If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
I don't give a rat's ass what people choose to think of me, so long as they demonstrate some intellectual consistency and honest investigatory interest to examine the evidence of govt complicity and criminality.
Unfortunately the myths of our "concerned and caring" systems have been reinforced in the minds of most of our populations by mainstream media. This discourages or diverts many from connecting the dots and contextualising the information that is available into a coherent and consistent picture of what is at stake surrounding events such as we have been discussing.
They should be doing so for their own sakes and that, perhaps, of their children whom they will leave to inherit the consequences of their complacency, not because the one who suggested it to them meets with their approval.
But it has nothing to do with what you raise, which is (in the main) interesting. It is your style and tone which to me at least comes across as though you are looking down on all us simpletons who cant think for ourselves.
Not good at answering awkward questions, are you?
Again personalising what is widely held investigatory data. Not MY theories at all. Just one's that answer the many glaring implausibilities in the "official" BS coverstory. I have, contrary to your presumptuous assertion, applied considerable scrutiny to the investigatory efforts of those comprising the 911 Truth Movement and determined it to be far more plausible and in keeping with political realities than the commonly accepted fabrication of hijackers with box cutters.
I don't doubt that ME leaders can kill for their own ends. Since no nation, govt or ME leader has anything whatsoever to do with 911, such suggestion is irrelevant.
Your responses (and those being almost immediately follwing any points ive raised on these matters) suggest your claim of having "read both and analyzed both" didnt amount to much more than cursory glances to find the first uncomfortable citation or notion you could in order to dismiss it all.
Pardon me if I find your routine assertions of my "faults" all too indicative of just how unlikely you take any of the implications of likely US Govt complicty seriously.
But then, these sorts of presumed character traits could fill entire threads and contribute nothing to the understanding of matters. You carry on with your dismissals and I shall continue to advance what I determine from research to be consistent with known capabilities and agendas.
So you just repeat what someone else says?
Says who?
No, I refer to a larger body of collective research and argue it in my own way. No less than you or anyone else does when discussing any given subject.
Strange and intellectually dubious arguments you are resorting to these days MoK, I must say. That afraid to confront the truth are you?
Another strange question indeed. So do tell me, what ME nation and govt launched the 911 attacks then?
Iraq? Afghanistan? I'd be most interested to see your proof for such a belief.
Saudia Arabia isnt beyond funding fairly nasty people in the aim of furthering its sect of Islam.
So would I.
So it is your theory then, just based on things you have read?
It's called apathy.
I can't be arsed to debate with you in any detail because you will not apply your own advice to your own theory.
Out of interest, how can you confront "truth"?
Why strange? Isn't it our job to ask questions instead of believing what we are told?
Who said it was a belief? You make too many assumptions you know.
You really should have pursued a career as a spin doctor working for Murdoch. No thought or comprehension involved, just constant rewording of the same question.
No dear boy, the "theory" did not originate with ME therefore it is not MY theory. In point of fact, the totality of the picture that has emerged began precisely with the sort of questioning and scrutiny of the "official" farcical tale which you and other derisive types here like to claim I have not and do not regularly practice.
If not for the investigative, questioning mindset, I should be content to join you believing that a few widely published photos and some officially claimed "finds" provide sufficient proof of the validity of foreign perpetrators for 911 and subsequent false flag events.
So you carry on convincing yourself that I have not questioned these matters, when by definition you show yourself the one guilty of your own indictments.
Whatever allows you to remain comfortably complacent whilst the police state you apparently abhor is instituted without opposition. Your children will thank you for your concern for the future they will inherit, Im sure.
By examining popularly accepted claims which do not square with facts as they have been painstakingly researched. Uncover enough implausible claims and a more plausible picture of events begins to emerge in keeping not only with current events but also with the known agendas of those at the forefront of current events. An explanation, as well, which demands (as I have long been doing) a truly public, judicial and unhindered invesitgation of all parties and agencies involved on that day which have to date done nothing but stonewall and derail all attempts to establish such. Obviously something there they wish to be kept hidden.
As intelligent as I yet trust you to be, the concept of "confronting" one's previous held misconceptions and acknowledging that which holds truer to empirically verified facts shouldnt be too difficult to understand.
Why strange? because it appears to be asked for no other purpose than to remain contentious and derisive. It also seems strange coming from one who scoffs at the notion of the US Govt being complicit in orchestrating the attacks yet would suggest another govt could.
Again I ask, what Govt do you suggest then and where is the proof of this complicity which should compell me to adopt yet another theory apart from either the official coverstory (which itself blamed the nebulous phantom Al Qaeda, not any state) or the more substantive 911 truth Movement research?
Pot - Kettle - Black
The Government story is full of holes, but that doesn't mean that the alternative put by you is the truth. Both stories have more holes than a golf course.
Perhaps if you actually took the time to actually read through the sections and linked references, you'd understand that what has been already exposed has always only been intended to serve as a starting point for a fullscale, truly transparent investigation into all the glaring indicators of a govt coverup.
But then scoffers like yourself will paint the 911 Truth movement, its research and its intent as anything other than it is in order to avoid having to possibly acknowledge the likelyhood that the whole war on terror has from the start been based on a complete lie (and even worse, a treasonous mass murder for political/economic control).
Imagine having to completely rethink all the convenient and oft used soundbites like "terrorists" and "threat assessments" et al from your own leaders who have followed Washington's lead in this since 911. Heavens anything but that!
about the US and British governments though.
To which you gave two different answers.
Either the theory you express is your own or it is just you repeating something someone else has said.
Dear boy? FRO you patronising twat.
In which case how can you argue that you have thought this through, when in reality you just opine someone else's perspective?
Now wonder Blagsta like this :banghead:
You don't actually read what I write do you?
Let me repeat, clearly, to see if it sinks in, dear boy.
I question both the official line and the theory which your plagarism means you repeat here. Feel free to be suckered by the unofficial line, if it makes you feel superior.
Says the man who will not accept any other Govt being involved... Pot Kettle etc
I did not suggest any Govt, but I didn't rule it out instantly either. Unlike some.
Is this what they call themselves?
That's a good one.
BTW For the record, I;'m not sure it is possible to "confront the truth". You can confront a lie, but the truth just *is*.
how about coming up with something to convince people like me that the US and UK governments aren't behind these things?
from the twin towers to the pentagon to irag and afghanistan ...to the publicly produced aims of the pnac crew who now occupy the most powerful seat of power on planet earth to the rapidly eroding freedoms we once took for granted ...all suggest to me that things are going according to plan for pnac.
what i find scary is the fact that we ALL ...make posts about yet another abuse of power by our leaders ...another attack on our freedoms ...we can all see things going rapidly downhill ...but some of us ...still want to deny the facts ...that no fucking plane hit the pentagon being a fact ...even according to fox news ...that weapons of mass destruction didn't happen ...etc etc etbloodycetra ...
Why should we start with the presumption of guilt?
What "facts"? That is the point, what you have is 2+2=5.
Just because someone benefits from an event, doesn't mean that they orchestrated it.
Worth pointing out that the aims of both the PNAC and terrorism is achieved by these events and the actions of the other. But of course, it couldn't be that there actually are terrorists out there could it?
i don't think any of us started out with a presumption of guilt.
the ever growing ammount of things that don't add up ...are exposed as lies ...again and again ...make people question the official line.
what do we find when we do look at the alternatives? fox news being ordered by the government not to show that clip or make that statement ever again!
then we look at the available evidence and see why.
it's simple and it's fucking scary.
of course there are terrorists out there ...no one has ever denied that ...no one denies that more and more people are now joining their ranks ...which helps cloud the issue and thereby help cover up yet more lies and atrocities.
the US has gone so far beyond the rule of law now that that alone should be scaring people into looking a little deeper.
how much evidence do you require?
Your question did. Provide me with evidence that they did do it, not opinion, nothing circumstantial...
So apply the same level of questioning to the "conspiracy" theory and see what you come up with. It seem to me that scrutiny is the preserve of the so called "Truth Movement"...
the fox news reporter wasn't lying was he when he excitedly shouted into the microphone ...'no plane hit the pentagon'!
the pnac crew were remarkably open in their stated aims before gaining power. those aims now coming to fruition.
invading iraq and afghanistan was all based on lies ...
the US taking prisoners half way around the world and holding them without trial ...no regard for human rights let alone law and order.
the list could go on.
if you were in a court of law ...which side would be constantly being shown to be fabricating their story?
under current US ideas about trials without jury ...there would be enough to convict them.
You've seen some? I think Clandestine might disagree with you there. Unless it's something he's linked to, in which case you have of course...
As are the aims of terrorism. Like I said, both achieve their aims...
Iraq certainly was, but only because the wrong reason was given. Thanks to the beauty of "international law". Afghansitan wasn't.
That is not proof that the US Govt orchestrated the WTC attacks though...
Which theory has been scruitinised?
hitler ...stalin ...may well look like evil men with hindsight but at the time they were offering their people jobs and schools and houses and new ideas ...with their smiles and nice suits ...as they led the people to hell.
i give up ...for now.
And I do think that the PNAC agenda is being helped by terrorism, but then that is because it is based on a premise or fear and terrorism is what is being used.
It could just as easily be China, and in the sixties it would have been.
That doesn't mean that the PNAC is behind any of the attacks.
A better understanding of Islamic fundamentalism would help people understand that. Particularly the belief about anyone who votes...
Secondly, I have never plagiarised anything and if that is your assertion then I suggest you look up the term "plagiarise". Reviewing at length the research which has been compiled by countless researchers since 911 is perfectly viable scrutiny of the issue and considerably more than scoffers and deriders here and elsewhere ever demonstrate. The bulk cling to nothing more than whatever odd article or newscast or editorial they can find (and there have been many misleading and misconstrued diatribes insinuated into the public arena by those who wish to protect the fraudulent status quo) without so much as checking sources or verifying the claims made.
I am not the one who has been suckered by anything. You on the other hand take no stand ever it seems, but ride the fence and dismiss everything that would convince an honest and concerned mind that all the requisite elements (as repeatedly pointed out) of criminal suspicion (means, motive and opportunity) fit most plausibly with those who have shown themselves to be both wanton repeated liars and stonewallers of investigations into their activities. Yet its never enough for you to acknowledge such greater likelihood of complicity.
"Confronting the truth" is every bit as legitimate a concept as "confronting the lie" and one which the majority have historically been shown to avoid until its too late. Actually, until one is prepared to acknowledge that which fits more legitimately with empirical fact, demonstrated behaviour and documented intents (aka the "truth" of this particular matter at any rate) one will never raise his/her voice to "confront the lie" nor the liars. For most, the complacency of "business as usual" or "somebody else's problem" is too deeply ingrained for them to assume the level of responsibility and civic duty such acknowledgement would demand.
You do indeed love your little mantra of "those who benefit didnt necessarily do it", but yet refuse to admit that those who gain the most are the most likely suspects, especially where documented agendas have avowed the need for such events in order to gain public support. Makes far greater sense than believing that those who stood to have their families, neighbours and entire nations on the receiving end of militarilistic destruction and domination were ever so cooperative to provide the very events necessary for our govt powermongers to launch their agenda. And that they continue to empower this known agenda with successive attacks.
Such apparent irrationality alone makes notions of their ability to mastermind a multiple strike in the most protected airspace in the world the most loony "conspiracy theory" imaginable.
Unlike yourself, I and many others have weighed the official explanations against the subsequent revelations and concluded that (and I repeat this point in hopes you might actual take it to heart) a full, transparent, unhindered, judicial investigation must be made of all persons and agencies involved on that day without partiality to office or attempts to deny access to any additional evidence.
Bush ever being the mere puppet he is couldnt orchestrate his way out of a paper bag without his father's duly positioned cronies surrounding him to direct his every move.
I have suggested that key persons in the administration are likely suspects along with key persons in both the military command and intelligence community. Precisely whom those parties are is a matter requiring the full investigation which this administration has stonewalled to this day.
I also never said "no plane hit the pentagon". I have however taken issue with the notion that a 757 hit the pentagon. Having not been there I cannot state thate this with conclusive certitude, but the size and maneuvrability of such a plane alone and the direct angle of the impact at the lowest level of the building already suggest a much smaller craft painted to appear at brief glance like a AA passenger jet. This remains a point of contention amongst researchers and one which is mere minutia used to dismiss the far more important issues surrounding the attacks.
Chief amongst those issues is the fact, certainly ignored by the congressional commission, that the pentagon is no mere building set amidst pristine lawns, but the most heavily protected building in the US. Numerous independent SAM missile batteries protect it from aerial attack and yet on the day, not a single defensive response was launched against whatever flew into it. That is one further suggestion of inside complicity the media has remained silent on.
Thanks for your somewhat jaded compliments though.
Don't drink alcohol. Perhaps your drinking has dulled your comprehension of written English.