PDA

View Full Version : Keep Sundays Special, Conspiracy Theorists.


galexander
08-31-2010, 01:28 PM
I'm not at all a religious person in any way but I have recently discovered the benefits of watching conspiracy orientated viewing material on a Sunday evening.

I can't explain why but there's nothing quite like it.

I'm sure there is someone out there who can explain the precise effect, so I shall leave it to them.

In the UK, Controversial TV on Sky is showing conspiracy theory orientated films such as "911: The Ripple Effect":

911: Ripple Effect - Full Length Video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9127706080717077488#)

And "7/7 Ripple Effect" on the London Bombings:

911: Ripple Effect - Full Length Video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9127706080717077488#docid=8756795263359807776)

And although I have not seen this one aired on television as yet, David Shayler's "911 and the British Broadcasting Conspiracy" is absolutely masterful:

911 and the British Broadcasting Conspiracy (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-1882365905982811133#)

It is the best documentary I have seen on 9/11 and is a direct answer to the BBC's self-proclaimed 'debunk' of all the 9/11 conspiracy theories. For the best effect I strongly recommend you first watch the BBC documentary "Conspiracy Files" (aired on BBC Two on February 18th, 2007) followed by David Shayler's reply and watch him blow the BBC out of the sky.........!

albie
09-01-2010, 07:14 AM
I've yet to see any convincing evidence about 9/11. Everything I've seen I've debunked or found a more likely explanation for. At the moment it stands in the suspicious zone.

nottobe
09-01-2010, 03:05 PM
I've yet to see any convincing evidence about 9/11. Everything I've seen I've debunked or found a more likely explanation for. At the moment it stands in the suspicious zone.

Seeing for yourself like no other(?). Views get aired around. Silence would not
come out with anything. Is anyone to wait until you realize it somehow before
venturing out with how it looks to them?

At the moment, you have yet to make your mind up. No need to hurry for us.

albie
09-02-2010, 06:13 AM
talk sense please. This forum isn't an opportunity for your prose poems.

If you guys can't find good evidence then whos' fault is that?

Is it my fault you believe far more quickly than I do?

Some of us have a standard: if it doesn't stand up in a court of law then it is not worth believing.

Although most conspiracy nuts favor the standard: no smoke without fire.

A childish view of evidence.

galexander
09-02-2010, 02:11 PM
Seeing for yourself like no other(?). Views get aired around. Silence would not
come out with anything. Is anyone to wait until you realize it somehow before
venturing out with how it looks to them?

At the moment, you have yet to make your mind up. No need to hurry for us.

To put it slightly differently nottobe, who cares what albie thinks?

I certainly don't.

jane doe
09-02-2010, 08:29 PM
A childish view of evidence.

I wonder why the Christian Bible has the verse, Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

albie
09-03-2010, 06:18 AM
I wonder why the Christian Bible has the verse, Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Vagueness. The bread and butter of the conspiracy nut. That could mean ANYTHING. Should we WET OUR PANTS LIKE CHILDREN?

Should we believe everything someone tells us? Seems to me you'd have to believe the story given to you by the conspirators as well as by the people who wish to expose the conspiracy.

A child would believe that Oswald killed the prez, if the FBI told him so.

Do you still wish to be like a child now I've highlighted this point?

I see no point in conspiracy theory. You will never get the majority of folk to believe you, because of how bad your evidence is and how silly it all sounds.

You've already lost if Alex Jones and David Icke and Project Camelot are your statesmen.

YOU'VE ALREADY LOST.

albie
09-03-2010, 06:21 AM
To put it slightly differently nottobe, who cares what albie thinks?

I certainly don't.

Oh, so you aren't afraid of me now? Seems to me that If you think I am an illuminati agent then you should care a great deal about what I say.

But of course you no longer feel I am agent orange because your paranoia lead you astray on that point and you recognise it.

Where else has it lead you astray?

Has that woman off ebay got that object to you yet?

Has your credit car been validated?

jane doe
09-03-2010, 08:56 AM
Albie's last name is resonating in their posts.

BlueAngel
09-03-2010, 09:55 PM
I've yet to see any convincing evidence about 9/11. Everything I've seen I've debunked or found a more likely explanation for. At the moment it stands in the suspicious zone.

You've yet to see any convincing evidence about 911 from whom?

The government?

Conspiracy theorist's?

Please inform the forum how you have debunked everything you've seen as far as evidence presented by the government and conspiracy theorist's regarding 911 and the more likely explanation you have found for it.

IMPOSSIBLE task, but, please, we are all ears!

So, the government's evidence that Al-Qaeda was responsible doesn't convince you that Al-Qaeda was responsible nor do any of the theories presented by conspiracy theorist's that assert elements within the CIA, Mossad, etc., were responsible.

So, then, where do you stand?

Oh, just as you said.

In the suspicious zone.

And, what does that mean?

Suspicious of who if not Al-Qaeda or elements within the ruling elite?

BlueAngel
09-03-2010, 10:07 PM
Vagueness. The bread and butter of the conspiracy nut. That could mean ANYTHING. Should we WET OUR PANTS LIKE CHILDREN?

Should we believe everything someone tells us? Seems to me you'd have to believe the story given to you by the conspirators as well as by the people who wish to expose the conspiracy.

Why does it seem to you that one would have to believe BOTH the CONSPIRATORS and the people who wish to expose the conspiracy?

A child would believe that Oswald killed the prez, if the FBI told him so.

Do you still wish to be like a child now I've highlighted this point?

I see no point in conspiracy theory. You will never get the majority of folk to believe you, because of how bad your evidence is and how silly it all sounds.

If you don't see any point in conspiracy theory, this is not the forum for you.

You've already lost if Alex Jones and David Icke and Project Camelot are your statesmen.

YOU'VE ALREADY LOST.

Inside the box.

galexander
09-04-2010, 05:02 AM
You've yet to see any convincing evidence about 911 from whom?

The government?

Conspiracy theorist's?

Please inform the forum how you have debunked everything you've seen as far as evidence presented by the government and conspiracy theorist's regarding 911 and the more likely explanation you have found for it.

IMPOSSIBLE task, but, please, we are all ears!

So, the government's evidence that Al-Qaeda was responsible doesn't convince you that Al-Qaeda was responsible nor do any of the theories presented by conspiracy theorist's that assert elements within the CIA, Mossad, etc., were responsible.

So, then, where do you stand?

Oh, just as you said.

In the suspicious zone.

And, what does that mean?

Suspicious of who if not Al-Qaeda or elements within the ruling elite?

I don't know why you take albie so seriously BlueAngel.

In my opinion he's not genuine.

albie
09-04-2010, 06:50 AM
My logic is faultless. Show where I have deviated.

In the box? WRONG. I have thoughts you wouldn't even believe were real. You probably wouldn't even recognise them as human thoughts. For instance that Star Wars foretold the death of Princess Diana. I'm not going to tell you what scene does this. Work it out if you are so out of the box.

I JUST DON'T BELEIVE AT THE DROP OF A HAT.

If you think being gullible is being out of the box then that's your pratfall coming up I sense disturbing the Force.

BlueAngel
09-05-2010, 09:40 PM
I don't know why you take albie so seriously BlueAngel.

In my opinion he's not genuine.

Just because I have inquired of albie doesn't imply that I take him seriously or think he is genuine.

I inquire of many members who post on this forum.

In that way, I can ascertain to the best of my ability whether they are sincere or not and, for the most part, I can with 100 percent certainty state that there aren't many members of this forum who are serious other than myself.

FYI, I'm certain it is you who has taken albie seriously, Gale, and not me as demonstrated by your thread in the SUPPORT AREA about albie and how you have taken offense to one of his comments directed at you which, IYO, was a threat.

BlueAngel
09-05-2010, 09:58 PM
My logic is faultless. Show where I have deviated.

In the box? WRONG. I have thoughts you wouldn't even believe were real. You probably wouldn't even recognise them as human thoughts. For instance that Star Wars foretold the death of Princess Diana. I'm not going to tell you what scene does this. Work it out if you are so out of the box.

I JUST DON'T BELEIVE AT THE DROP OF A HAT.

If you think being gullible is being out of the box then that's your pratfall coming up I sense disturbing the Force.

You haven't demonstrated anything; logic or otherwise, so how could I possibly show you where you have deviated?

I don't care what scene in Star Wars foretold the death of Princess Diana.

Good thing you don't believe at the drop of a hat, cause I just dropped my hat.

BlueAngel
09-06-2010, 01:09 AM
To put it slightly differently nottobe, who cares what albie thinks?

I certainly don't.

To put it slightly differently Gale, who cares what nottobe or albie thinks or anyone else for that matter?

I certainly don't.

BlueAngel
09-06-2010, 01:15 AM
Please inform the forum, albie, how you have debunked everything you've seen so far as evidence presented by the government and conspiracy theorist's regarding 911 and the more likely explanation you have found for it.

You can say you've debunked it all and have a more likely explanation, but unless you provide back-up to your proclamation and the more likely explanation, we will consider that what you speak is BS.

So, if it wasn't an inside job as presented by conspiracy theorists and/or a terrorist attack as presented by the government than what the hell was it?

Oh, as you said.

In the suspicious zone.

Yeah, right.

Please explain to the forum what the suspicious zone is that you describe and how you have debunked everything you've seen as far as evidence presented by the government and conspiracy theorist's regarding 911 because you certainly haven't provided any evidence on this forum that you have debunked anything regarding this matter other than debunking yourself.

albie
09-06-2010, 06:51 AM
Blueangel, I don't care if you care if I care if you care If Osama Obama Bin Barak Bush cares.

Why do you feel the need to point it out? AND YET STILL RESPOND TO MY POSTS? Don't respond if you don't care.

Why waste your time? Clearly it bothers you a great deal that I don't believe at the drop of a hat. If you don't care then why does this forum exist? You are a cat licking the cream saying "I don't want to lick this cream."

You want me to go through EVERY SINGLE ITEM on the 9/11 theme debunking it? A typical forum trick: ask for a massive and labour intensive act and then point out how suspicious it is when I don't do it. Boring tactic.

>>I don't care what scene in Star Wars foretold the death of Princess Diana.


Some conspiracy nut YOU are!

albie
09-06-2010, 07:05 AM
Most of 9/11 can be debunked by VAGUENESS. Just as most of all conspiracy can be debunked. THEY ALWAYS RELY ON AREAS OF AMBIGUITY. Nobody serious can read the words "I heard explosions in the twin towers." and decided that is definitely explosions they heard, rather than rubble falling. Sounds are VAGUE. Hence not reliable. Finding an unexploded bomb is NOT VAGUE. See how I require a higher standard of evidence? I don't require a higher standard of evidence to piss you off, or to cover up 9/11. I require a higher standard of evidence BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT INTELLIGENT PEOPLE DO.

90% of conspiracy theory is the same level of VAGUE EVIDENCE.

What was 9/11? That's not my job to say. All I can do is look at the evidence and hope it tells me. THAT'S WHAT INTELLIGENT PEOPLE DO. The evidence says it was a terrorist act so far.

BlueAngel
09-13-2010, 07:35 PM
Most of 9/11 can be debunked by VAGUENESS. Just as most of all conspiracy can be debunked. THEY ALWAYS RELY ON AREAS OF AMBIGUITY. Nobody serious can read the words "I heard explosions in the twin towers." and decided that is definitely explosions they heard, rather than rubble falling. Sounds are VAGUE. Hence not reliable. Finding an unexploded bomb is NOT VAGUE. See how I require a higher standard of evidence? I don't require a higher standard of evidence to piss you off, or to cover up 9/11. I require a higher standard of evidence BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT INTELLIGENT PEOPLE DO.

90% of conspiracy theory is the same level of VAGUE EVIDENCE.

What was 9/11? That's not my job to say. All I can do is look at the evidence and hope it tells me. THAT'S WHAT INTELLIGENT PEOPLE DO. The evidence says it was a terrorist act so far.

Please inform the forum, albie, how you have debunked everything you've seen so far as evidence presented by the government and conspiracy theorist's regarding 911 and the more likely explanation you have found for it.

albie
09-14-2010, 04:37 AM
I just have. Vagueness does not convict the killer.

The best evidence for the conspiracy version is the uniformity of the so called 'nanothermite' particles gathered at ground zero. But even that is vague because we haven't ruled out other sources of these particles. That's in the lap of the debunkers. They haven't come up with anything so far as I know. So I'll give you that much.

It's a shame all these conspiracy conversations take place in so many disparate websites - keeping track of who's round it is a bugger. As far as I know the above particle debate may have been debunked already.

albie
09-14-2010, 05:23 AM
It must also be said that Harrit and Jones have not proven the particle are nanothermite.

VAGUENESS.

BlueAngel
09-14-2010, 06:42 PM
You haven't provided this forum with any information that proves you have debunked all of what conspiracy theorist's claim as the forces behind 911 and/or the government's version and/or the more likely explanation you say you have found that falls into the suspicious zone.

I asked you very clear and concise questions in response to your claim above and you have supplied very VAGUE answers and/or no answers and/or your responses are unrelated to my questions.

AGAIN!

Please enlighten the forum as to how you have debunked all of what conspiracy theorist's claim as the forces behind 911 and/or the government's version and/or the more likely explanation you say you have found that falls into the suspicious zone.

If you can't answer my question with the appropriate information then DON'T answer at all.

BlueAngel
09-14-2010, 06:55 PM
I just have. Vagueness does not convict the killer.

The best evidence for the conspiracy version is the uniformity of the so called 'nanothermite' particles gathered at ground zero. But even that is vague because we haven't ruled out other sources of these particles. That's in the lap of the debunkers. They haven't come up with anything so far as I know. So I'll give you that much.

It's a shame all these conspiracy conversations take place in so many disparate websites - keeping track of who's round it is a bugger. As far as I know the above particle debate may have been debunked already.

But, you said you were a debunker, so, therefore it falls in your lap.

Yeah, right.

The best evidence for the conspiracy version is the uniformity of the so-called "nanothermite."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite

BlueAngel
09-14-2010, 07:24 PM
It must also be said that Harrit and Jones have not proven the particle are nanothermite.

VAGUENESS.

Inasmuch as Harrit and Jones have not proven the particle are nanothermite, what does this mean to you because, quite frankly, it means absolutely nothing to the rest of us.

BlueAngel
09-14-2010, 08:24 PM
I just have. Vagueness does not convict the killer.

The best evidence for the conspiracy version is the uniformity of the so called 'nanothermite' particles gathered at ground zero. But even that is vague because we haven't ruled out other sources of these particles. That's in the lap of the debunkers. They haven't come up with anything so far as I know. So I'll give you that much.

It's a shame all these conspiracy conversations take place in so many disparate websites - keeping track of who's round it is a bugger. As far as I know the above particle debate may have been debunked already.

HUH?

The best evidence for the conspiracy theory is the uniformity of the nanothermite particle gathered at ground zero.

WE assume this is your opinion and your opinion only.

Thanks for sharing.

You say, but even this is vague because "WE" haven't ruled out other sources of these particles.

It's vague whether you have ruled out other sources or not.

Who is we?

YOU and who else?

YOU are no one.

What particle debate?

Please provide the forum with information regarding this so-called particle debate which is the best evidence for the conspiracy theory, as you see it.

BlueAngel
09-14-2010, 08:58 PM
Most of 9/11 can be debunked by VAGUENESS. Just as most of all conspiracy can be debunked. THEY ALWAYS RELY ON AREAS OF AMBIGUITY. Nobody serious can read the words "I heard explosions in the twin towers." and decided that is definitely explosions they heard, rather than rubble falling. Sounds are VAGUE. Hence not reliable. Finding an unexploded bomb is NOT VAGUE. See how I require a higher standard of evidence? I don't require a higher standard of evidence to piss you off, or to cover up 9/11. I require a higher standard of evidence BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT INTELLIGENT PEOPLE DO.

90% of conspiracy theory is the same level of VAGUE EVIDENCE.

What was 9/11? That's not my job to say. All I can do is look at the evidence and hope it tells me. THAT'S WHAT INTELLIGENT PEOPLE DO. The evidence says it was a terrorist act so far.

What evidence says that it was a terrorist attack?

The evidence that the government provided you?

Do you believe everything the government tells you?

I mean, seriously.

On one hand, you say you've debunked both 911 versions; government and conspiracy and have another theory that is in a suspicious zone, but, on the other hand, you say that you're convinced 911 was a terrorist attack.

Can't have it both ways, pal.

Sounds like you're sitting on the fence to me.

One must decide one way or the other.

Conspiracy or terrorist attack.

What say you?

Terrorist attack, conspiracy, or how 'bout you tell us about that suspicious zone you mentioned and inform us, while you're at it, how you've debunked both versions of 911; government and conspiracy.

I think you're confused.

Conspiracy theories exist when the evidence provided by the GOVERNMENT is VAGUE.

Case in point.

The JFK single bullet theory.

I suppose you believe OSWALD killed Kennedy of his own accord.

If you do, you would fall into the one percentile.

Case in point.

911.

Four planes off-course with lost communication at the same time on 911 and NORAD did not respond nor did the United State's military.

Good for you that you require a higher standard of evidence such as an unexploded BOMB in the twin towers to convince you that it wasn't an "inside" job.

The rest of us don't require that evidence because when the "rogue" CIA is involved evidence to that degree does not exist; thus the reason the twin towers and all four jets were burned to ashes and an unexploded bomb was not found.

That might be what you consider INTELLIGENT people require, but those of us who possess INTELLIGENCE do not require the same because we know how THEY operate and you, apparently, do not because you might be INTELLIGENT but you do not possess INTELLIGENCE.

albie
09-15-2010, 05:19 AM
Inasmuch as Harrit and Jones have not proven the particle are nanothermite, what does this mean to you because, quite frankly, it means absolutely nothing to the rest of us.

So you are not aware of the cutting edge in 9/11 theory? To be honest I find your posts a little ODD. You simply contradict. I don't think you spent one minute thinking about what I've just said.

albie
09-15-2010, 05:26 AM
I'm not going to go through all these points AGAIN. You can find the main arguments debunking ALL THESE POINTS on the internet. Go and have a look.

You will obviously NOT do this, as you don't want to spend a second debunking anything. I challenge you to do it. Spend a few hours DEBUNKING. It will open you eyes.

BlueAngel
09-17-2010, 07:47 PM
So you are not aware of the cutting edge in 9/11 theory? To be honest I find your posts a little ODD. You simply contradict. I don't think you spent one minute thinking about what I've just said.

No.

I am not aware of the cutting edge in 911 theory.

Please inform me.

You have not pointed out any contradiction(s) by myself, but, I, on the other hand, have pointed out numerous ones that you have made.

Contradictions, that is.

I spent more than one minute reading what you wrote and it was wasted time.

To be honest, I find your posts more than a LITTLE ODD.

BlueAngel
09-17-2010, 08:27 PM
I'm not going to go through all these points AGAIN. You can find the main arguments debunking ALL THESE POINTS on the internet. Go and have a look.

You will obviously NOT do this, as you don't want to spend a second debunking anything. I challenge you to do it. Spend a few hours DEBUNKING. It will open you eyes.

You have not gone through any points so if you do so now it will not be considered that you're doing it again.

I cannot search the web and find any main arguments debunking ALL THESE POINTS because you haven't provided any main arguments or any points.

Therefore, I would have no clue how to instigate a search.

Since you are the person who has stated that he has debunked all conspiracy theories regarding 911 and the government's version and has a version of his own which falls into the suspicious zone, the burden of proof falls in your lap and not mine.

I suggest that you spend a second providing the forum with information that debunks all that which you say you've debunked, because, thus far, you haven't spent a second debunking anything that you say you've debunked.

albie
09-20-2010, 06:02 AM
So you are saying that you are not aware of the major points of contention within the 9/11 conspiracy world? Surely you must, being a mod on a conspiracy forum!

Take any of those points and try to debunk it. You will find debates on most of the major forums dealing with the subject.

BlueAngel
09-21-2010, 04:10 PM
So you are saying that you are not aware of the major points of contention within the 9/11 conspiracy world? Surely you must, being a mod on a conspiracy forum!

Take any of those points and try to debunk it. You will find debates on most of the major forums dealing with the subject.

No.

That's not what I'm saying.

That's what you're saying.

I NEVER said such a thing.

I said I am unaware of any major points and/or main arguments that you say you've debunked because you haven't supplied any of the major points or main arguments that YOU say you've debunked.

Therefore, a web search cannot be instigated.

I don't visit any of the MAJOR forums and since this is a MAJOR forum, how 'bout you start a debate regarding this subject by telling us about the major points and main arguments that you say you've debunked regarding all 911 conspiracy theories and the government's version.

albie
09-22-2010, 07:09 AM
9/11 is BORING. Going over the same points over and over again is BORING.

if you want my opinion then do as I say and go and google it. I've never seen a 9/11 discussion go anywhere exciting. It always ends in vagueness vs vagueness. Like most conspiracy discussions.

jane doe
09-22-2010, 10:09 AM
Who was the american president who kept saying "a thousand points of light"?

albie
09-23-2010, 08:36 AM
Analogy is no safe place to base an argument.

jane doe
09-23-2010, 10:40 AM
Analogy is no safe place to base an argument.

arguments are unsafe. analogies are not places.

BlueAngel
09-23-2010, 06:24 PM
9/11 is BORING. Going over the same points over and over again is BORING.

if you want my opinion then do as I say and go and google it. I've never seen a 9/11 discussion go anywhere exciting. It always ends in vagueness vs vagueness. Like most conspiracy discussions.

You haven't gone over any points about 911.

You just say that you have.

Just the same as you say you've debunked every 911 conspiracy theory and the government's version, but haven't.

How shall I google your opinion?

"What is albie's opinion of 911?"

I highly doubt I would find anything.

BlueAngel
09-23-2010, 06:25 PM
arguments are unsafe. analogies are not places.

Arguments aren't unsafe.

BlueAngel
09-23-2010, 06:26 PM
Who was the american president who kept saying "a thousand points of light"?

How 'bout you tell us.

albie
09-24-2010, 08:06 AM
You haven't gone over any points about 911.

You just say that you have.

Just the same as you say you've debunked every 911 conspiracy theory and the government's version, but haven't.

How shall I google your opinion?

"What is albie's opinion of 911?"

I highly doubt I would find anything.

I don't claim I have made any points about 9/11. I'm not going to. My opinion has been stated about 9/11 conspiracy in general. It's a waste of time.

My view of 9/11 can be found at the end of any 9/11 conspiracy forum debate. The bit where the thread tails off and nobody wins. That's the point. You can find any particle of the subject discussed at length on the web. Knock yourself out. Try and find a thread that comes to a conclusion and let me know, you won't find it.