage to offer supporting links, what's your problem?

 Babe Ruth, on 01 May 2013 - 12:59 PM, said:

I wish I were really really skilled and could provide the link you desire.  I'm not.  If I were, and I did provide the links you desire, I know full well from your pattern of behavior that you would deny the veracity of the links and ridicule the person who wrote them.

Skilled? Ohh please. You cannot copy and past a URL into the box the little link brings up for you?

Pull the other one.

Why are you so worried I can so easily tear down any character you put up, unless you already know that are faulty? How else did you get that cart before the horse?

 Babe Ruth, on 01 May 2013 - 12:59 PM, said:

Your MO is as apparent as mine, Psyche.


My MO has links and supporting information, yours seems to come from a soapbox, I think you need to adjust your perspective there Babe Ruth.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#1811    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,206 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 02 May 2013 - 08:54 AM

 DONTEATUS, on 01 May 2013 - 08:30 PM, said:

Babe the only Mo is actually MOE,Larry,and Curley. And It seems you have them all wraped up into one train of thought. :tu: :tsu: :clap:


:tu:

Posted Image

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#1812    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 02 May 2013 - 01:01 PM

 psyche101, on 30 April 2013 - 08:15 AM, said:

I would call the following, all from UM, Anti Government. There is a common agenda, and Babe Ruth is a prime example. It matters not what the subject is, the Government is to blame, and they want to keep us in the dark, Flying Saucers, Bombs, Bigfoot, you name it, the Government is to blame.

Obama is a lying piece of ****, I don't trust him with signing food and health things which is worse than faking the killing of a terrorist. Hell it's worse than 9/11.

In my view, that is a diversionary tactic to distract from the real issue; government suppression of intimate knowledge of ET life and the UFO phenomena.

The government is controlled by special interests, pure and simple.  Whether they own the government or merely control it, is hard to tell.  The barbarians are indeed inside the gate, and so many of them wear business suits.

So I'm pretty sure most of you guys are familiar with the conspiracy that the Illuminati are driving the world to having a one world government dictatorship

I know the so called government should care about us  lol and provide subsidies to these things, if they get free from lobbying and giving money to the rich

"have you seen anything unusual in the sky, think you may have missing time, nightmares, wake up frozen with fear.... have unusual heat rashes… whoops I mean alien experimental injection sites, well you are entitled to government benefits and money for pain and suffering. Call 1-800-SUE-THEM, and get restitution for the terror and mental/medical problems that you have suffered because of the governments 60 years of lies and cover-up"

And from Dr. Jones, the arch nemesis of government story apologists, No explanation for the presence of iron-rich and silicate spheres is given in the USGS reports.

People are prevented from being individuals, from being who they are born to be.  They are prevented from thinking for themselves.  They must think what the government tells them to think, or what science tells them to think, they must say what they are told to say and must do what they are told to do.  This is another death.No one's saying the government does this EVERYDAY, but it DOES happen a lot and the media puts a little article about it in the news, yet when a bomb goes off in Boston they report it everywhere, and are SOO sympathetic to the victims and the families.
There might well be people who distrust parts of the government or be against the current government of which they are being governed by, but as a whole, even from what you have posted, there isn't anything to me that says anyone of those posters is anti government.

The 1st quote, the person doesn't trust Obama, but neither do a lot of republicans that didn't vote for him. Does that make them anti government too?
The 2nd quote, says the government is suppressing knowledge of ET and UFO. Just because he believes that they are suppressing information, doesn't equate to being anti government.
The 3rd quote, says the government is controlled by special interests and that they wear suits. How is that being anti government, all he is saying is that the government is being controlled by special interest groups and from what I can gather, he doesn't want to be governed by them. That is not ant government, he is not saying that he does not want to be governed.
The 4th quote, thinks the world is controlled by the illuminati and they want a one world government. Again, I'm not seeing anything that says he is anti government. All I can take from this is that he doesn't want to be controlled by the illuminate or the one world government.
The 5th quote, talks some crap about something in the sky and that governments have lied and covered up for 60 years. I'm not seeing anything saying he is anti government. As I said, criticism of the government doesn't equate to being anti government, even if he is anti Obama.
The 6th quote, calls those who don't believe Jones as government apologist. I'm not seeing anything anti government.
The 7th quote, rants on about people not being able to think for themselves and that they must think what the government tells them to think.

I'm confused by what you have posted because I can't find a single thing which supports your theory that any of these posters based on these quotes are anti government. And being anti government isn't always a bad thing either, look at those in Egypt under Mubarack. They were anti government protesters and I'm sure they were not bad people, or that they wanted no government whatsoever.  They were unhappy with the government at the time.

You will always find people anti the opposing political party, that is the nature of the 2 party system, but I wouldn't call them anti government.

 psyche101, on 30 April 2013 - 08:15 AM, said:

Well I do not feel you have presented a case to prove what you believe is indeed the case. I have looked into the Saville case, there are many that suspected him over the years, claims go back as far as 1963, not to mention he was connected with a child sex ring back as far as 1964. The Yorkshire police are being investigated themselves as a result. Same thing happened within the Catholic Church, these things do come out, people will only stand for so much.

You will note that Nurse was not only reinstated, but received an award. - LINK Nursing Times - Margaret Haywood, a nurse who had been struck off for whistleblowing and exposing her concerns over poor standards of care, has described herself as ‘absolutely delighted’ to have been reinstated on the register.
Of course there are many people that suspected him over the years, but the point is that he was allowed to get away with it for many years, even though complaints were made against him. So speaking out doesn't always get the desired results.

Thanks for the link, I didn't know that she had been reinstated which is a victory for common sense and it's a good job she had the backing of the Royal College of Nursing, but how can you say that you do not feel that I have presented a case to prove when she says herself that "Anyone tempted to blow the whistle on unacceptable practices in the NHS will think twice before risking their career."

Look at what has happened to Bradley Manning when he chose to speak up or the persecution of Julian Assange for leaking the information which exposed some terrible things the government have done without our knowledge.

I can't find the quote, but Daniel Ellsberg said that that just because a government got caught covering something up, doesn't mean that government aren't capable of covering anything else up, or something to that effect.

 psyche101, on 30 April 2013 - 08:15 AM, said:

What we do know is that not one person is confident enough to be publicly associated with Gage. You can speculate until the cows come home about how many, or if any, but you are only guessing that anyone supports him, this is not fact, it is merely suspicion. You need to know if the support is warranted, or just some cheerleaders. Without conviction, you have nothing but speculation. As facts stand, not one professional stands up and supports these findings. Speculation won't resolve this, nor will bias, facts will, and the facts are against Gage.
There are over 1800 signatures from Engineers and Architects which are all listed on his website, who are confident enough to be associated with him because they publicly signed his petition and have given their license number. Some of them are members of AIA too.

 psyche101, on 30 April 2013 - 08:15 AM, said:

I am not trying to do that, is that not what the CT is doing? It is saying that it could not been terrorists, so it must have been the Government? The hypothesis I defend is the original as far as I am aware. It's not a better one, or an alternate, it's the result of outright confessions. Would you not say a confession is somewhat decent evidence? With the claims, I have not given alternates, I said why they do not add up, which I cannot see as the same thing as giving a better theory? The investigations were always going to happen.
Well not quite, as I often see official story believers say, well if our version of events didn't happen, then tell us what did happen and if you can't tell us what happened, then what you say is nonsense.

And it is not what the CTers are doing because some believe it could not be the terrorists, some believe that it was the terrorists but they were aided by the government, some believe that they were just patsies and the government created it. Trying to shoehorn all conspiracy theorists into one box is missing the bigger picture and shows a lack of understanding of the concepts surrounding the CT. The hypothesis you defend is the original one but the hijackers didn't confess because they died in the attacks. OBL didn't confess and from what has been posted, I do not see it as a confession, he might have supported the attacks but he is not confessing to them.



Also confessions are usually not enough to convict because the confession could be obtained by coercion, threat of violence, torture, given to protect others, or even down to mental health issues. A confessions is evidence and it maybe the best evidence but it sometimes isn't enough to convict. This is why the FBI never indicted OBL because even if we assume that he did confess, then it still wasn't enough for a grand jury to indict him for 9/11.  

 psyche101, on 30 April 2013 - 08:15 AM, said:

That you are matey.  Tricky business philosophy isn't it.
It is...lol

 psyche101, on 30 April 2013 - 08:15 AM, said:

And Alex Jones.
I think he exists because of his mum and dad but I ain't got a clue as to why he is popular, but then again, I do not get why O'Reilly or Limbaugh are popular either. I suppose people like shouty men...lol

 psyche101, on 30 April 2013 - 08:15 AM, said:

Is there such a thread? I would be interested to see your thoughts. To me the outright confessions are rather damming.
I think there is a thread where I have mentioned it.


http://www.unexplain...c=200702&st=180

I could have pointed you to a rather long page over at another forum called frostcloud but the whole forum has been changed and all the old content has been removed. I just noticed that Colonel has posted over here, he was the punch bag over at the frostcloud forum.

 psyche101, on 30 April 2013 - 08:15 AM, said:

Because that is how Thermite works. For a structural collapse, the charges have to be laid in certain places. This is what is being claimed to have happened - controlled demolition. It's all part of the same claim that does not work.
But you have missed the point, it doesn't matter where they are planted because you believe that they collapsed without thermite. So putting them in the middle of a single floor or placing them in strategic places wouldn't have made any difference to the outcome according to your own view.

 psyche101, on 30 April 2013 - 08:15 AM, said:

ONeil would and he was head of security, and died in the attack. I doubt any person on earth would be more knowledgable on the subject than ONeil. If there was something untoward I find it very hard to believe it would just slip past the man whop was expecting this.
He had only started 19 days before the attacks, they could have been planted long before he started and more importantly, O'Neill isn't going to vet every single person walking into the building, or every service man, maintenance worker. However there were reports that sniffer dogs were removed before the attacks and O'Neill was very critical of the poor security at the WTC.

 psyche101, on 30 April 2013 - 08:15 AM, said:

That is even worse is it not? She is an editor, so it is hard to see her being an expert in Thermites.

"They have printed the article without my authorization else, so when you wrote to me, I did not mean that the article was published. I can not accept, and I have written to Bentham, that I withdraw myself from all activities with them, "says Marie-Paule Pileni, which daily is a professor specializing in nanomaterials at the prestigious Université Pierre et Marie Curie in France .

“I cannot accept that this topic is published in my journal. The article has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political viewpoint behind its publication. If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal. Period.” Concludes the former editor in chief.

Sounds pretty straightforward even with the language filters. LINK As you can see, her objection is to the lack of scientific content, and the amount of political agenda. Scientific content seems prudent when making such wild allegations.
Right, I just read what was said here -
http://911blogger.com/node/19963

One particularly notable comment attributed to Ms. Pileni is this one: "Marie-Paule Pileni points out that because the topic lies outside her field of expertise, she cannot judge whether the article in itself is good or bad."

But then it says....

Interesting. Firm ties with the French/European military industrial complex. Experience with explosives and nanotechnology. It's reasonable to assume Ms. Pileni is familiar with nano-explosives. So Ms. Pileni's contention that "the topic lies outside my field of expertise" is false. Why would a nanotechnology expert and former consultant for the SNPE not want to comment on a paper discussing nano-thermitic explosives? A paper which caused her to resign? Puzzling.

 psyche101, on 30 April 2013 - 08:15 AM, said:

One big and notable difference between Hoffman and Blanchard is that Blanchard is a specialist in controlled demolition. Blanchard actually gives explanations does he not? Does not Hoffman pretty much say, well he is wrong, and all demolitions are not the same, and this one was differnt? Blanchard works for a demolition company who had seimic spikes all over the place thet did not record what Hoffman says they should. Hoffman is lacking expertise, and I have to say has more ambiguities in his claim than he alleges Blanchard does. And he attacks truthers for his own credibility, something of a vampire I feel.
Blanchard doesn't give explanations and he speculates a lot of the time. Blanchard claims he had seismic spikes all over the place yet he has never shown anyone his data, he has never published or released it to anyone and yet are suppose to assume it exists. Why doesn't he present his data?


I think think it is irrelevant whether Hoffman is an expert in demolition or not. The argument he makes are good ones and he raises some very valid points. The fact that Blanchard as never rebutted Hoffmans paper, shows us that Blanchard doesn't have much of an argument left.

 psyche101, on 30 April 2013 - 08:15 AM, said:

I think the sensitivity of Clinton, and the expected law suits might have raised that bar, and the Challenger disaster was spread all over the place. In this case we had specific sites, ONiel's notes, and an outright confession with people dancing in the streets. It seems most of the work was done. Did they ever insist on more funds, or just whine about what they had been issued?
I think the sensitivity of those who lost their lives and were effected by 9/11 are more important than finding out if a man got a ******* or not or was involved in dodgy dealings. And your lawsuits arguments are without merit when you consider that the lawsuits potentially available after 9/11 would raise the bar much higher than Clintons shenanigans.

Of course they insisted on more funds and they got more, but the amount was insignificant to other investigations and considering this was the biggest terrorists attack. I noticed that you didn't comment on the $3 million being given, do you think that is a fair amount of money to investigate 9/11, when you look at how much was spent on the Starr Investigation into the activities of Clinton?

Part 2  coming....lol

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#1813    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,378 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 02 May 2013 - 01:14 PM

Psyche

Are you denying that FE Magazine editorialized as it did?


#1814    Reann

Reann

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,037 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2012

Posted 02 May 2013 - 01:29 PM

I'm taking a look into whatever i can find that is of The Knights Of Malta. Check this out , some say that Alex Jones has connections to this group as well , as for now his connections are conspiracy , though  the group does exist.

Edited by Reann, 02 May 2013 - 01:31 PM.


#1815    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 02 May 2013 - 07:36 PM

 psyche101, on 30 April 2013 - 08:15 AM, said:

You also seem to be using the broad brush you said I had in my hand, people lied? That's a bit vague isn't it? And is it reason to suspect your own people over rejoicing Jihadists proud of their work? Or is it reason to suspect some people could have done their job a little better and are now worried about that complacency costing them their livelihoods?
Of course it's a bit vague, cause I and neither do the commission know why people lied.

Seeing as we do not know why people lied and covered up by putting forward false accounts, it could be just that some people could have done their jobs better or were a little complacent, but it could also be just as likely they are covering up the fact that they let it happen.

 psyche101, on 30 April 2013 - 08:15 AM, said:

This all comes from Captain Hindsight, Paul ONeill doesn't it? He was sacked. By Bush. People love to hate Bush, read any thread of Regenratia's. IN any case, this case of sour grapes says Bush had no idea what was going on around him.
No, it comes directly from Max Cleland and Richard Clarke themselves. Paul O'Neill further confirms what they were already stating.

And I agree that Bush was clueless and had no idea what was going on around him, this is probably one of the many reasons why he and Cheney fell out towards their end of the administration.

 psyche101, on 30 April 2013 - 08:15 AM, said:

In the book, O'Neill says that the president did not make decisions in a methodical way: there was no free-flow of ideas or open debate.

At cabinet meetings, he says the president was "like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people. There is no discernible connection," forcing top officials to act "on little more than hunches about what the president might think."

LINK

He also reckons he was warned not to do the book, but walking around quite happily today isn't he. What a load of rubbish. Disgruntled ex employees might have plenty of dirt, but it's mainly BS.
If you are going to call someone an disgruntled or that he is talking BS, then you need evidence to support that assertion.Just because someone speaks out against their ex employee, doesn't make them disgruntled or what they are saying is BS.

It is obvious that Bush wasn't too bright documented by his Bushisms. I remember his presidental debate with Kerry and you can clearly see he is being told what to say. I've never read O'Neils book and I do not need it to tell me what everyone already knows, that Bush wasn't too bright. Look at the recount and purging of voters in Florida, Bush doesn't have the smarts to pull this off, but his neocon backers such as Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rummy certainly do.

 psyche101, on 30 April 2013 - 08:15 AM, said:

I think people enjoy the controversy. I do not see any progress, I only see truthers getting a worse name than they already do. No compassion, no empathy, no ethics the way I see it. For instance, only yourself and Q have put up any sort of decent debate in this thread. Look at all the other responses, hell look at Babe Ruths responses. They have no technical information, no countering debate, nothing, just someone on a soapbox.
Sorry but I totally disagree with your assertions here. If people enjoyed controversy, there much better ways of gathering it than joining a truth movement. And I do not think a lack of compassion, empathy or ethic is what motivates people to join them. I would say it is the opposite seeing as they do not believe what the government has told them and it is compassion, empathy or ethics which motivates them to demand the truth from their government, even if you think it's a pack of lies.

 psyche101, on 30 April 2013 - 08:15 AM, said:

We cannot just say lies were told, hell that could mean someone said they had a sandwich for lunch when they had a roll, I am not angry at CT'ers. I despise their motives and their morals, and what they largely stand for, which I do not believe is a pursuit of the ruth at all. Some I am sure I could not stand, but some I could, I think it depends on the person and the depth of their belief in the CT. Looking at yourself as an example, you seem to lie someplace in between but lean towards the CT side, and I most certainly do not have a problem with you at all, in fact I find you very pleasant in discussion.
We can say lies were told when there is documented evidence of those lies which were not merely mistakes. NORAD told the commission a story which the tapes showed was a fabricated account. Of course, people make mistakes, but these were not departmental mistakes, they were outright lies. Again the motivation of the lies doesn't necessarily mean that it was something nefarious going off and neither does it mean that it was just a covering up of mistakes or incompetence.

As I said before, where I support the truth movement is on a new investigation, what I do not support is groups based on different pet theories which they argue a toss about. I'm not sure why you would despise their motives, morals and what they stand for. If you believed that you were not told the truth about the events surrounding 9/11, would you think that your motives morals, and what you stand for is despicable.

OK, maybe you are not and angry at CTers, but you think they are despicable, yet you do not think those who lied to the commission for whatever reasons are equally or even more despicable. This is what I find strange. What I find even more bizarre is that even though you agree that there was incompetency issues and that could be the motivation for lying, yet you seem to be more vocal about twoofers than about those who failed being held accountable with the exception of Bodine.

 psyche101, on 30 April 2013 - 08:15 AM, said:

From what I have seen, the people in Government are covering their backsides, some were complacent, Bodine feels she has no responsibility, but we all know she is primarily responsible. I can understand self preservation, I cannot understand the jerks at Ground Zero Lounge saying that Daddy faked his death for the Government. You and your ideology are not the majority with regards to blind belief in the CT, people without argument, and sorry Babe Ruth, but I will be using you as an example here. Babe Ruth has not ever that I have seen put up an argument, let alone a convincing argument, He just says "believe the truthers" and makes stuff up like he did about Wally Miller. He is blindly regurgitating the nonsense the guys like Jones spew onto the public. Give me a reason to hate the US Government, because nobody has done so to date, they have only told me to join up with them. Q is just a hypocrite. His standards only apply to himself. The examples of truthers that you and I can put up are not only less than convincing, they have little information to depart. Is there anything is this thread, after the ten years of mulling over that you fid convincing? Or do you have your own train of thought, and where did it originate? What is actually accomplished by the truth movement other than dragging out pain and suffering? That is one thing I cannot condone.

Mate, what about yourself, are you not turning a blind eye to Babe Ruths Panto support?
I admire Q24 posts and I find him to be a very thoughtful poster. And although I do not agree with everything Babe Ruth says, I find that most of the time he puts some thoughtful posts together and that he has the knowledge to accept when he is wrong. To be honest, I only follow 2 threads on this forum at the moment, so I can't comment much beyond what is being posted here and on the other one I post and I have no interest in other conspiracies such as Bigfoot, Aliens and UFOs  I don't debate JFK because I am strongly convinced in the possiblity that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent. 9/11 is the only thing I like debating and politics.

I do not want to give you a reason to hate the US government, you are entitled to hate or like whatever you choose. I can give you plenty of reasons to dislike elements within the US government, just like I can give plenty of reason to dislike elements within my own countries government. However, even if I gave you those reasons, depending on your outlook, you might not seem them as terrible acts or worthy of condemnation.

 psyche101, on 30 April 2013 - 08:15 AM, said:

But it is one way. You see the deep explanations from truthers as a right, but you do not seem to extend this right to those who understand the official story to be roughly the main sequence of events? At the end of the day it comes down to one ting does it not? Who controlled the planes into the towers. Do you feel there is any reason to think the US Government actuated this atrocity?
I do not see that both sides of the argument have a right to express them, I wouldn't have it any other way.

And I do feel that there are lots of reasons that the US Government actuated 9/11. They had much more to gain from it than OBL or the terrorists. Spending on the military/industrial/congressional complex went through the roof. The invasion of Iraq allowed for their infrastructure to be ripped apart and rebuilt by US/Western companies using their lucrative oil reserves. Afghanistan will soon be home to a pipeline bringing gas from the Caspian sea. I could go on but the US government had the most to gain by a long shot.  

 psyche101, on 30 April 2013 - 08:15 AM, said:

I'd rather just call you Stundie I think
Thanks  lol

 psyche101, on 30 April 2013 - 08:15 AM, said:


It depends on what aspect the commission is defending, do you see any reason to absolve terrorists as the main culprit according to discrepancies in the commission, or do you see something untoward, which can really mean a million different things?
I would see a reason to absolve the terrorists if they were patsies. The commission knew they were being lied too, why they were being lied to is an unknown.

 psyche101, on 30 April 2013 - 08:15 AM, said:

I do not see that here, and I do not feel that is Sky at all. I feel that is Babe Ruth being described All you really have in here is myself and Sky from what I have seen over many pages, do these panto debunkers frequent here?
The only panto debunkers I have come across is Skyeagle here. But I have seen plenty like him in other forums. Those who can never admitt o a single mistake within the 9/11 commission for fear it might lead them on a shaky path to twoofersville....lol

 psyche101, on 30 April 2013 - 08:15 AM, said:

Your main beef with Sky is that he uses MSM is it not?
Not at all...lol
  • My main beef is that he ignores anything which shows him that he is wrong.
  • He never admits mistakes.
  • Spams the forum with junk, none of which is relevant to the conversation at hand.
  • Builds strawmen and jumps to ridiculous conclusions, usually that no one has made or argued.
  • His false appeal to his own authority in which he declares to be smarter than everyone else, including those who were at GZ.
I could go on, but you get the picture.

 psyche101, on 30 April 2013 - 08:15 AM, said:

Which will overlook faults on the behalf of the US, and really, would you expect different? It seems to me that some backside covering has ballooned into an attack from the US government on it's own people? MSM has the basics right, that being that soe religious fundamentals wanted to hurt America, and their small minds could not look past money, and attacked what they perceive to be the US source of wealth. And that is hardly surprising from a group of maniac killers who want to rule the world with their religion that accepted the US help with the Soviets, but were not gracious enough to continue to accomodate these benevolent people after the fact, and went to war with them over perceived sovereign issues. The US should have just left them sort their own battles out with Russia, and the US might not have lost 3,000 people to an insane attack.
I am not one of these people who think the main stream media publishes nonsense, but I am not stupid enough to trust them implicitly or that they cannot be used to promote certain agendas or propaganda.

 psyche101, on 30 April 2013 - 08:15 AM, said:

ITo a point I can run with that, I just do ot think that people have the right to try to change entire countries to accept their belief system, and many Muslim Muftis have stated that the world (and even Australia has been particularly noted) would be a better pace if it was Muslim, and that it must one day be so. But when it comes to stonging kids for talking to the opposite sex, I think that is totally screwed, and everyone involved in such barbaric nonsense should just be removed from society, even by placing a small lead ball in the left ear with a gun if need be. There is no place in the modern world for stoning's  beheadings, hangings and other barbaric slow and painful deaths for minor social discrepancies. That is pure evil. As mentioned, no religion would be great, but removing the most violent and barbaric ones would be a good start. I can never condone religious acceptance of honor killing. Honor killing is an oxymoron.
It makes no difference whether Muslims chopping the hands of robbers or Christians thinking it's OK to electrocute killers, cause the lord says an eye for an eye, they are both wrong and inhumane.

Religion is fine, but only in moderation...lol

 psyche101, on 30 April 2013 - 08:15 AM, said:

I did that, and rather enjoyed the well deserved break.

Cheers.
Glad to hear it. I'm going to be sinking a few on Sunday night myself. Although I drink rum instead of Lager nowadays...lol

Cheers

Stundie

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users