PDA

View Full Version : A question about conspiracy logic


Mattos_12
09-14-2009, 05:54 PM
Hey chaps,

I don't want to be offensive, but I wonder about conspiracy logic. I mean, I think if you balance evidence on most things you realize conspiracies are often clearly wrong, or simply highly improbable.

the full string of my logic is:

The Secret Rulers of The World | PurpleSlinky (http://purpleslinky.com/offbeat/the-secret-rulers-of-the-world-2/)

Would be interested by your response.

Best Regards

Matt

BlueAngel
09-14-2009, 07:53 PM
Hey chaps,

I don't want to be offensive, but I wonder about conspiracy logic. I mean, I think if you balance evidence on most things you realize conspiracies are often clearly wrong, or simply highly improbable.

the full string of my logic is:

The Secret Rulers of The World | PurpleSlinky (http://purpleslinky.com/offbeat/the-secret-rulers-of-the-world-2/)

Would be interested by your response.

Best Regards

Matt

No offense taken.

What evidence?

The misinformation that the government feeds you through mass media so they can cover their tracks?

Or, the misinformation that the disinformation agents feed you?

Is that the evidence of which you speak?

JohnMontgomeryDoe
09-16-2009, 01:17 PM
Exactly. If 'they' are real and 'they' control the evidence, then, of course you're going to come to the conclusion(s) that 'they' have prepared for you.

I think most of us can sense that something shady is afoot, but don't know exactly what it is or where the source of it is. Seek and ye shall find.

That's why people come to this site and others like it. That's why this site and others like it are here.

JohnMontgomeryDoe
09-16-2009, 01:28 PM
OK, I just read the purple slinky thing and I've got your mechanism. Here in the US, we call it The Federal Reserve (or FED for short). It is not a government agency. It is a private bank. A private bank that solely holds the power to print and distribute cash whenever, however, and to whomever they see fit. There is no regulation. There is no accountability (though we, as citizens/taxpayers are accountable and liable to pay these monies back with interest). Congress gave them this power almost 100 years ago and they have yet to be audited. The Rothschilds and Rockefellers are in this thing together (along with a few other lesser known family names). I believe the same group is operating the same way in other countries including the UK.

rds2301
09-16-2009, 01:45 PM
are conspiracy theories

BlueAngel
09-16-2009, 08:34 PM
OK, I just read the purple slinky thing and I've got your mechanism. Here in the US, we call it The Federal Reserve (or FED for short). It is not a government agency. It is a private bank. A private bank that solely holds the power to print and distribute cash whenever, however, and to whomever they see fit. There is no regulation. There is no accountability (though we, as citizens/taxpayers are accountable and liable to pay these monies back with interest). Congress gave them this power almost 100 years ago and they have yet to be audited. The Rothschilds and Rockefellers are in this thing together (along with a few other lesser known family names). I believe the same group is operating the same way in other countries including the UK.

I believe the group that you suspect operates in the same way as the FED in other countries would be referred to as the INTERNATIONAL BANKING SYSTEM.

One in the same.

albie
09-22-2009, 04:04 AM
>>I think most of us can sense that something shady is afoot, but don't know exactly what it is or where the source of it is. Seek and ye shall find.

I've never investigated a conspiracy and been convinced by it. So why do others become SO convinced by such terrible evidence that is given on such forums as these?

They sensed something? That's not enough for me.

BlueAngel
09-22-2009, 06:36 AM
>>I think most of us can sense that something shady is afoot, but don't know exactly what it is or where the source of it is. Seek and ye shall find.

I've never investigated a conspiracy and been convinced by it. So why do others become SO convinced by such terrible evidence that is given on such forums as these?

They sensed something? That's not enough for me.

I don't think forums such as these existed during the JFK assassination.

albie
09-23-2009, 04:00 AM
What do you mean? That forums stir up conspiracy therefore no forum no means to stir up conspiracy?

We've all seen the Oliver Stone film and how that Garrison guy stirred up a hornet's nest. His forum was the public arena, FAR more potent than all internet forums...put together.

I think the public have learned enough about conspiracy to know not to trust it. But they do love to think about it.

Laokin
10-06-2009, 11:30 AM
I don't think forums such as these existed during the JFK assassination.


The JFK assassination had physical evidence that couldn't be explained. This is why there are conspiracy theories about it. It was also widely believed if you shoot some one in the back of the head, the brain matter would go forward. JFK's went backward. Modern science has proved why that would be, but still can't explain away the planted bullet.

When there is a shadow of a doubt, it usually means something else happened. What actually happened is just total speculation as nobody really knows except those involved.

Also, it's pretty obvious the government does things without informing it's people. This is by definition a conspiracy, they are called theories for that exact reason. Some are absurd, others are probably true. What do we know? We know Mr. Obama hasn't really done anything but continue bush's crusade. This is a far cry from him saying the troops were coming home during the campaign.

What changed his mind?

albie
10-07-2009, 03:50 AM
The planted bullet? It looks suspicious, true. But you are bound to get the odd thing that looks suspicious in a massive investigation. It's statistical. That's the answer that settles my nerves, anyway.:p

The last wound caused by the bullet was a slight one, just the breaking of the skin on the thigh. The bullet passed through the trousers and therefore would have been slightly in the thigh and if knocked would have fallen into the trousers. Considering he was sat up and had his knee bent the bullet would have fallen to the knee at least. He would then have been taken from the car and placed on a stretcher, at no time being upright, so the bullet would have had to have been still in his pants. After being transported to a hospital he would have remained on one gurney, probably as his pants were cut away and the bullet will have fallen out where it was found. The bullet has not acted bizzarely at any point. If he had been up and walking around then I would expect the bullet to have been found on the ground. He was laid down from the point of being shot so it was found where it should have been.

BlueAngel
10-07-2009, 08:10 AM
The JFK assassination had physical evidence that couldn't be explained. This is why there are conspiracy theories about it. It was also widely believed if you shoot some one in the back of the head, the brain matter would go forward. JFK's went backward. Modern science has proved why that would be, but still can't explain away the planted bullet.

When there is a shadow of a doubt, it usually means something else happened. What actually happened is just total speculation as nobody really knows except those involved.

Also, it's pretty obvious the government does things without informing it's people. This is by definition a conspiracy, they are called theories for that exact reason. Some are absurd, others are probably true. What do we know? We know Mr. Obama hasn't really done anything but continue bush's crusade. This is a far cry from him saying the troops were coming home during the campaign.

What changed his mind?

When they are involved in a CRIME, they muddy the waters so that the true circumstances of what actually occurred cannot be detected.

In essence, they create the conspiracy surrounding the crime in which they were involved.

Keeps many people busy for DECADES presenting THEORIES as to what really happened, but once the evidence has been tampered with, it is almost an impossibility to know the facts.

albie
10-08-2009, 03:34 AM
When they are involved in a CRIME, they muddy the waters so that the true circumstances of what actually occurred cannot be detected.

In essence, they create the conspiracy surrounding the crime in which they were involved.

Keeps many people busy for DECADES presenting THEORIES as to what really happened, but once the evidence has been tampered with, it is almost an impossibility to know the facts.

But that is assuming there was a crime in the first place that wasn't simply done by Oswald. To properly appraise the info is to start from the basis that people are innocent until proven guilty. It is not the fun option though. Much more ENTERTAINING to assume he was assassinated by CIA etc. That's the basis conspiracy theorists start from. What is the most ENTERTAINING alternative and see if we can prove THAT happened, no matter how grey the evidence is.
Because it IS a hobby, like fishing.

BlueAngel
10-08-2009, 07:54 PM
But that is assuming there was a crime in the first place that wasn't simply done by Oswald. To properly appraise the info is to start from the basis that people are innocent until proven guilty. It is not the fun option though. Much more ENTERTAINING to assume he was assassinated by CIA etc. That's the basis conspiracy theorists start from. What is the most ENTERTAINING alternative and see if we can prove THAT happened, no matter how grey the evidence is.
Because it IS a hobby, like fishing.

You don't belong on a conspiracy forum if you think they weren't involved in JFK's assassination or his son's plane crash.

99% of the population probably believes the CIA blew JFK's brains out.

But, you're one of the hold-outs.

albie
10-09-2009, 03:57 AM
I don't believe because the evidence is not very good. I come to these places to find out the latest evidence, which always turns out to be not very good. You shouldn't be angry at people who criticise your belief system when that system is based on bad evidence. You should accept that base your beliefs on little or nothing.

And I doubt 99% share your views of JFK. Those that do would believe anything anyway.

Also, did you not see this thread?

http://www.clubconspiracy.com/forum/f12/nine-eleven-6372-2.html

I didn not outright deny the possibility of Atta's luggage being suspect. I even took the subject to the James Randi forum.

Atta's conveniently late luggage - JREF Forum (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=154884)

Who were not too good in pouring cold water on the whole thing.

galexander
10-12-2009, 11:52 AM
Hey chaps,

I don't want to be offensive, but I wonder about conspiracy logic. I mean, I think if you balance evidence on most things you realize conspiracies are often clearly wrong, or simply highly improbable.

the full string of my logic is:

The Secret Rulers of The World | PurpleSlinky (http://purpleslinky.com/offbeat/the-secret-rulers-of-the-world-2/)

Would be interested by your response.

Best Regards

Matt

I understand the logic Matt of questioning conspiracy theories if you are new to the subject.

But is the allegation that Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda were resposible for 9/11 not a conspiracy theory itself? It surely is?

Is the suggestion that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone gunman not also a conspiracy theory? It surely is.

I would very much question the logic myself when it comes to conspiracy theories and especially when they derive from the government.

albie
10-13-2009, 04:22 AM
I understand the logic Matt of questioning conspiracy theories if you are new to the subject.

But is the allegation that Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda were resposible for 9/11 not a conspiracy theory itself? It surely is?

Is the suggestion that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone gunman not also a conspiracy theory? It surely is.

I would very much question the logic myself when it comes to conspiracy theories and especially when they derive from the government.

And you base your distrust in the government because? Don't tell me, because they shot JFK and blew up the towers, therefore you wouldn't trust them.
Your distrust of the government is a cyclical argument if so.

galexander
10-13-2009, 11:33 AM
And you base your distrust in the government because? Don't tell me, because they shot JFK and blew up the towers, therefore you wouldn't trust them.
Your distrust of the government is a cyclical argument if so.

On the contrary, albie, the logic of my argument is as follows:

Since the government's account of 9/11 and the assassination of JFK are conspiracy theories and all conspiracy theories are wrong, what the government has told us about 9/11 and the JFK assassination must be wrong also.:D

BlueAngel
10-13-2009, 08:32 PM
On the contrary, albie, the logic of my argument is as follows:

Since the government's account of 9/11 and the assassination of JFK are conspiracy theories and all conspiracy theories are wrong, what the government has told us about 9/11 and the JFK assassination must be wrong also.:D

You would be wrong.

The government's account of 911 and the assassination of JFK are not considered to be conspiracy theories.

The theories presented which are in direct contrast to the government's reporting as to these events are considered to be CONSPIRACY theories.

Obviously, you don't belong on a conspiracy site, if you believe that all conspiracy theories are wrong.

galexander
10-14-2009, 12:27 PM
You would be wrong.

The government's account of 911 and the assassination of JFK are not considered to be conspiracy theories.

The theories presented which are in direct contrast to the government's reporting as to these events are considered to be CONSPIRACY theories.

Obviously, you don't belong on a conspiracy site, if you believe that all conspiracy theories are wrong.

Blueangel, I was playing what is known as devil's advocate.

In my opinion the government's account of 911 and the JFK assassination are conspiracy theories. This is because it is widely accepted that the CIA have never conclusively proved that Osama Bin Laden was responsible for 911. Some of the alleged hijackers are still alive and this fact has been widely reported in the international press. Look-alike Osama's have been used on video and besides how do we know he is genuine anyway and telling the truth?

In the case of the JFK assassination Lee Harvey Oswald was never tried for the crime, he was silenced before he had the chance to prove he 'was just a patsy'. And why did Jack Ruby, who reputedly had low-life connections in Dallas, step in to silence Oswald? This fact was never satisfactorily explained. But what is perhaps even more blatant is the circumstance that the assassin's gun was not designed to take a telescopic sight and the sights would have been put out of line after the first shot when the gun was reloaded. So how did Oswald managed to fire the third fatal shot to the head?

I think you'll find that these are CONSPIRACY THEORIES and no where near certifiable fact.

Laokin
10-14-2009, 03:42 PM
The planted bullet? It looks suspicious, true. But you are bound to get the odd thing that looks suspicious in a massive investigation. It's statistical. That's the answer that settles my nerves, anyway.:p

The last wound caused by the bullet was a slight one, just the breaking of the skin on the thigh. The bullet passed through the trousers and therefore would have been slightly in the thigh and if knocked would have fallen into the trousers. Considering he was sat up and had his knee bent the bullet would have fallen to the knee at least. He would then have been taken from the car and placed on a stretcher, at no time being upright, so the bullet would have had to have been still in his pants. After being transported to a hospital he would have remained on one gurney, probably as his pants were cut away and the bullet will have fallen out where it was found. The bullet has not acted bizzarely at any point. If he had been up and walking around then I would expect the bullet to have been found on the ground. He was laid down from the point of being shot so it was found where it should have been.


No, the bullet would of been found in the leg of the guy in the middle passenger seat.(John Connally.) The bullet supposedly went through JFK's head, through the seat in front of him and through the back of John Connally into his wrist, shattering it, than into his leg. The bullet that was recovered had no crushing, it was in fact pristine and undamaged. How can you recover a bullet that supposedly went though JFK's head, out his neck, though the passenger seat into the back of Connally out of his chest in and out of his wrist, into his thigh (his upper leg) without being damaged?

Furthermore, the bullet was recovered as it "Rolled off of Connally's stretcher." So not only did it break the laws of physics, but it fell out of Connally? Bullets don't just fall out of people either. This is why the bullet is nicknamed "The Magic Bullet." We don't even have bullets today that wouldn't get damaged at all. This bullet was obviously planted. The funny part is it matched Oswald's 6.5 mm Carcano Rifle by ballistic tests claiming to of matched the rifling marks to the barrel of said Carcano Rifle.

The only way this could of happened was to shoot a bullet from the same gun into bales of hay. Recover the bullet and plant it on the stretcher to frame Oswald.

Here is a picture of the bullet.

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/magicbullet.jpg

Explain that, because no forensic scientist can to date, this is indeed a fact, not an opinion.

It's also a fact that the government (read: CIA etc... etc...) kept imposing the fact that it was a "single bullet." We know now by science it couldn't have been one bullet. Anytime some one suggested it was more than one bullet they were immediately chastised by the government. They were the ones saying this is the way it happened, refuting any argument made scientifically, defying logic. If they really wanted to know what happened they would of logically used science to support reality instead of shooting it down all together.

This is why people think the CIA did it. The CIA ignored rational explanation, and said nope it was one bullet despite all the witnesses and the tape that clearly produces audible evidence of more than one shot.

Here is a sketch that shows the trajectory ONE bullet would of had to make.
http://laura-knight-jadczyk.com/images/magic_bullet.jpg

Obviously, the shot that went through Kennedy first was not through his head, as his brains were splattered seconds later. The CIA tried to say it was a "Delayed Reaction."

Case and Point.

P.S.

This also leaves out the fact that Oswald's body in the morgue was shorter than the recorded height of the real Mr. Oswald. It was off by inches, not centimeters. It also doesn't explain why Mr. Kennedy's head was thrown back and to the left when the shot supposedly came from the back and to the right. It's exactly opposite. Modern science indeed says it's impractical, but that possibly the blowback of the bullet forced his head in the opposite direction.

We have tapes of people being shot in the head, the head always jerks in the direction the bullet was traveling unless it's a hollow point, in which case Kennedy would of had been decapitated as the bullet exited his neck. The entry wound is literally like 400% the size of the bullet, which only makes logical sense as an exit wound, and only if it was a hollow point. Hollow points are unrecoverable as they destroy themselves on impact, they also cannot travel through a body and into another as the bullet disintegrates itself.

It's not just, ONE minor discrepancy, it's literally hundreds. People get shot everyday, usually there isn't one mistake in forensics. To have hundreds = coverup. Something else happened entirely. It also doesn't explain why "Oswald" was assassinated by a mobster. Why a mobster? Really? Convenient eh? Shoot the guy who "supposedly" did it, before he can explain his account of what happened.

Shady and unreliable by Occam's Razor implies something else happened entirely. The simplest solution is usually the correct one. The simplest way to explain all the mistakes is by understanding the fact that the evidence doesn't support the theory. Quite simple, really.

Also, when you account for the rest of the Kennedy mystery deaths, they all died in unexplainable ways. Discrepancies in every explanation. It's also no secret that many of important people didn't like or support the Kennedy family because their policies were in stark contrast to their personal benefit. That = Motive.

Everything is to coincidental to be miraculously true. Especially when laws of physics have to be broken to explain it their way. We are smarter than that... really, I mean come on.

P.S.
This is what happens to bullets when they hit something solid.... like BONE for instance.

http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/458-bullets1.jpg

Also, this is what we call "Credible" evidence. It's absolutely empirical. And is 100% contrast to the governments story. This means without a shadow of a doubt they lied.

P.S.S.

Why don't people have cool names like "Jack Ruby" anymore?

albie
10-15-2009, 05:45 AM
You haven't spent a second attempting to debunk the theory then. Typical. I've heard all these points debunked many times. The bullet is dented btw. You won't see that in most pics if you only spend time on nut sites. The magic bullet theory is bullshit. It's all about how the car was positioned in relation to Oswald. You've presented nothing I haven't seen before.

albie
10-15-2009, 05:47 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/CE399butt.jpg

albie
10-15-2009, 05:51 AM
See how it is dented when you see it from the base? You won't have seen that pic before because you only have one side of the story from nuts. And your pic of the entry point is WRONG. That is an old pic that was a mistake. They were going by the hole in JFKs jacket which was inches below the wound because his jacket was rucked up. This is all old hat stuff pal. I debunked this a year ago. Now here I am doing it again because you guys can't pass on info that spoils your fun. The bullet is dented on the side because it passed through soft tissue and glanced off a couple of bones. Hence the damage was to the flank.

albie
10-15-2009, 05:55 AM
As for the head movement? You must REALLy be a beginner to this then if you haven't see the Penn and Teller show about this. The force of the bullet pushes the head backwards. They did tests with melons etc.

And Oswald's height? I exaggerate my height. I like to think I'm taller than I am. I bet Oswald exaggerated or simply got it wrong.

albie
10-15-2009, 06:00 AM
You honestly haven't heard or seen of this? Or were you just hoping I hadn't? Here is Penn and Teller and the melons.

YouTube - JFK Second gunman conspiracy

albie
10-15-2009, 06:07 AM
AS for it being an exit wound. Bullshit. He has his head down when he is shot. The bullet goes in low down and takes off a strip of skull on the top of his head.

JFK Assassination: Kennedy's Head Wound (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/head.htm)

What you see on the Zapruder film is the flap of skin shooting forwards and over his face. Show me evidence that says otherwise.

albie
10-15-2009, 06:13 AM
>>bviously, the shot that went through Kennedy first was not through his head, as his brains were splattered seconds later. The CIA tried to say it was a "Delayed Reaction."

What? It was the second bullet that messed his brains up. I don't know where you got this delayed reaction from.

revolution60
10-15-2009, 10:10 AM
i wouldnt count on anything by pen and teller, they are tainted by the industry.

EireEngineer
10-15-2009, 12:37 PM
i wouldnt count on anything by pen and teller, they are tainted by the industry.
Ah...poisoning the well. My favorite logical fallacy.

albie
10-16-2009, 03:48 AM
On the contrary, albie, the logic of my argument is as follows:

Since the government's account of 9/11 and the assassination of JFK are conspiracy theories and all conspiracy theories are wrong, what the government has told us about 9/11 and the JFK assassination must be wrong also.:D

I never said ALL conspiracy theories are wrong. You have to go by the evidence. There is more evidence for the government's view of these events. Fact. I've yet to hear one single solitary bit of evidence saying Oswald didn't kill JFK that I cannot debunk. Most conspiracy nuts do not even know there ARE counter arguments to their theories. They spit out evidence that has been proven to be false. Arrogance and ignorance. Debunkers have had the last word on most of the theories and are waiting to be proved wrong. Fact.

albie
10-16-2009, 04:08 AM
It stands to reason that a bullet that explodes out of an object creates a backward thrust against it. More material is blasted out the exit wound than the entry. Not all bullets to the brain act the same way.

albie
10-16-2009, 04:10 AM
Another point about the height difference with oswald. The autopsy says 5 9. His army files says 5 11. Two inches. Big deal. I suppose Oswald wasn't wearing shoes when Quincy measured him.

galexander
10-16-2009, 12:24 PM
One thing I found quite suspect about the JFK assassination is the length of time it took the supposedly highly trained secret service agents to eventually react to the situation. In the film footage SHOT ONE is fired followed by little or no reaction, then after a few further moments SHOT TWO is fired. Again there is little or no reaction from the secret service personnel. It is only after SHOT THREE when the side of the president's head explodes that a consorted effort is made to speed the president to safety. But of course by this time it was far too late.

Compare this with other assassination attempts which have been captured on film. The attempt on Reagan's life for example or when a starting pistol was fired in the vicinity of Prince Charles. Secret service agents jumped into action with the very first shot. They didn't stand around waiting until they were absolutely certain that it was a gun that was being discharged and not just a car back-firing.

EireEngineer
10-16-2009, 12:40 PM
One thing I found quite suspect about the JFK assassination is the length of time it took the supposedly highly trained secret service agents to eventually react to the situation. In the film footage SHOT ONE is fired followed by little or no reaction, then after a few further moments SHOT TWO is fired. Again there is little or no reaction from the secret service personnel. It is only after SHOT THREE when the side of the president's head explodes that a consorted effort is made to speed the president to safety. But of course by this time it was far too late.

Compare this with other assassination attempts which have been captured on film. The attempt on Reagan's life for example or when a starting pistol was fired in the vicinity of Prince Charles. Secret service agents jumped into action with the very first shot. They didn't stand around waiting until they were absolutely certain that it was a gun that was being discharged and not just a car back-firing.
How long had it been since a President was assasinated? The PP division of the secret service became far more professional after the Kennedy assasination.

albie
10-17-2009, 04:55 AM
Silencer? Lots of people tell of hearing shots. But the thing about snipers, the sound is all at their end. The impact makes little noise. With the sound of car engines and cheering. Those other examples of shootings all involved close up stuff (charles) and no cars(Reagan).

And how long did it take for the G-Men to react with JFK? All we have is the Zapruder film which shows very little of the scene. Agents may have heard the shots and reacted instantly.

Seriously, if you wanted to kill the prez then poison him or something. Don't go to the risk of a shooting with all those people watching. Of course that's assuming the theorised assassins had intellect.

galexander
10-18-2009, 11:40 AM
How long had it been since a President was assasinated? The PP division of the secret service became far more professional after the Kennedy assasination.

I just knew you were going to say that EireEngineer. What you said has to be the most predictable thing that could be said. The point is not what they learnt after Dallas 1963, or after Julius Caesar was assassinated in Rome in 44 BC but what THEY WERE DOING ON THE ACTUAL DAY IN DALLAS 1963!! Sitting around scratching their chins or picking their noses?

albie, the whole reason why they used gunfire and not poison is because they wanted to frame a LONE GUNMAN...... Got it? Poison would have given the whole game away and left a trail.

BlueAngel
10-19-2009, 12:20 AM
At the recommendation of Representative Gerald R. Ford, Arlen Specter worked for the Warren Commission, investigating the assassination of John F. Kennedy. As an assistant counsel for the commission, he authored or co-authored the controversial "single bullet theory," which suggested the wounds to Kennedy and non-fatal wounds to Texas Governor John Connally were caused by the same bullet. This was a crucial assertion for the Warren Commission, since if the two had been wounded by separate bullets, that would have demonstrated the presence of a second assassin and therefore a conspiracy.

BlueAngel
10-19-2009, 12:29 AM
Members of the Warren Commission:

Earl Warren, Chief Justice of the United States
Richard Russell, Jr. (D-GA), U.S. Senator
John Sherman Cooper (R-KY), U.S. Senator
Hale Boggs (D-LA), U.S. Representative
Gerald Ford (R-MI), U.S. Representative
Allen Welsh Dulles, former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency
John J. McCloy, former President of the World Bank

Among the advisors was attorney Arlen Specter, now a Senator.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Arlen Specter was an advisor and not a member of the Warren Commission.

He was an attorney with his own law practice and was chosen by Gerald Ford to be a part of the Warren Commission, but yet his "single bullet" theory is what was written into the Warren Commission's report as the cause of JFK's death and the wounding of Governor John Connally.

The former President of the WORLD BANK and the former director of the CIA, Allen Dulles, who was in charge of the CIA's mind control programs were also members of the Warren Commission.

BlueAngel
10-19-2009, 12:45 AM
I just knew you were going to say that EireEngineer. What you said has to be the most predictable thing that could be said. The point is not what they learnt after Dallas 1963, or after Julius Caesar was assassinated in Rome in 44 BC but what THEY WERE DOING ON THE ACTUAL DAY IN DALLAS 1963!! Sitting around scratching their chins or picking their noses?

albie, the whole reason why they used gunfire and not poison is because they wanted to frame a LONE GUNMAN...... Got it? Poison would have given the whole game away and left a trail.

They could have very easily have poisoned JFK without leaving a trail and giving it away.

They blew JFK's brains out for the world to see because they wanted to send a messasge to anyone who occupied the White House after him as Commander in Chief and President.

Do as we say or we'll blow your brains out, too.

BlueAngel
10-19-2009, 01:16 AM
Blueangel, I was playing what is known as devil's advocate.

In my opinion the government's account of 911 and the JFK assassination are conspiracy theories. This is because it is widely accepted that the CIA have never conclusively proved that Osama Bin Laden was responsible for 911. Some of the alleged hijackers are still alive and this fact has been widely reported in the international press. Look-alike Osama's have been used on video and besides how do we know he is genuine anyway and telling the truth?

In the case of the JFK assassination Lee Harvey Oswald was never tried for the crime, he was silenced before he had the chance to prove he 'was just a patsy'. And why did Jack Ruby, who reputedly had low-life connections in Dallas, step in to silence Oswald? This fact was never satisfactorily explained. But what is perhaps even more blatant is the circumstance that the assassin's gun was not designed to take a telescopic sight and the sights would have been put out of line after the first shot when the gun was reloaded. So how did Oswald managed to fire the third fatal shot to the head?

I think you'll find that these are CONSPIRACY THEORIES and no where near certifiable fact.

You are confused as to the definition of a CONSPIRACY THEORY.

Conspiracy theory is a term that originally was a neutral descriptor for any conspiracy claim. However, it has come almost exclusively to refer to any fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful Machiavellian conspirators, such as a "secret team" or "shadow government", rather than broad social forces and large structures of human collectivities.

BlueAngel
10-19-2009, 01:23 AM
I don't believe because the evidence is not very good. I come to these places to find out the latest evidence, which always turns out to be not very good. You shouldn't be angry at people who criticise your belief system when that system is based on bad evidence. You should accept that base your beliefs on little or nothing.

And I doubt 99% share your views of JFK. Those that do would believe anything anyway.

Also, did you not see this thread?

http://www.clubconspiracy.com/forum/f12/nine-eleven-6372-2.html

I didn not outright deny the possibility of Atta's luggage being suspect. I even took the subject to the James Randi forum.

Atta's conveniently late luggage - JREF Forum (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=154884)

Who were not too good in pouring cold water on the whole thing.

I'm not angry at anyone who criticizes my belief system.

I never said that 99% percent of the population share MY VIEW as to the JFK assassination.

I said that 99% of the population doesn't believe that OSWALD acted alone in the assassination of JFK.

OSWALD knew exactly where to set himself up, didn't he?

He knew the route the motorcade would take, didn't he?

How'd he know this?

Coincidence that Jack RUBY knew exactly where OSWALD would be and SILENCED HIM?

No.

It wasn't a coincidence.

IT was reported at what time OSWALD would be transferred and, apparently, everyone was invited including RUBY.

Due to these facts, a conspiracy theory is born.

BlueAngel
10-19-2009, 01:39 AM
Certainly, the members of the Warren Commission and Arlen Specter, an attorney, as an advisor, were very instrumental in the true findings as to JFK's assassination.

A former CIA director.

A former World Bank President.

An attorney.

A future President.

:eek:

Out of the Box
10-19-2009, 08:46 AM
Hey chaps,

I don't want to be offensive, but I wonder about conspiracy logic. I mean, I think if you balance evidence on most things you realize conspiracies are often clearly wrong, or simply highly improbable.

the full string of my logic is:

The Secret Rulers of The World | PurpleSlinky (http://purpleslinky.com/offbeat/the-secret-rulers-of-the-world-2/)

Would be interested by your response.

If you balance evidence on most things, you come to realize there is not just one all-encompassing conspiracy but there are literally thousands of groups conspiring to achieve a certain cause. Some of these groups are fairly small and insignificant, whereas one group (commonly refered to as the "New World Order") controls most of the developed world and a significant part of the rest of the world.

Out of the Box
10-19-2009, 08:55 AM
I never said ALL conspiracy theories are wrong. You have to go by the evidence. There is more evidence for the government's view of these events.

Sometimes there is, but usually the government is clearly deceiving the public with misinformation.

I've yet to hear one single solitary bit of evidence saying Oswald didn't kill JFK that I cannot debunk.

Who cares whether the shots were fired from the grassy knoll or some building? Who cares whether Oswald was responsible or someone else? The real issue is who comissioned the assassination.

Anyway.... Doesn't the Zapruder film show the shot that killed JFK couldn't possibly have been fired from the building Oswald was supposebly located at?

Most conspiracy nuts do not even know there ARE counter arguments to their theories. They spit out evidence that has been proven to be false.

This is an error made on BOTH SIDES. Most oponents of "conspiracy theories" don't know there are counter arguments to their counter arguments. They just continue to repeat the same government authorised arguments while ignoring any rebutal thereof.

Debunkers have had the last word on most of the theories and are waiting to be proved wrong. Fact.

It's pretty much the exact oposite.

galexander
10-19-2009, 11:43 AM
Conspiracy theory is a term that originally was a neutral descriptor for any conspiracy claim. However, it has come almost exclusively to refer to any fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful Machiavellian conspirators, such as a "secret team" or "shadow government", rather than broad social forces and large structures of human collectivities.

And isn't the CIA's suggestion that Osama Bin Laden was responsible for 911 a good example of a fringe theory itself?

Back to JFK.

Throughout human history there are countless examples of assassinations of important figures and not all of them were killed using poison. Far from it. Just because JFK was not killed using poison does not prove a thing.

Sorry albie.

EireEngineer is trying to tell us that until 1963 'they' (whoever 'they' are, presumably the powers that be) just didn't know such a thing could happen and this was why the secret service were so apparently incompetent on the day. With the assassination of JFK however everything changed.

Rubbish!

What about the attempts on the life of Charles de Gaulle? Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley? And what was the point of the King's Guard throughout history? Just for the show and to create an impression of importance? Even Egyptian Pharaohs have been assassinated. And EireEngineer is trying to tell us that before 1963 the American Government just weren't aware of the danger of assassination?

EireEngineer, you must be so naive!

galexander
10-19-2009, 02:24 PM
Having just posted my justification of why I believe the secret services were unjustifiably lax in allowing three separate gunshots, the last of which was fatal, to be fired at JFK before taking any concerted action at Dallas 1963, I thought it would be about time to raise the following observation on this thread:

This has nothing to do with the assassination of JFK.

Many of the crackpot conspiracy theories most of us love to laugh or smile about are created by the government itself in order to discredit the whistle blowers exposing those in power who attempt to cover their own guilty tracks.

Someone had to say this.

The question is does this description apply to anyone contributing to this website?

BlueAngel
10-19-2009, 07:50 PM
Having just posted my justification of why I believe the secret services were unjustifiably lax in allowing three separate gunshots, the last of which was fatal, to be fired at JFK before taking any concerted action at Dallas 1963, I thought it would be about time to raise the following observation on this thread:

This has nothing to do with the assassination of JFK.

Many of the crackpot conspiracy theories most of us love to laugh or smile about are created by the government itself in order to discredit the whistle blowers exposing those in power who attempt to cover their own guilty tracks.

Someone had to say this.

The question is does this description apply to anyone contributing to this website?

The government muddies the waters when they are involved in a crime in order to cover their tracks.

Do you think they're going to make it obvious that they were involved by leaving their fingerprints all over the scene of the crime?

Yep.

Exactly how every criminal operates.

Maybe a dumb criminal, but our GOVERNMENT isn't dumb.

The government does not create the CONSPIRACY.

They are the CONSPIRATORS.

CONSPIRACY:

A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

In this respect, when alternative versions are presented as to events that transpire and these versions contradict the LIES that the government reports as FACTS, a CONSPIRACY THEORY is born.

BlueAngel
10-19-2009, 09:12 PM
And isn't the CIA's suggestion that Osama Bin Laden was responsible for 911 a good example of a fringe theory itself?

The CIA didn't SUGGEST that Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were responsible for 911, they stated this as FACT.

Therefore, any alternative versions that are presented regarding this so-called "terrorist attack" that contradict the Government's reporting as to who and what orchestrated 911 are considered to be CONSPIRACY THEORIES.

Again.

You are confused as to the term "Conspiracy Theory."

Back to JFK.

Throughout human history there are countless examples of assassinations of important figures and not all of them were killed using poison. Far from it. Just because JFK was not killed using poison does not prove a thing.

Who said that any of the assassinations of important figures throughout history were killed using poisons?

You are stuck in a SPIN cycle.

I suggest you stop the machine and hang yourself out to dry.

Sorry albie.

EireEngineer is trying to tell us that until 1963 'they' (whoever 'they' are, presumably the powers that be) just didn't know such a thing could happen and this was why the secret service were so apparently incompetent on the day. With the assassination of JFK however everything changed.

Rubbish!

What about the attempts on the life of Charles de Gaulle? Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley? And what was the point of the King's Guard throughout history? Just for the show and to create an impression of importance? Even Egyptian Pharaohs have been assassinated. And EireEngineer is trying to tell us that before 1963 the American Government just weren't aware of the danger of assassination?

EireEngineer, you must be so naive!

Could be THEY assassinated ABE because he freed the slaves.

They like slaves.

Trust me.



INSIDE THE BOX!

albie
10-20-2009, 04:20 AM
>>This is an error made on BOTH SIDES. Most oponents of "conspiracy theories" don't know there are counter arguments to their counter arguments. They just continue to repeat the same government authorised arguments while ignoring any rebutal thereof.

Rubbish. So why are you ALL using old arguments that I've seen debunked? Why aren't you using the arguments that have passed through the debunkers?

I've NEVER seen a conspiracy theory taken past the debunking level. And I've looked. I've been on many forums such as this and debunked many theories and NEVER seen a jot of counter evidence. The nuts just call me a shill and then vanish or ignore me.

So I really don't know what you are talking about. I think you THINK you have gone to the end of the argument. I challenge you to go to a proper debunking site and pose one of your theories. You'll soon find out what you know is bull.

Here's one.

JREF Forum (http://forums.randi.org/forumindex.php)?

Go on. See what stage your info is really on.

albie
10-20-2009, 04:23 AM
>>Throughout human history there are countless examples of assassinations of important figures and not all of them were killed using poison. Far from it. Just because JFK was not killed using poison does not prove a thing.

Another example of your strange(bad) grasp of logic. If you read back what you've written maybe you'll get why you have not actually said anything here.

albie
10-20-2009, 04:25 AM
Certainly, the members of the Warren Commission and Arlen Specter, an attorney, as an advisor, were very instrumental in the true findings as to JFK's assassination.

A former CIA director.

A former World Bank President.

An attorney.

A future President.

:eek:


You don't understand why this means nothing, do you? You'd have to prove these guys were corrupt in the first place for your theory to stand up.

Sheesh.

albie
10-20-2009, 04:28 AM
They could have very easily have poisoned JFK without leaving a trail and giving it away.

They blew JFK's brains out for the world to see because they wanted to send a messasge to anyone who occupied the White House after him as Commander in Chief and President.

Do as we say or we'll blow your brains out, too.

IF these guys control who gets in then why would a rebel like JFK get in in the first place? Surely they would have arranged to get their own guy in.

Hence no assassination needed. Why let an enemy in?

albie
10-20-2009, 04:32 AM
I'm not angry at anyone who criticizes my belief system.

I never said that 99% percent of the population share MY VIEW as to the JFK assassination.

I said that 99% of the population doesn't believe that OSWALD acted alone in the assassination of JFK.

OSWALD knew exactly where to set himself up, didn't he?

He knew the route the motorcade would take, didn't he?

How'd he know this?

Coincidence that Jack RUBY knew exactly where OSWALD would be and SILENCED HIM?

No.

It wasn't a coincidence.

IT was reported at what time OSWALD would be transferred and, apparently, everyone was invited including RUBY.

Due to these facts, a conspiracy theory is born.

These were things everyone knew. They want to draw a crowd so they advertise where JFK was coming. That's logical. Oswald got lucky. It was the same with Ruby. Everyone knew where he was being kept. All Ruby had to do was wait. There's nothing odd about any of this. I don't think you guys understand what makes good and bad evidence.

albie
10-20-2009, 04:37 AM
Having just posted my justification of why I believe the secret services were unjustifiably lax in allowing three separate gunshots, the last of which was fatal, to be fired at JFK before taking any concerted action at Dallas 1963,

You have changed the subject. The subject was the reaction time, not the unguarded motorcade.

I posted this to counter the idea of the lax reaction time...

>>And how long did it take for the G-Men to react with JFK? All we have is the Zapruder film which shows very little of the scene. Agents may have heard the shots and reacted instantly.

Which NOBODY had countered. Just as I was saying about how the debunkers have had the last word.

albie
10-20-2009, 04:44 AM
>>Anyway.... Doesn't the Zapruder film show the shot that killed JFK couldn't possibly have been fired from the building Oswald was supposebly located at?

How? It has been proven with computerised mock ups. This is a first level argument. Take it up a few notches and catch up with the big boys. And don't just say "Those recontructions were done by the Illuminati" as most nust will do. You have to PROVE they were done by the Illuminati. Or whatever you call your culprit.

EVERYTHING I've read on this site is old news.

albie
10-20-2009, 04:49 AM
Case in point.

http://www.clubconspiracy.com/forum/f30/question-about-conspiracy-logic-10389-3.html

I debunk some of the evidence regarding JFK on this part of the thread but the guy never gets back to me about it. And nobody else has on here. But apparently the debunkers are steps behind you guys. HAH!

You guys have never even come up against a debunker, have you? Admit it. If so, show me the evidence of this transaction of info.

albie
10-20-2009, 04:58 AM
JFK / The Kennedy Assassination Home Page (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm)

Get on here and debunk the debunker. Challenge the LATEST thinking about the subject. Or don't be taken seriously.

Out of the Box
10-20-2009, 10:44 AM
The CIA didn't SUGGEST that Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were responsible for 911, they stated this as FACT.

I don't see your point. The 9/11 truth movement also states its claim that 9/11 was an inside job as FACT.

Anyway, the CIA's claims about 9/11 are most definitely a "conspiracy theory" that's in fact far more fringe (from a logical perspective) than the "inside job" hypothesis.

You are confused as to the term "Conspiracy Theory."

Conspiracy :
1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
2. A group of conspirators.
3. Law An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design

Theory :
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.


Although the term "conspiracy theory" is currently abused as a reference to theories suggesting a conspiracy not accepted by the mainstream, "conspiracy theory" is a neutral descriptor for any claim suggesting a conspiracy. The CIA claims about a supposed international terror network called "Al Qaeda" are therefore a conspiracy theory too... a conspiracy theory that has been debunked by many independent researchers.

Could be THEY assassinated ABE because he freed the slaves.

Unlikely. It's more likely that he was murdered by the radical liberal elements within his own office because Lincoln refused to be a mere puppet of theirs (much like the Kennedy brothers).

Rubbish. So why are you ALL using old arguments that I've seen debunked? Why aren't you using the arguments that have passed through the debunkers?

You're confusing "passed through the debunkers" with "debunked". For example, just because the NIST report addressed some of the issues involving 9/11 that doesn't mean it debunks the "controlled demolition" theory. In fact, the NIST report itself has been debunked itself. Yet, I still frequently see the NIST report pop up as an argument by so-called "sceptics".

I've NEVER seen a conspiracy theory taken past the debunking level. And I've looked. I've been on many forums such as this and debunked many theories and NEVER seen a jot of counter evidence. The nuts just call me a shill and then vanish or ignore me.

First of all, you must distinguish between various so-called "conspiracy theories". First of all, there's theories dealing with specific events (eg. 9/11, political assassinations, the origins of WW2, the Holocaust, ...). Second, there's theories dealing with certain elitist groups seeking power (eg. CFR, Trilateral Commission, Bilderbergers, Club of Rome, ...). Then, there are theories involving cultural manipulation (eg. Frankfurt school, control of the press, liberal bias in academia, ...). Then, there are theories involving ethnic manipulation (eg. Jewish and zionist propaganda, "multi-culturalist" propaganda, ...). Finally, there's the tin foil hat theories (Creationism, chemtrails, "reptilian lizards", underground bases, UFOs, Hollow Earth theory, ...).

Some of the above theories are based on wild speculation, others are a convolution of fact and speculation and still others are based on strong evidence. One must not just throw all of these theories on one heap and pretend they can all be ignored. That would be intellectually dishonest and misleading.

For those based on strong evidence (eg. the 9/11 inside job theory or the liberal bias in academia), I've seen no serious arguments that even come close to debunking them. Unfortunately, many so-called sceptics just like to pretend their arguments have not been debunked and keep repeating those same arguments over and over while accusing the other side to do exactly that (as you have been doing here).

So I really don't know what you are talking about. I think you THINK you have gone to the end of the argument. I challenge you to go to a proper debunking site and pose one of your theories. You'll soon find out what you know is bull.

Here's one.

JREF Forum (http://forums.randi.org/forumindex.php)?

I posted for some time at The Skeptics Society Forum (http://www.skepticforum.com/) under a different alias. My comments regarding the narrowminded and prejudiced attitude of so-called "sceptics" is based on my experiences on this forum and elsewhere. While I agree that many so-called "conspiracy theorists" are unwilling to contemplate the arguments of their oponent at all, I see the exact same thing among "sceptics". An open mind and an unprejudiced attitude are very rare on both sides.

The problem is that most people are unable to seriously contemplate any concept beyond their own frame of reference, espectially if they contradict their prejudices. Just like a Christian tends to automatically reject any arguments against the claim that Jesus did not exist or was just an ordinary human, most humanist "sceptics" will automatically reject any argument that contradicts the viewpoints of mainstream historians, physicists or chemists... regardless of how much counterevidence can be provided. Both will almost always attempt to discredit the source of this counterevidence or throw in a few strawman arguments rather than seriously attempting to counter the actual counterevidence itself. There's but very few people who do not show any signs of such behavior and you'll find them no more among the so-called "sceptics" than among other groups.

You don't understand why this means nothing, do you? You'd have to prove these guys were corrupt in the first place for your theory to stand up.

Having studied regional, national as well as international politics from various perspectives, the assumption of innocence and impartiality seems a lot more farfetched than the assumption of guilt and involvement. I've also heard many claims that a lot of evidence that contradicted the Warren's Comission report was simply not included in the report. Although I haven't been able to verify these claims yet, it is definitely not implausible.

Anyway, can you prove the Warren Comission did NOT leave out a lot of evidence in their report? Can you prove the people involved were in fact innocent and impartial? If not, why do you believe the burden of evidence is solely on the side of the so-called "conspiracy theorists"? Just because their viewpoint is not mainstream?!?

IF these guys control who gets in then why would a rebel like JFK get in in the first place? Surely they would have arranged to get their own guy in.

Hence no assassination needed. Why let an enemy in?

Most highly placed politicians have some dark secrets (eg. sexual exploits), making it easy to keep them in line through blackmail. When a politician feels confident enough to ignore his handler's commands, the media "exposes" one or more of such secrets and usually the politician will cease his rebellion. The next step is disinformation in an attempt to further defame the individual and/or lobbying to remove the him from office (eg. the efforts to impeach Clinton and Nixon). Assassination occurs only when all these methods are either unavailable or unsuccesful or when there is no time for black propaganda.

Basically, JFK was a puppet who turned "rogue". He was assassinated because his handlers could no longer control him and black propaganda was not or no longer considered an option.

These were things everyone knew. They want to draw a crowd so they advertise where JFK was coming. That's logical. Oswald got lucky. It was the same with Ruby. Everyone knew where he was being kept. All Ruby had to do was wait. There's nothing odd about any of this. I don't think you guys understand what makes good and bad evidence.

If Oswald was not shot for knowing too much about the JFK assassination conspiracy, why was he shot? What motive could a well-connected night club owner like Jack Ruby possibly have? What about indications that Oswald was an intelligence asset and that Ruby was involved with the maffia?

Just as I was saying about how the debunkers have had the last word.

They do? How did they disprove the claims of CIA, FBI, Maffia and/or Mossad involvement in the assassination? How did they disprove the theory that the shot that killed JFK came from the grassy knoll? How do they disprove eyewitness testomonies concerning the faking of the forensic report or the claim that more than one shot was fired? How do they explain the claims that many witnesses were not included in the Warren comission report? etc.

How? It has been proven with computerised mock ups.

Any links to sources that elaborate on these computerised mock ups?

And don't just say "Those recontructions were done by the Illuminati" as most nust will do. You have to PROVE they were done by the Illuminati.

The source is irrelevant. What matters, is whether or not the mock up matches what we see on the available footage as well as other evidence and that is is physically possible. Just because you can model an event a certain way, that doesn't mean it's an accurate depiction of the event.

Anyway, I'd love to see some sources that elaborate on this mock up so I can judge for myself how strong their case really is.

You guys have never even come up against a debunker, have you?

I've been having this sort of discussions with so-called "sceptics" for about 10 years now, although I haven't been very active during the last year.

If so, show me the evidence of this transaction of info.

I've only been using this alias fairly recently and I rather not have it linked to my previous alias. I started to get too much attention from the thought police by using the same alias at too many forums and I prefer to fly more under the radar these days.

Get on here and debunk the debunker. Challenge the LATEST thinking about the subject. Or don't be taken seriously.

That's quite a lot of text. Since you claim to know so much about this topic and since you're the one referring us to this website, could you gives us a few arguments from this disproving the very arguments made in this thread? Just posting a link to a website is not a very constructive way to debate such a topic. Anyone could post a link to a website attempting to prove CIA, Maffia or Mossad involvement as a response and this wouldn't get us any further.

BlueAngel
10-20-2009, 12:51 PM
I don't see your point. The 9/11 truth movement also states its claim that 9/11 was an inside job as FACT.

Who said anything about 911 NOT being an inside job?

Out of the Box
10-20-2009, 01:08 PM
Who said anything about 911 not being an inside job?

You said : The CIA didn't SUGGEST that Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were responsible for 911, they stated this as FACT. What was your point when you said those words?!?

BlueAngel
10-20-2009, 02:45 PM
You said : The CIA didn't SUGGEST that Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were responsible for 911, they stated this as FACT. What was your point when you said those words?!?

My comment was to the OP who said that the CIA SUGGESTED that Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden were responsilble for 911.

My point to the OP was that the our GOVERNMENT didn't SUGGEST that Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were responsible for 911.

THEY STATED IT AS FACT.

What is your point?

Out of the Box
10-20-2009, 04:58 PM
My comment was to the OP who said that the CIA SUGGESTED that Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden were responsilble for 911.

My point to the OP was that the our GOVERNMENT didn't SUGGEST that Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were responsible for 911.

THEY STATED IT AS FACT.

What is your point?

I wanted to point out that both explanations are stated as fact by those who defend them. Therefore I don't really get your point....

BlueAngel
10-20-2009, 08:48 PM
I wanted to point out that both explanations are stated as fact by those who defend them. Therefore I don't really get your point....

I would be the person who originally pointed out to another member of this site that he was mistaken when he commented on this thread that the CIA SUGGESTED that Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden were responsible for 911.

The CIA and our government didn't SUGGEST that Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden were responsible for 911, they stated this as a FACT.

WE are well aware that people who defend their position, state it as FACT, including the truth seekers who believe that 911 was an inside job.

Therefore, I don't really get why you think you're making a point when the point has already been made.

I believe that you, too, are in the SPIN cycle and, therefore, need to hit the STOP button and hang yourself out to dry.

What is your opinion of 911?

An inside job or the work of Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden.

BlueAngel
10-20-2009, 11:33 PM
What is your opinion, Outside of the Box?

Do you believe that 911 was orchestrated by elements of the SECRET GOVERNMENT or completely the work of Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden?

Either way, they're both INSIDE JOBS.

Don't you agree?

Out of the Box
10-21-2009, 03:15 PM
Therefore, I don't really get why you think you're making a point when the point has already been made.

Maybe the point you made got lost in translation. Let's just ignore this totally irrelevant and pointless topic and move on to the juicy stuff.

I believe that you, too, are in the SPIN cycle and, therefore, need to hit the STOP button and hang yourself out to dry.

I moved out of the spin cycle eons ago. In fact, I pretty much stopped watching TV and listening to the radio altogether.

What is your opinion, Outside of the Box?

Do you believe that 911 was orchestrated by elements of the SECRET GOVERNMENT or completely the work of Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden?

Either way, they're both INSIDE JOBS.

Don't you agree?

Based on my research, It seems pretty obvious 9/11 was orchestrated by a Western intelligence agency (most likely the CIA, the Mossad or a collaboration of both).

Osama Bin Laden is just a figurehead and Al Qaeda is not even a real organisation. All this nonsense about "international Islamic terrorism" is just black propaganda to fuel the phoney "war on terror" (there are Islamic militant organisations in countries like Syria, Pakistan and Palestine, but they operate only in their own countries or neighboring countries).

link --> Al Qaeda Doesn't Exist <-- link (
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A491DB13FBFAC966&annotation_id=annotation_46986&feature=iv)