you think we'd be better safe than sorry?

[GepperRankins]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAHqSfDNjaI


:unsure:

[j2k4]

I have officially stopped wondering how you became such a conspiracy, uh.........afficionado.

[GepperRankins]

well he did accurately predict 9/11, but he was ignored. if we all just said "hoi! stop it! stop that right now! we know what you're doing". it'd be hard for the government to pull it off, if they were planning to. a few people looking like mentalists is far better than tens of thousands more dead. don't you think? even in a just incase kinda way.


and with the bullshit about liquid explosives and dick cheney saying terrorists support democrats and stuff :pinch:

[HeavyMetalParkingLot]

dick cheney saying terrorists support democrats and stuff :pinch:

And I found it interesting when Gingrich referred to anyone who didn't support the administration "insurgents".

And gepper, in case you didn't see it already search for Alex's doc "Terrorstorm" on youtube.

[j2k4]

well he did accurately predict 9/11,

I watched the video of his July, '01 'broadcast'.

What, in your mind, constitutes an 'accurate prediction' of 9/11, The?

[GepperRankins]

well he did accurately predict 9/11,

I watched the video of his July, '01 'broadcast'.

What, in your mind, constitutes an 'accurate prediction' of 9/11, The?
hijacking planes, blowing buildings up, next few months, blame it on bin laden.


he was just out by more or less four million victims :dabs:

[MagicNakor]

Is this the guy that claims to be from the future with his predictions? Or is that someone else entirely?

:shuriken:

[GepperRankins]

Is this the guy that claims to be from the future with his predictions? Or is that someone else entirely?

:shuriken:
no. this guy is hactually not a mentalist

[j2k4]

well he did accurately predict 9/11, but he was ignored. if we all just said "hoi! stop it! stop that right now! we know what you're doing". it'd be hard for the government to pull it off, if they were planning to. a few people looking like mentalists is far better than tens of thousands more dead. don't you think? even in a just incase kinda way.


Accurately, how?

How, accurately?

All's relative, I think.

We have several leading bits of evidence, thanks to the 9/11 Commission; daily briefings, etc., that anyone could have made hay with.

Also, "a few people looking like mentalists" are going to garner nothing but a general concensus that they are...mentalists.

Keep going, please.

[GepperRankins]

all's relative?


on a timeline of ever, a few months is pretty accurate :dabs:

[j2k4]

all's relative?


on a timeline of ever, a few months is pretty accurate :dabs:

Gee, a mere handful of posts into the thread, and already you've retreated to "...a few months is pretty accurate..."

To a conspiracy theorist, I'm quite sure that's good enough, eh?

[GepperRankins]

all's relative?


on a timeline of ever, a few months is pretty accurate :dabs:

Gee, a mere handful of posts into the thread, and already you've retreated to "...a few months is pretty accurate..."

To a conspiracy theorist, I'm quite sure that's good enough, eh?
"retreated" would suggest that i made an argument, was given something to suggest my argument is invalid, then i tried to obfuscate.


i didn't though. i think for a guy to describe something almost incomprehensible and say it'll happen within a few of months, and it happens. is accurate.

[100%]

if a conspiracy theory exists it means the goal was achieved.

[j2k4]

if a conspiracy theory exists it means the goal was achieved.

Just so-

Since conspiracy theorists get a pass on any reasonable standard of accuracy, they can never be proved wrong.

Well done, Zed. :)

[GepperRankins]

sorry. i just woke up. what are you two talking about?


the conspiracy theory exists because the official story is unrealistic. the official story is weak but it gets protected by shame and disbelief

[j2k4]

sorry. i just woke up. what are you two talking about?


the conspiracy theory exists because the official story is unrealistic. the official story is weak but it gets protected by shame and disbelief

The 'official' story is weaker than your conspiracy-theory"? :blink:

Tell me then, The-

You think London and Madrid were conspiracies, too?

Have you a supporting cast in the British and Spanish governments as well?

Conspiracy websites refuting the 'official' stories?

This is critical to your theory, you see...:whistling

[GepperRankins]

sorry. i just woke up. what are you two talking about?


the conspiracy theory exists because the official story is unrealistic. the official story is weak but it gets protected by shame and disbelief

The 'official' story is weaker than your conspiracy-theory"? :blink:

Tell me then, The-

You think London and Madrid were conspiracies, too?

Have you a supporting cast in the British and Spanish governments as well?

Conspiracy websites refuting the 'official' stories?

This is critical to your theory, you see...:whistling
London and Madrid were actually provoked by the west. They were response to the Iraq war.


There was no reason for Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden to attack the US on September 11th. They denied all knowledge for a good while until "Bin Laden (http://hometown.aol.co.uk/uncovering911/images/54%20-%20fake_osama.jpg)" eventually said he did it.


It would have been obvious to anyone that if you do this, America would come and kick your arse.

[limesqueezer]

I heard that in afghanistan they have besides oil also a lot of opium seed which its twice as much as before the war, bush knows why they are there. I said it from the start and still think that usa planned the attack on world trade center soo they can attack iraq. Weapons for mass destruction arn't in the hands of poor ppl. Every war is about money and power. Bin Laden is just one of CIA puppets. Same old story all over again, like with kennedy, but i find it interesting how ppl still belive kennedy was a nice guy as the same they still think about bush. When u murder somebody u are a killer but if u go and kill thousands when you have power its not, thats whats war all about.

[j2k4]

London and Madrid were actually provoked by the west. They were response to the Iraq war.

Provoked?

How?

It would have been obvious to anyone that if you do this, America would come and kick your arse.

Oh, you mean like we're doing now?

America is afraid to "kick" anyone's "arse".

I'm beginning to think we've have to be nuked before we'd could 'justify' that.

[GepperRankins]

London and Madrid were actually provoked by the west. They were response to the Iraq war.

Provoked?

How?

It would have been obvious to anyone that if you do this, America would come and kick your arse.

Oh, you mean like we're doing now?

America is afraid to "kick" anyone's "arse".

I'm beginning to think we've have to be nuked before we'd could 'justify' that.
it's kinda sad that you should see that i just made three practically irrefutable statements and rather than take any notice, you;

1 - ignore the second sentence, even though you quoted it.

2 - remove the second statement completely because it's impossible to twist.

3 - i think most people would consider "shock-and-awe" and having you government decimated as getting your arse kicked.

[Mr JP Fugley]

So what is this particular theory we are currently discussing.

[GepperRankins]

So what is this particular theory we are currently discussing.
well it started off as alex jones saying there's gonna be another massive terrorist attack soon. he kinda predicted 9/11 (source (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGtOFudmHG8)).



all i'm saying is that i don't believe bin laden/al qaeda or any islamic organisation would have attacked the states, because it's obvious that they would invade. shirley the last thing al-qaeda would have wanted in afghanistan was 10s of 1000s of american soldiers :dabs:

that coupled with the fact that al-qaeda/bin laden flat out denied it until a fake video confession was released. (source (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pk519bkcLjg))

also, in an interview with a pakistan newspaper a few days after the attacks bin laden said committing the attacks would be counter productive and it was obviously done by somebody that wanted to instigate a war between islam and america.

[j2k4]

...he did accurately predict 9/11...


...a few months is pretty accurate...


...he kinda predicted...9/11

...it was obviously done by somebody that wanted to instigate a war between islam and america.

Gee, you sound so positive...

And by that last you "obviously" mean Cheney, Halliburton, Wolfowitz, Pearle, Rumsfeld, Bush, Blair, and Olazabal, all for the sake of oil.

Draw for me please, a sensible scenario that, out of pure greed and a hunger for oil, it is decided that airplanes need hijacked and flown into buildings, causing massive loss of life, many many billions of dollars in immediate damage to the U.S. and world economies, with no apparent fear of being found out, even though every investigative effort is sure to follow, including those such as yourself, who can be counted on to see several U.S.-sponsored spooks behind every non-existent curtain.

[GepperRankins]

...a few months is pretty accurate...


...he kinda predicted...9/11

...it was obviously done by somebody that wanted to instigate a war between islam and america.

Gee, you sound so positive...

And by that last you "obviously" mean Cheney, Halliburton, Wolfowitz, Pearle, Rumsfeld, Bush, Blair, and Olazabal, all for the sake of oil.

Draw for me please, a sensible scenario that, out of pure greed and a hunger for oil, it is decided that airplanes need hijacked and flown into buildings, causing massive loss of life, many many billions of dollars in immediate damage to the U.S. and world economies, with no apparent fear of being found out, even though every investigative effort is sure to follow, including those such as yourself, who can be counted on to see several U.S.-sponsored spooks behind every non-existent curtain.

Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf


so, wolfowitz has openly stated that a new pearl harbour would be helpful for the "new american century"


ok sorry. i didn't draw it. i copy and pasted it.

now can you please draw up for me a scenario where al-qaeda would think it sensible to fly planes into buildings on the soil of the only superpower in the world. a superpower which had already publicly said that it needs to make sure russia doesn't regain it's superpower status, and that they need to secure the midlle eastern oil fields.


ps. what can we do about it, seriously?

[j2k4]

Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf


so, wolfowitz has openly stated that a new pearl harbour would be helpful for the "new american century"

Where did you see the word "helpful"?

He merely states that an effective military upgrade/refit would be a drawn-out process, unless "some catastrophic and catalyzing event" sways popular opinion toward a faster track.

This is analysis, not advocacy.

Rest assured similar preces exist in your country as well, though such revelations would not cause such a sensation as when they involve the U.S.


ok sorry. i didn't draw it. i copy and pasted it.

now can you please draw up for me a scenario where al-qaeda would think it sensible to fly planes into buildings on the soil of the only superpower in the world.

Simple.

They don't think like we do, and they practice real intolerant fundamentalist religious fanaticism, rather than the type you imagine our 'Religious Right' guilty of.

a superpower which had already publicly said that it needs to make sure russia doesn't regain it's superpower status,

This is a reference to any prospect of a return to it's past practices; cursory observation gives one pause, given Putin's recent moves on the domestic/regional scene.

He is ex-KGB, if you'll recall, and has apparently not totally forgotten his former ways.

As an aside, it always irritates me when those who choose to comment express the view the U.S.'s efforts were morally equivalent to the U.S.S.R.'s during the period of the Cold War...they have no historical perspective whatsoever.

and that they need to secure the midlle eastern oil fields.

By this is meant that every effort to ensure the free flow of oil onto the international market shall be made.

It does not mean 'every effort shall be made to ensure mideast oil flows in such a way as to benefit only the U.S., to the detriment of the rest of the world'.

ps. what can we do about it, seriously?

Kill terrorists until there are none left to kill, and the compulsion to commit terrorist acts likewise dies for lack of interest.

It's just that simple.

[GepperRankins]

hehe. is my point invalid if i can't find the word "helpful" in the surrounding paragraphs?!

it doesn't matter if it's analysis or advocacy. it's recognition and that's all there needs to be for the idea of a false flag operation to be developed upon.

yeah i'm sure most organisations would benefit from something bad happening to somebody.

normally there's a trial when a crime happens. motives, alibis and evidence would get looked at. if bin laden was given a fair trial by a neutral court i reckon he'd get off.



so they spent thousands, if not millions to train pilots, research targets, recruit, train and prepare suicidal hijackers. they also must have put effort into making sure only those that needed to know, knew. then after all this preperation they were to completely deny any involvement.

so then. all this preperation was solely for a couple of hours of gratification for a few sick individuals.

if they were just after killing people that weren't ultra strict muslims like the taliban. why didn't they just attack anywhere that wasn't under their control? they could have saved so much money, killed so many more people, and not had to worry so much about being pwned by the worlds only superpower?




i'll be the first to admit i don't know shit about russia. but i imagine america having military in afghanistan would make russia uncomfortable about any conquests they're thinking about.


who now controls all the oil in iraq?



i was talking about the knowledge that america were behind 911. i'm sure many many more people that would consider themselves up on politics (and i'm talking about people that went to university and earn money from talking about politics) think america were behind it. listen next time you hear someone tagged as a political analyst on tv talking about the middle east. they seem to be on a timeline that ignores 9/11 because it doesn't fit in as an event other other than the excuse america needed to invade the middle east. don't say anything about liberal media either. draw up a flowchart in your mind, 911 doesn't fit.

ps. screw your obfuscation. this thread is about why non-muslim organisations have more reason to cause 911 than muslims.

[j2k4]

ps. screw your obfuscation. this thread is about why non-muslim organisations have more reason to cause 911 than muslims.

Oh yes, I forgot; it caters to those who share your, uh...theories.

Please pardon my intrusion.

Carry on...

[GepperRankins]

ps. screw your obfuscation. this thread is about why non-muslim organisations have more reason to cause 911 than muslims.

Oh yes, I forgot; it caters to those who share your, uh...theories.

Please pardon my intrusion.

Carry on...
hmm. i know this is going off topic but you're trying to move me onto arguing about why terrorists exist. you just wanna twist this conversation into one where you can get the last word.

not doing it though. my single argument is that attacking america would have been a huge own goal for al-qaeda. fanatical as they are, there must have been enough common sense among everyone supposedly involved to see this idea was really, really stupid.

the bush administration managed to get a foothold in afghanistan and iraq, oil fields, the abilty to take shallow but harmful potshots at political opponents and the power to herd the american people like sheep.

[j2k4]

Oh yes, I forgot; it caters to those who share your, uh...theories.

Please pardon my intrusion.

Carry on...
hmm. i know this is going off topic but you're trying to move me onto arguing about why terrorists exist. you just wanna twist this conversation into one where you can get the last word.

not doing it though. my single argument is that attacking america would have been a huge own goal for al-qaeda. fanatical as they are, there must have been enough common sense among everyone supposedly involved to see this idea was really, really stupid.

the bush administration managed to get a foothold in afghanistan and iraq, oil fields, the abilty to take shallow but harmful potshots at political opponents and the power to herd the american people like sheep.

As I said, then:

I will adjourn, and leave you to your conspiracy.

Next time, take care to note up front that you only wish to discuss and enhance your unshakeable viewpoints, and do not wish to entertain any countervailing arguments.

That will save me the time of participation in your threads, you see.

[GepperRankins]

hmm. i know this is going off topic but you're trying to move me onto arguing about why terrorists exist. you just wanna twist this conversation into one where you can get the last word.

not doing it though. my single argument is that attacking america would have been a huge own goal for al-qaeda. fanatical as they are, there must have been enough common sense among everyone supposedly involved to see this idea was really, really stupid.

the bush administration managed to get a foothold in afghanistan and iraq, oil fields, the abilty to take shallow but harmful potshots at political opponents and the power to herd the american people like sheep.

As I said, then:

I will adjourn, and leave you to your conspiracy.

Next time, take care to note up front that you only wish to discuss and enhance your unshakeable viewpoints, and do not wish to entertain any countervailing arguments.

That will save me the time of participation in your threads, you see.
next time, bring some countervailing arguements instead of rodding me into talking about the fact that terrorism is an idea not a condition that can be destroyed.

seriously i would love to discuss this. i would even accept being proved wrong. i'm all about learning and that.

the thing is that when i give you something irrefutable, you don't stop and think about whether my arguement has merit. you try and knock me off point like this is sumo wrestling rather than a debate.

i know that with a teensy bit of help from you, i often make a twat of myself when it comes to heated political debates. this is because i honestly don't know much about politics. so when you turn it into a rolling battle i trip when you bring up an obscure political anecdote from the 70s.

so because of this i've decided to try a new tactic. talk about the one thing and anything directly related. this way it can't be twisted into a battle of ideals and thesauruses..... thesaurii? long words

[j2k4]

If you insist that the sky is normally green in color, and I insist in my own turn that it is blue, we are at an impasse.

If you posit a theory that makes no sense to me whatsoever, and insist that "kinda accurate" constitutes irrefutability, then I am left to conclude you willfully refuse to be convinced otherwise.

This is not debate, it is light-years from reasonable discussion and bereft of logic, yet you insist it has merit and worth.

You have a brain, but not the least idea of what to do with it, yet think you can win or forestall arguments merely by keeping what you do not know at arm's-length.

You readily admit you know nothing of politics or history, yet you make no effort to inform yourself.

I have better things to do.

[GepperRankins]

If you insist that the sky is normally green in color, and I insist in my own turn that it is blue, we are at an impasse.

If you posit a theory that makes no sense to me whatsoever, and insist that "kinda accurate" constitutes irrefutability, then I am left to conclude you willfully refuse to be convinced otherwise.

This is not debate, it is light-years from reasonable discussion and bereft of logic, yet you insist it has merit and worth.

You have a brain, but not the least idea of what to do with it, yet think you can win or forestall arguments merely by keeping what you do not know at arm's-length.

You readily admit you know nothing of politics or history, yet you make no effort to inform yourself.

I have better things to do.
pfft. not the point. i'm saying there's more reason for america to have committed a false flag attack than al-qaeda to have done it. you're saying i'm wrong but haven't actually said why. you just choose to believe the official story and ignore common sense.

i know not of putins past, but that doesn't stop the US having influence on russia from a stonghold in afghanistan.

i know that whether you believe in a free market or not. taking someones oil is beneficial to you.

i'm pretty sure the vast majority of people are born with the sense to dismiss their own high investment-high risk-low return ideas.


i'm making an effort to inform myself. i'm just not learning shit from you. you just think an argument should be about winning. i'm sticking to the point because i don't want you to own me something irrelevent then let this thread lie, justifying your own dismissal of this theory, based on the grounds that you don't really like the idea much.


i think you're misunderstanding the kinda accurate/irrefutability thing.

alex jones was vague in his description of 911, but accurate in that something unlike anything that had ever happened in history happened within his few months. included his hijacked planes and buildings blowing up, and was blamed on his bin laden.

that's completely seperate to what i said was irrefutable.

i said it's irrefutable that no matter how intolerant you are, investing all your money in an attack on a hugely capable enemy without any plan for the aftermath is illogical. and america have gained power from these attacks.


if i insist the sky is green and you insist the sky is blue. tell me to go outside and look.

[j2k4]

if i insist the sky is green and you insist the sky is blue. tell me to go outside and look.

That is precisely what I have been telling you to do, in the most comprehensive way possible.

As to your contention I haven't 'disproved' your and Jones' theory, I believe it far-fetched to the point of not standing on it's own to begin with.

I say, 'support your own supposition'; you say, "here is one I've found on the interweb that is counter to commonly-accepted wisdom-see if you can refute it".

One cannot prove a negative.

With that I am finished, here.

Really.

[limesqueezer]

Did osama want to attack the cleaners in world trade center on 911 day lol. What did he aimed in pentagon and why there were no parts of airplane found ?
Why there are always countries with oil to blame for terrorism and how can they save the people if they kill few thousands of poor ppl ?

[MagicNakor]

I'm a little confused how Russia came into this thread. :blink:

:shuriken:

[limesqueezer]

I'm a little confused how Russia came into this thread. :blink:

:shuriken:

What ??

[Barbarossa]

I'm a little confused how Russia came into this thread. :blink:

:shuriken:

What ??

He said :-

I'm a little confused how Russia came into this thread.

[limesqueezer]

Russia isn't to blame for USA mistakes in time

Rules:
Please remember that this area is for SERIOUS discussion and debate.

This is not an excuse to say one off offensive remarks... If you have a point to make, then make it with evidence.

One off remarks such as "I hate Muslims" and anything else construed as being beyond the rules of civilised behaviour will be dealt with. This is not to stifle debate... if you have a controversial comment to make, then by all means make it... BUT BACK IT UP.